HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1990-01-24 h
FILED
[Date
OWN OF IfiMACA
a � 9
-TOWN OF ITHACA k '
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JANUARY 24 , 1990
7 : 00 P . M .
PRESENT : Edward King , Eva Hoffmann , Joan Reuning , Town Attorney
John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building
Inspector Andrew Frost .
ALSO PRESENT : Margie Rumsey , Brian Lanphere , Louis Macera ,
Lucile Macera , Mary Ellen Hawker , Martin Shapiro ,
Esq . , Thomas Hoard , Gerald Sincock , Anne Merson ,
Greg Menzenski , Cheryl Larkin , Robin Welch , John
Hanrahan , John Novarr , Peter Hillman , Kinga Me
Gergely , Lydia Hillman , Allen Hayes , Ann Lanphere .
On a motion by Mrs . Eva Hoffmann and seconded by Mrs . Joan
Reuning , Edward King was named Acting Chairman for this Zoning
Board of Appeals meeting in the absence of Henry Aron and Edward
Austen .
Acting Chairman King 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 the same were in order .
The first Appeal on the Agenda was the following :
MODIFIED APPEAL ( FROM MARCH 911988 ) OF MARGARET RUMSEY ,
APPELLANT , ALLEN We HAYES , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION
FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE XII ,
SECTIONS 54 AND 55 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE ,
FOR THE EXTENSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE , FROM A MORE
RESTRICTIVE USE TO A LESS RESTRICTIVE USE , LOCATED AT 116
EAST BUTTERMILK FALLS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 -
38 - 1 - 3 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THE PROPOSED USE IS TO BE
A TELEVISION CABLE SYSTEM SERVICE CENTER WITH OUTSIDE
STORAGE . APPROVAL FOR USE AS A TELEVISION CABLE SYSTEM
SERVICE CENTER WAS GRANTED BY SAID BOARD OF APPEALS ON
MARCH 9 , 19881 WITH NO OUTSIDE STORAGE PERMITTED . THE
EXISTING BUILDING WAS PREVIOUSLY USED AS A KARATE
INSTRUCTION SCHOOL .
Acting Chairman King referred to the minutes of March 9 ,
1988 by which this Board granted permission to Mrs . Rumsey to
extend the non - conforming use in a less restrictive direction
than the building had previously been used , it having been used
as a karate instruction school and she had applied to use it for
a less restrictive business use stating that the cable company
was engaged in assisting community cable service in Ithaca with
ti .
c
Town of Ithaca -2
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
removing all old cable in the area and installing new cable . The
building was to be used to check the electrical capacity of new
cable and she alleged that she had a 2 1/ 2 year contract with
the company so she would be renting to them for that length of
time .
Acting Chairman King stated that the Board then found a
negative determination of environmental significance and
proceeded to approve the proposed use of the building by National
Cable Craft upon several conditions as follows ; 1 ) there will be
no outside storage of materials other than in the dumpster ; 2 )
that the dumpster will be located either northwesterly of the
building or on the north side of the building from where it would
be conveniently accessible but where it could be screened with
plantings , fence , or other materials so that it did not present
an unsightly view to the public which uses the Buttermilk State
Park , adjacent on the east of this property ; 3 ) the parking would
be controlled by limiting parking on the east side to a
reasonable amount of vehicles ; 4 ) the loading dock would be
repaired from its present condition ; 5 ) that this Board
authorized the Town Planner and Zoning Enforcement Officer to
review the situation and make recommendations and decide whether
the applicant was meeting the requirements of the Board to
protect the view and the amenities of the area ; 6 ) the sketch
plan was to be presented to the Zoning Enforcement Officer and
Town Planner as to the proposed screening or plantings, and 7 )
the building , as rented , would be in compliance with the
requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and
Building Code , Acting Chairman King stated that motion was
carried unanimously .
Acting Chairman King referred to the written arguments that
have been submitted on behalf of the petitioner by Mr . Hayes .
The first one is the jurisdictional argument that the use here is
necessary to the maintenance of utility services ; that ACC is a
franchised public utility and uses the disputed property to
maintain its TV cable service - - a use authorized by the zoning
map without Board of Appeals approval - - that is Mr . Hayes '
argument . The second argument is that under the Town ' s Zoning
Ordinance uses in R- 30 districts , only customary home occupation
bans outside storage and Mr . Hayes argues that since this is in a
residential district the Board had no authority to impose any
conditions on the grant of the permission to use it for a less
restrictive use - - to extend a non- conforming use to a less
restrictive use . Acting Chairman King stated that Mr . Hayes '
third argument is with respect to the storage banning to avoid
® " an unsightly view to Buttermilk State Falls Park " , whereas the
park itself indulges in extensive outside storage at three sites .
Mr . Hayes claims that campers , large boats on other property , are
left outside by other Town residents routinely without
1Y
® Town of Ithaca 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
restriction , therefore , the Board ' s conditions constitute an
unequal protection under the law . Mr . Hayes ' last argument is
that the use restriction might constitute a " taking " that
requires just compensation under the fifth amendment and the
Board ' s conditions might constitute an unjust " taking " for which
the petitioner will be entitled to compensation .
Acting Chairman King asked Mr . Hayes if he had stated his
arguments correctly . Mr . Hayes replied that there was no
substantial disagreement with Mr . King ' s statement .
Acting Chairman King explained to the Board members that
the argument essentially is that this is a public utility
service that is concerned here and that this Board in particular
lacks jurisdiction over that particular use and lacks the power
to restrict that use . Acting Chairman King stated that his own
view of the matter is that our ordinance , while it does limit the
degree to which the Town and this Board can regulate public
utility services so that the telephone company can have whatever
transmission facilities it requires in a certain location and
• power companies can have their substations , the Town is not
permitted to say that they cannot have their substations ,
otherwise there will be no such utilities for the amenities . Mr .
King sees this argument as one to say that because the telephone
company can limit the Board ' s power as to phone company uses ,
therefore , the phone company can erect the manufacturing plant to
make telephones in the middle of a residential district . The use
here seems to be of a very commercial activity which should be
conducted somewhere , but could be conducted in a business or an
industrial zone , so we are not preventing it from being
conducted .
Mr . King said that here , in this particular case , it comes
under the question of whether a non - conforming use , that is the
use of a quonset but which was once , way back , a garage , whether
we are required to let them do just about anything they want to
in there without restriction . It is his feeling that the
jurisdictional argument must fail ; that we do have jurisdiction
in this case .
Mrs . Hof fmann stated that she does not see how one can say
that there is a public utility involved here . It is really the
cable company that is the utility and they have not approached
the Board about this . They have not shown any concern about
this ; they are not here .
is Mr . King agreed that ACC is not here ; it is only a service
company that helps out ACC in stringing this line .
Town of Ithaca 4
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
Mrs . Reuning stated that she feels that the Zoning Board ' s
job is to protect the zoning that we are dealing with .
Mrs . Reuning made the following motion :
RESOLVED , that this Zoning Board of Appeals does not accept
the jurisdictional argument as to this use being a public
utility service .
Mrs . Hoffmann seconded the motion .
The voting on the motion was as follows :
Ayes - Hoffmann , Reuning , King .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Mr . Allen Hayes asked the Board if he might address a few
words to the question of jurisdiction now that the Board has had
its say . He referred to a ane -page proposal , which is attached
hereto as Exhibit # 1 . He said that in the interest of time , he
would forget about the jurisdiction . He said that one of the
problems that was very prominent with the Planning Board on July
181 1989 was that they were concerned if they recommended re -
zoning the property outright to business district C . that then
there would be no control if Rumsey sold the property - - this
gets around that objection .
Mr . Hayes referred to the minutes of the Planning Board
meeting of July 18 , 1989 , attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 . He said
that the language in the second paragraph of Exhibit # 1 does not
suggest re - zoning the district to " c " - this simply puts the
Zoning Board of Appeals in a position of approving business
district C uses , which Mr . King recognized as the customary use
that the property historically had . Mr . Hayes stated to the
Board that if we could do that , we ' d be all done .
Acting Chairman King stated , however , it has been determined
by the Board that this is a non - conforming legal use , meaning
that the building was used before the Zoning ordinance was
enacted for a use not permitted under the. terms of the ordinance
as applied to this property and as held in Sections 54 and 55 .
Acting Chairman King cited those sections to Mr . Hayes . He
explained that two years ago when Mrs . Rumsey came before the
Board , she had been using the building for a school , which is a
® considerably less restrictive use than the commercial use that
she proposed to return it to and this Board , having some
compassion , agreed to let her use it for a less restrictive use
Provided there were certain safeguards to the amenities . In
Town of Ithaca 5
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
other words , leaning toward protection of the neighborhood , is
why the conditions were imposed .
Acting Chairman King stated that he thinks that Mr . Hayes '
request that Mrs . Rumsey can do anything that can be done in a
business " C " district is really inappropriate . He reminded Mr .
Hayes that he has been to the Planning Board and the Town Board
asking them to re - zone the property and they have declined to do
so .
After further discussion , Mr . Hayes said that the Board has
already addressed the lack of jurisdiction question , but he did
open his remarks with a wish to confront that briefly . He cited
from Article 5 , Section 18 , of the Zoning Ordinance . Mr . Hayes
stated that in a public utility purpose it does not require
Zoning Board approval and they submit that that means that the
Zoning Board does not have jurisdiction over that particular use
any more than they would over a farm or a garden .
Acting Chairman King asked Mr . Hayes if he understands that
the Board does not agree with him as to his interpretation of
public utilities . Mr . Hayes said he does , but he wants to get on
the record .
Mr . Hayes said to get to the second of the main objections
to the storage ban provision , that is , that provision exceeded
ZBA powers since the zoning law does deal in some places with
outside storage in so many words and those were the words of the
restriction . Mr . Hayes said it did not deal with display of
automobiles - - that was not involved and where the zoning act
itself deals with outside storage and stipulates where it is
prohibited , then it seems to him that for the Zoning Board to
extend that and apply it to other instances where the
legislature did not choose to apply it , is to amend the zoning
law and that is not within the powers of the Zoning Board - - that
is the argument .
Acting Chairman King stated that the Board has just
expressed the opinion that we are not dealing with a residential
use and the extent of limitation on that use .
Mr . Hayes said that that brings us to the one line
statements of more extensive arguments ( Exhibit # 1 ) . The ban
denies equal protection when the park itself has outside storage
in three locations around the park and Town residents generally
engage in outside storage of all sorts of personal property
• without any prohibition . For one property owner to be singled
out and have that which others do with impunity , is a lack of
equal protection .
Y `
Town of Ithaca 6
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
Mrs . Hoffmann stated that when she read the various letters
that have gone back and forth , if she were a neighbor of theirs
in that residential area , she would feel somewhat insulted by the
implication that it is only Mrs . Rumsey who has to clean up her
yard and the others can have a mess in theirs - - that is not
true . There is no mess in any of the residential yards around
there . Anybody . who is in the Town of Ithaca has to abide by
that Zoning Ordinance .
Mr . Hayes said that he would not argue with Mrs . Hoffmann .
He said his statement was that Town residents generally engage in
outside storage of fire wood , campers , various other vehicles
and nobody ever does anything about it .
Mrs . Hoffmann said she did not think that was true and she
certainly does not think Mrs . Rumsey alone is being put upon to
clean up her yard .
Acting Chairman King stated that Mrs . Rumsey has a large
boat in the back yard of her residence and it is screened from
public view very nicely by large evergreens . Mr . King referred
• to photos that were presented to the Board by Mr . Frost of
industrial spools of cable and a huge dumpster , and stated that
that dumpster has been there for close to two years .
Mr . Hayes said not in that location .
Acting Chairman King said that that is a huge commercial
activity and quite a different thing from regulating the
residential uses per se . He said in regard to Mr . Hayes remarks
about the park ' s dumpsters , he was down there today and he did
not see any such thing as unsightly storage of garbage and waste .
Mr . Hayes said that they have furnished photographs of the
park ' s dumpsters and Mr . Frost has them . He said that one of
them is across the street from their front yard . That is where
the large construction equipment , such as cranes , are stored
outside by the State . There is a separate lumber and building
materials storage with sheds that house some of the materials and
then outside storage that houses more and then there are three
sites where there are dumpsters and garbage cans for the public
to deposit refuse .
Acting Chairman King stated to Mr . Hayes that if those sites
are indeed unsightly he hopes he protests to the park authorities
to screen them or remove them : He does understand why the State
might put them across from this operation . He stated he does not
feel they are incompatible in that particular location at this
time but the entrance to the park is a beautiful area with walls
and shrubbery and so forth .
Town of Ithaca 7
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
Mrs . Reuning stated to Mr . Hayes that he ought to appreciate
the fact that the Zoning Board of Appeals is trying to protect
that area so that the Bed & Breakfast will have a beautiful area
to be in as well .
Mr . Hayes stated that his own feeling is that the Bed &
Breakfast operation is very able to protect itself since it owns
the property and can control what is done there . As for the
park , they are their neighbors and there are only two residences
other than the park . One is across Route 13 and the other is on
the same side as their residence . You can go miles before you
find another habitation ; everything else is commercial on Route
13 in the City . Mr . Hayes said that he did think of having the
two neighbors come along tonight but he did not think it was that
urgent a matter . If the Board would like , he can get statements
from them .
Mr . Hayes said that the last of the arguments is that where
some use restriction is placed on private property even though
that is done piecemeal , a little bit at a time , that still
constitutes a " taking " that is subject to just compensation under
• the Fifth Amendment .
Acting Chairman King stated that to that he would say
number one , this Board has no authority to compensate anybody for
anything - that is up to the Town or the Courts directing the
Town to do so . Mr . King referred to Town Law Section 267 .
Mr . Hayes stated that the " taking " occurs because of a
ruling by this Board . The compensation is paid for by the tax-
payers as a separate issue . He referred to Executive Order 12630
of March 1988 after a string of Supreme Court decisions saying
that federal agencies should be cautious not to take actions that
impinge on private property in a way that could turn out to be
compensable takings and thus encumber the public fisc - - burden
the taxpayer . Mr . Hayes said that he does not for a minute think
this Board is supposed to elect to make compensation but in doing
what it does , that is restricting the use of private property and
itmay effect a taking , which then becomes compensable from the
public fisc .
Acting Chairman King pointed out to Mr . Hayes that changes
to a non - conforming use with the approval of this Board may be
conditioned under the Ordinance , Section 55 and Section 77 ,
subdivision 8 . He cited to Mr . Hayes from those sections .
Mr . Hayes said that what is not written here is the final
point . This quonset but can never be used as a residence . He
does not believe there is anybody who thinks it could be and
therefore it is necessary to use it in the only manner that it
` ..
® Town of Ithaca 8
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
can be used , namely commercially and we need to get that
straightened out .
Acting Chairman King stated that the applicant also has the
power to remove the quonset but and put a residence in without
any problem or to come before this Board and say they would like
to put something of a more restrictive nature there in place of
the quonset hut .
Mrs . Hoffmann stated that there are also other uses allowed
in R- 30 that they could have in that quonset hut .
Mr . Hayes replied that the only one that they have a viable
use without waiting for some very special tenants to come along
is the one that is there and they would like to be able to
continue with them there . He referred to a letter , dated July
26 , 1988 , from the Cable Company saying that their cable spools
are absolutely essential to their operation . The letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit # 3 .
Mr . King read the letter into the record and stated that
• today when he was down there , he noticed that there were seven
trucks and one car parked on the east side of the building , which
in one of the conditions of this Board two years ago , said
parking should be limited on the east side where it is less
viewable . The park is closed at this time so it cannot offend
too many people , so that is not a big issue , but at the time of
the original hearing , Mrs . Rumsey stated that she had no idea of
what outside storage was required and she did not produce a
tenant .
Acting Chairman King opened the public hearing . No one
appeared to address the Board . Acting Chairman King closed the
public hearing .
Mr . Frost asked Mr . Hayes if National Cable Craft has moved
out of the building now . He said that he received a telephone
call from ACC a month or so ago ; they apparently were considering
signing a lease for that space and it was his impression that
National Cable Craft has phased out or is in the process of
phasing out and ACC was contemplating taking over the building .
He asked Mr . Hayes what the status of that is .
Mr . Hayes replied that ACC has taken it over and they are
the tenant .
• Mr . Frost stated that the modification is to deal with
outside storage . He does not believe anyone is arguing that the
use of the building for a cable service has been granted .
Town of Ithaca 9
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
Mrs . Reuning asked Mr . Hayes if he has any proposals as to
how they might change the outside storage with screening or
moving things out of view , etc .
Mr . Hayes said that they would be happy to do any of those
things but they would need to have some fiscal participation by
the public . He explained that the tv cable system replacement is
something that is going on wholesale all over the United States .
The systems have gotten old and they ' re all being replaced . One
of the essential elements in that program is cable and in order
to buy it you have to go bribe somebody and you have to buy it by
the carload - you cannot buy it a few spools at a time . In order
to be sure that they won ' t end up with no cable to put up , they
have to stock it in advance and that requires this extensive 50
or 60 spools of cable of two different sizes . There is just no
place for it inside ; it is going to spend its whole life outside
and while it is waiting to be installed , it might as well be
outside . Mr . Hayes said that if they could find some other
location , he is sure they would be happy to stop aggravating
people . He does not believe there has been any aggravation .
This Board has never heard a single complaint from any member of
the public nor has any other town . The whole thing was generated
by Town staff people .
Acting Chairman King interjected " and this Board , because
the duty of this Board is to protect the interests of the public
as we perceive them . " He also noted for the record that the
north end of the building has a very large overhead door which
would seem to be large enough to open to drive trucks in and out
to unload those spools of cable inside the building .
Mr . Hayes stated that they could unload the spools of cable
inside the building if there was space to do it but they have to
store their trucks that have the cherry pickers ; those cannot be
left outside at night - that is a public protection problem . The
vehicles have to be put inside at night ; there are other more
critical things that take up the space .
Acting Chairman King said the building may be inadequate for
the uses that this Town wants to put it to . Mr . King stated that
he would entertain any motion that the Board members wish to make
as to whether this Board should annul or modify the conditions
which were imposed in their resolution of March 1988 permitting
this use of the property by the cable operation .
Mrs . Hoffmann stated that she did not know that these cables
• were bought in quantity and then stored for a long time before
they were eventually used .
Y
Town of Ithaca 10
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
Mr . Hayes said that they are not stored for a long time .
There is a fairly rapid turnover , but that stock has to be there .
He cannot tell the Board what the oldest spool is there now but
it has probably been there for a month or two months . Some are
stored inside the building while they are being tested but that
is a small quantity .
Mr . Frost stated that over the year that the Town has been
taking pictures , he does not think the outside storage of the
quantity has changed dramatically . It has been somewhat constant
between 20 and 50 spools of cable . The amount of debris and
wasted cable and general maintenance of the property perhaps has
varied from somewhat neatly kept outside to perhaps as the
pictures would indicate , to less than neatly .
Mrs . Reuning stated that it seemed to her that some
screening should be possible or at least a lean -to cover or
something .
Acting Chairman King asked about the inside of the
building . He understands that part of the inside is being used
or set up to use as a residence or an apartment .
Mr . Frost stated that that actually was a separate issue
with a real estate office maintained under another address . In
that particular letter that Mr . King is referring to , what is
proposed in the packet , dealt with two issues . One , the cable
craft quonset but building and , two , a separate real estate
office on the property at 114 , where the Bed and Breakfast is .
Mr . Hayes stated that the quonset but is 4400 square feet
inside . All of its floor space is somewhat restricted because in
a quonset but you can ' t get right up against the wall .
Effectively about 4000 square feet are usable if you are willing
to stoop over a little bit .
Acting Chairman King asked Mr . Hayes how many cherry picker
vehicles the tenant has to store in there . Mr . Hayes said he
thinks Mr . King saw about seven of them sitting outside there .
They are not all cherry pickers . There are also service trucks .
Mrs . Hoffmann stated that the other thing that seems to have
changed now , which the Board only found out about tonight , is
that ACC is involved now . She stated that she is wondering if
ACC , having a bigger operation , might have some other place to
store these spools of cable .
is Mr . Hayes said they discussed that with one of their
officials today and no , they have no other place to store the
spools . Mr . Hayes stated that one thing that might be useful to
ti
® Town of Ithaca 11
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
the Board to know is that the scrap that is taken down off the
poles after it is used is not taken to this site at all . It is
dropped off at Wallace processors over on Cherry Street in the
City . There might be an occasional little bit but by and large
all the old cable that is taken down does not ever get to the
quonset but site at all .
Acting Chairman King stated that it seems to him that the
record is ample that this Board tried to put some flexibility
into the situation with its original ruling and by authorizing
both the Town Zoning Officer and the Town Planner to work with
the applicant to develop ways of effecting the intent of the
screening and to protect the site . He asked Mr . Hayes if there
is anything now that would indicate anything different . He said
Mr . Hayes just remarked that they can ' t do anything about
screening or planting until they have compensation from the Town
and the Board has no authority to grant that nor does he think it
is necessary . Mr . King stated that it sounds like the same
argument of " pay me and I ' ll do these things that you ask but to
ask me to do them without compensation up front is an unjust
taking " . If this is what is being said , Mr . King does not see
• much hope of going back to square one and saying work with the
Town Planning Department and Zoning Officer to try to come within
the guidelines that we laid down originally . He asked Mr . Hayes
if he understands that correctly .
Mr . Hayes responded that he did not quite follow it all but
there were a number of negotiations with the Zoning Officer and
the Town Planner . As a consequence of that , all but one of the
conditions that the Board set down on March 9 , 1988 was deemed to
have been discharged and that left the outside storage and there
was no way around it - - no way could they do away with the
outside storage without doing away with the tenant .
Mr . Frost interjected that some of the dialogue that went
on , and he thinks the intent of that one condition , was really in
regard to the screening of the garbage dumpster . He said there
are letters from Rosanne Mayer , Attorney , that indicated that the
Zoning Officer and the Town Planner have no authority to modify
or waive the condition of outside storage which was given by the
Zoning Board , in that , we had no authority to change that
condition and we have long ago tried to bring this case back
through the Board so the issue of outside storage could be
discussed , and it has taken us well over a year and lots of time
to reach the point where we are now .
• Mr . Frost stated that in talking with George Frantz who had
prepared a memorandum from a Short Environmental ' Assessment
Form , it was felt that perhaps , although it is not specifically
spelled out in his memorandum , stockade fencing would provide
® Town of Ithaca 12
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
adequate screening should the Board decide to permit the outside
storage , as long as it was screened , and stockade fencing would
perhaps provide that adequate screening . That is not dealing
with this issue of compensation , however . The memorandum is
attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 .
Mr . Hayes said on the issue of compensation , we should all
bear in mind that we are sitting here on January 24th talking
about something that is going to go on for another ten months ,
until the end of November 1990 .
Town Attorney Barney interjected that it is not going to go
on if there is not compliance with the order here . There is a
contempt citation in Court and the judge is going to say " shut
you down " . Either we are going to get compliance or a
modification or we are going to be in Court and he does not think
it is going to continue for any ten months .
Mr . Hayes said we are talking about a modification .
Town Attorney Barney stated that the Town has been
• extremely patient on this matter . Nothing happened until we had
to go to Court . We went to Court twice and then we are in Court
on a contempt matter and now we are finally here and he is
suggesting that the Town ' s patience has long since ended . The
situation is going to change in the next ten months - - either
there is going to be compliance or there are going to be fines
imposed for violation of the Court order . Atty . Barney stated
that he does not think the sense of the Town is here saying that
Mr . Hayes cannot have the outside storage but they are saying in
the present state , it is not acceptable . The Town is not going
to pay to put the screening up .
Mr . Hayes emphasized that he wants the Town to be aware that
whatever cost there is in putting this screening up , it will have
to pay for itself in something under a year .
Town Attorney Barney said " or would have had to have paid in
the past year and a half or two years when the thing was not in
compliance . "
Mr . Hayes said the option was not available until today , if
it is now .
Acting Chairman King read from the Short Environmental
Assessment Form , dated March 8 , 1988 , which is attached hereto as
Exhibit # 5 .
® Town of Ithaca 13
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
Mr . Hayes stated that the outside storage area does not
begin until you get north of the north end of the quonset hut .
Mr . King stated however , the parking does .
Mr . Hayes said that the parking is the same thing for both
the State Park and for the quonset hut . He stated that it would
seem excessive to put a screen up to screen the vehicle parking
area .
Mr . Frost added for the record that the State Park has
always been a State Park and by its presence for over 40 years ,
is perhaps a legal non - conforming use even by a zoning standpoint
and that use has not changed . He thinks Mr . Hayes is comparing
apples with oranges in that the Park ' s non - conforming use has not
changed , which is different from his property which has changed
from a less restrictive use to a more restrictive use and has
been granted an approval to go back to something less restrictive
with conditions imposed , and they are really different cases by
trying to compare even the parking at the State Park with the
conditions imposed for parking on his quonset but property .
• Mr . Hayes stated that he disagrees .
Mrs . Hoffmann cited from Section 54 . She said that in
reading that section she is not sure that the Board can even
consider changing it from one use to a less restrictive use .
Mr . Hayes stated that he disagreed .
Mr . Frost stated that the Court has made their findings
already and has upheld the direction that the Board has gone
even with the conditions .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he would suggest that the
Board might consider it a modification of the no outside storage
conditional on the provision by the applicant within a specified
number of days , fifteen comes to mind , of a site plan showing
proposed screening either by fence , by trees , or something of
that nature to the Town Planner or the Assistant Town Planner and
the completion of the screening within fifteen or thirty days
after the Town Planner approves the screen .
Mr . Hayes said he would suggest not to include trees because
we are talking about a year ' s time and they would not amount to
enough to serve the purpose . Perhaps some sort of fence .
Mr . Frost stated that his concern in any conditions , as has
been evident from the onset of the original back in March , is he
would hate to see this drag on .
Town of Ithaca 14
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
Mrs . Hoffmann stated that she would like to make sure , in
such a case , that Mrs . Rumsey and Mr . Hayes understand what a
site plan means so that there is no problem about that sort of
thing .
Mr . Hayes stated that he cannot speak for Mrs . Rumsey but he
does not understand what a site plan means and he has been unable
to get a definition .
Motion
By Mr . Edward King ; seconded by Mrs . Eva Hoffmann :
RESOLVED , that this Board will conditionally modify certain
previous conditions of the March 9 , 1988 Zoning Board of
Appeals Resolution , being # 2 which required that the
dumpster be located in a certain place and that it be
screened , and # 1 which required that there be no outside
storage of materials other than in the dumpster , to the
following limited extent :
1 * that outside storage of materials such as are being
used at this site , namely , spools of wire and the
dumpster , may be permitted on the north side of the
building , or to the west of the building , provided they
be screened with plantings , fence , or other materials
which will protect the view from the Park so that such
materials will not be readily seen from the Park area
to the east , and
2 * that the applicant present detailed proposals including
a site plan for such screening and location of
materials and dumpster to the Town Planning Department
within 15 days from this date , and
3e that such site plan shall contain property lines
including metes and bounds , adjacent public streets ,
topography including existing and proposed contours ,
size . and location of structures , area and location of
parking , off - street loading and access drives , proposed
signs and lighting , proposed landscaping , and any other
features deemed reasonably necessary for adequate study
of the proposed plan , and
4w that the applicant work with the Town Planner to obtain
the approval of the Town Planner as to adequacy of the
proposed screening , and
•
Town of Ithaca 15
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
59 that the proposals which are approved be thereafter put
in place within thirty days after the Town Planning
Department has approved them , but , in any event , that
should be completed within sixty days of this date , and
6e that , if the foregoing is not accomplished within the
time frames as spelled out in this Resolution , the
Resolution reverts to the form of the original [ March
9 , 1988 ] approval and the modifications approved this
evening [ January 24 , 1989 ] shall be void .
The voting on the Motion was as follows .
Ayes - Hoffmann , Reuning , King .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
The next Appeal on the Agenda was the following .
APPEAL OF ANNA MACERA AND BRIAN E . LANPHERE , APPELLANTS ,
REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV ,
SECTION 16 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO
PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT
THE REAR OF 115 RICH ROAD , ON A NEWLY -SUBDIVIDED LOT THAT
DOES NOT FRONT ON A TOWN , COUNTY , OR STATE HIGHWAY , TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 50 - 1- 5 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 .
SAID LOT HAS A 20 -FOOT-WIDE ACCESS DRIVE FRONTING ON RICH
ROAD AND A WIDTH OF 241 FEET COMMENCING APPROXIMATELY 200
FEET FROM THE STREET LINE , WHEREAS A MINIMUM WIDTH AT THE
STREET LINE OF 60 FEET , AND A LOT WIDTH AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT
YARD SETBACK ( 50 FEET FROM THE STREET LINE ) OF 100 FEET , ARE
REQUIRED .
Acting Chairman King noted the affidavit of service by mail
indicates that notice of this application was sent to residents
around the site and he named the persons who received the
notifications .
Mrs . Lucile Macera and Mrs . Ann Lanphere appeared before the
Board .
Acting Chairman King stated the proposed subdivision has
been approved by the Planning Board on conditions . Mrs . Macera
stated that the total acreage is 1 . 73 acres and the new
subdivision is 1 . 05 acres . She stated that what they are
requesting is a 20 foot access to Rich Road , otherwise the lot is
completely shut off and unusable .
• Town of Ithaca 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
Acting Chairman King referred to the plot plan which is
attached as Exhibit # 6 . He asked Mrs . Macera if the applicants
would have ownership of the driveway strip . Mrs . Macera replied ,
yes , they would have ownership of the twenty foot strip in
addition to the lot in the back .
Mrs . Lanphere referred to an updated survey map which is
attached hereto as Exhibit V .
Acting Chairman King referred to the Planning Board Adopted
Resolution of December 19 , 1989 , which is attached hereto as
Exhibit # 8 .
Acting Chairman King opened the public hearing .
Mr . John Hanrahan , 114 Rich Road , stated to the Board that
he did not receive a notice of this meeting . He commented that
he is concerned about having a house behind a house , which he
feels is an unusual configuration of a residential neighborhood .
He stated that he also has seen no demonstration of hardship or
• physical impracticality in this matter . If that is the case ,
then he feels the application must fail . He also feels that if
there is a hardship , it is one that is self - created .
Town Attorney Barney stated that due to the shape of the
land and the fact that there is no other access to it , he feels
that is the very typical practical difficulty test .
Mr . Hanrahan said that to him it is a self - created
hardship . The original house could have gone in back there and
it would have complied with the zoning laws , etc .
Mr . Greg Menzenski , 126 Rich Road , addressed the Board and
stated that he also feels that this matter is a self - inflicted
hardship . His objection to the proposal is that it is not in
keeping with the neighborhood . He feels that this proposed house
would change the overall character of the neighborhood and would
probably decrease the property value of his house .
Ms . Cheryl Larkin , 111 Rich Road , stated that she has
concerns about a driveway in her backyard . She feels that it
will take away from her privacy . She presented photos to the
Board showing her property regarding the distances to the
proposed house .
Mrs . Lanphere presented photos to the Board showing that
Mrs . Larkin ' s house would not really be losing privacy because of
their proposed house . The photos were taken when the trees were
in foliage .
® Town of Ithaca 17
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
0
Mrs . Anne Merson , 123 Rich Road , stated that she is opposed
to the proposal on the grounds of building a house behind a house
and therefore changing the character of the neighborhood .
Mrs . Robin Welch , 118 Rich Road , spoke in opposition to
having a house built in the backyard of another property .
Mr . Jerry Sincock , 122 Rich Road , also spoke in opposition
to the proposal . He stated that the Town should stick to the
Zoning Laws that it has passed .
Acting Chairman King closed the public hearing .
Acting Chairman King stated that he does not see how the
proposed house would change the character of the neighborhood ,
especially since the back area of that property is substantial
acreage wise .
Mrs . Macera explained that shrubs have been planted in the
back yard to protect the Larkins ' privacy .
tMotion
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Eva Hoffmann .
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby
does grant the applicant the requested variance to permit
the subdivision to go forward and a single - family house to
be built on this subdivided southeasterly parcel , having a
dimension of 150 feet by 288 wide with an additional roadway
running northwesterly from the building parcel some 200 feet
to Rich Road , to be no less than 20 feet wide , on the
following conditions .
16 that it goes by the Planning Board and its Resolution
approving the subdivision ;
2o that the driveway or pavement on the 20 ' x 200 ' access
strip to Rich Road be located as far southwesterly as
possible adjacent to the property line of the Macera
house which will be the remaining parcel ,
39 that the house be located not only to the 70 feet
southeasterly with the minimum of a 30 foot rear yard ,
as required by the Planning Board conditions , but that
the house also be constructed toward the southwesterly
portion of the lot which would put it more opposite the
driveway or access road , as indicated on the amended
survey map , that meaning that it would be built within
approximately 50 feet of the southwesterly line of the
building parcel ,
Town of Ithaca 18
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
4 . that the applicants present to the Town Attorney a
sufficient covenant to run with the land which will
restrict the use of this lot to one single - family home ;
such instrument to be in recordable form subject to the
approval of the Town Attorney , and further
RESOLVED , That the variance is granted with the following
findings :
1 . That the lot is more than double the minimum lot size
required for an R- 15 lot , the other lot is one and
one -half times or more the minimum lot size required
for an R- 15 lot ;
2 . That the configurations of the lots are such that it is
impractical to do anything other than have this kind of
access to it and minimization of the lot frontage would
not allow anything to be constructed on the rather
large rear lot ,
3 . That the proposal will observe the public safety
• requirements and will not be substantially out of
character with the existing uses in the neighborhood ;
4 . That the proposal does not impose any undue traffic
burdens or other burdens upon the properties in the
area ,
5 . That the premises are reasonably adapted to this
proposed residential use ;
6 . That the proposed location and design of the structure
as a single - story single - family home is in keeping with
the design in the neighborhood ;
7 . That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the
general amenities or neighborhood character in amounts
sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or
seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants ;
8 . That theg
ro osed access and egress for this structure
P P
appears to be safely designed and proposed .
The voting on the motion was as follows .
Ayes - King , Reuning , Hoffmann .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
® Town of Ithaca 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
The last Appeal on the Agenda was the following .
APPEAL OF JMS REALTY CO . , OWNER/APPELLANT , JOHN NOVARR ,
AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE
VI , SECTION 26 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO
PERMIT OCCUPANCY BY MORE THAN FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS PER
DWELLING UNIT AT THE COLLEGE CIRCLE APARTMENTS , LOCATED AT
1031 - 33 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 43 - 1 -
1 . 2 , - 2 . 2 , AND - 6 , MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT .
Acting Chairman King read the appeal into the record and
referred to the Planning Board Adopted Resolution of November 15 ,
1988 , attached hereto as Exhibit # 9 .
Attorney Shapiro addressed the Board and explained that the
application to the Planning Board included proposals for 2 , 31 41
and 5 bedroom apartments and the 4 and 5 bedroom apartments have
oversized bedrooms which could accommodate two people . There was
no limit set or requested at the Planning Board because there
just wasn ' t any requirement for that under the existing
ordinance .
Attorney Shapiro pointed out to the Board that they are not
requesting any increased usage . The entire project was proposed ,
designed , and approved before the zoning amendment change that
limits occupancy to 4 unrelated persons . He said they have 5
bedroom apartments that could and do have 6 and 7 people in them .
The project is being built in phases to accommodate construction
and financing schedules . He explained that one phase is already
completed and occupied .
Acting Chairman King asked Atty . Shapiro how many units are
already occupied . Atty . Shapiro responded that there are 41
units in the first phase . He further explained that phase 2 is
also underway . Atty . Shapiro stated that what they are
requesting is not to change the project at all . They are not
asking to change the number of units or the total occupancy .
All they are asking for is a variance that varies the most recent
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which defines family and
boarders in such a way that would limit any one of these dwelling
units to no more than 4 unrelated persons .
Atty . Shapiro pointed out that his clients have an awful lot
of money , time , and effort invested in this project .
Town Attorney Barney asked for a list of the units that
would have the 4 and 5 bedroom units . Mr . Novarr stated that he
could supply such a list to the Board .
Town of Ithaca 20
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
Acting Chairman King asked Mr . Novarr when he got into this
project . Atty . Shapiro stated that the project was conceived
mid -year of 1987 .
Mrs . Hoffmann asked Atty . Shapiro if all four phases of the
project have been approved . Atty . Shapiro responded , yes .
Town Attorney Barney explained to the Board that prior to
this family occupancy amendment , there was no limitation on the
number of people who could live in a multiple residence unit .
Mrs . Hoffmann asked if they could tell the Board how many of
each sized apartments there were .
Atty . Shapiro stated that there are 110 - 112 units with 4 or
5 bedrooms , the rest of the 149 units are 2 and 3 bedroom
apartments . Mr . Novarr explained that where there are 5 bedrooms
the apartment is 2200 square feet and he explained the design of
the apartments .
Atty . Shapiro stressed to the Board that , no matter what ,
the cap of 600 persons in the project will never be violated , no
matter what happens .
Mrs . Hoffmann asked if they will be renting by the bedroom
or by the apartment .
Mr . Novarr stated that typically they prefer to rent unit by
unit . They do not rent by the room except as a case of last
resort .
Acting Chairman King opened the public hearing .
Mary Ellen Hawker , 1032 Danby Road , addressed the Board .
She stated that she lives across the road from the project and
she is concerned that there may be more than 4 persons per unit
in the part of the project across from her .
Mr . Novarr responded that the apartments closer to the road
are all two and three bedroom apartments .
Ms . Hawker stated that she does like the aesthetics of the
existing buildings with the lines but she would like to request
that they do not put colored doors on the buildings across from
her .
• Mr . Novarr said that she won ' t see any doors - they face the
other way .
0
Town of Ithaca 21
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
Ms . Hawker stated she would also like to make certain that
the landscaping in the front of the building would be put into
place . Mr . Novarr assured Ms . Hawker that the landscaping will
be done with plenty of trees and shrubs .
Mr . Peter Hillman , 370 Stone Quarry Road , addressed the
Board . He stated that what he is concerned about is the 600
occupancy cap being enforceable . He is also concerned about the
reflection on other neighborhoods in regard to the occupancy .
Mrs . Hoffmann commented that she thinks that projects like
this one help to take the pressure off those single one family
homes in the neighborhoods .
Acting Chairman King stated that he had received a phone
call from Karl Niklas last evening . Mr . Niklas stated to Mr .
King that he has spoken to 34 people in the area and is concerned
about the 600 person occupancy cap . Mr . Niklas stated that he is
not opposed to the project , however .
• Acting Chairman King closed the public hearing .
Motion
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby
does grant , in the matter of this appeal of JMS Realty Co . ,
a variance from the requirements of Section 26 of the
Zoning Ordinance , to permit occupancy by more than four
unrelated persons per dwelling unit at the College Circle
Apartments with the following findings :
1 . That the applicant has sustained and shown that
enforcement of the ordinance ' s new definition of
occupancy of unrelated people imposes an undue hardship
and burden upon them by reason of the fact that the new
ordinance was enacted a substantial time after he had
invested considerable time and expense in developing
this plan ,
2 . That the requested occupancy , which was approved by the
Planning Board with the concept that there might be
more than four unrelated people in some of the
apartments at some times , was acceptable to the
Planning Board ,
• 3 . That this is a self - contained development in a
multiple residence district , which did not have such a
limitation of occupancy under the ordinance previous to
the recent amendment of the ordinance .
Town of Ithaca 22
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
4 . That the condition imposed by the Planning Board to
limit the total occupancy of the development at any
time to no more than 600 people in the 149 units is a
reasonable limitation .
5 . That there is less likely to be any undue crowding of
the bui4lding or imposition upon the land , there being
30 . 5 acres involved in this development .
6 . That the health , safety , morals , and general welfare of
the community would be in harmony with the proposal .
7 . That the use , which would be a slightly increased use
in some cases , would not impose an undue burden of
traffic load on the community as a whole or undue
traffic load on the public streets or on the water and
sewer systems , nor would it be detrimental to the
health , safety or general welfare of the community .
8 . That the project was planned , designed , approved , and
• substantially constructed at the time when the Zoning
Ordinance permitted unlimited numbers of unrelated
persons . Accordingly , the limitation to 4 unrelated
persons would impose significant economic hardship in
that the larger units could not be utilized as they
were designed and planned .
AND FURTHER RESOLVED That the variance is conditioned upon
the following .
1 * the understanding that the 600 total occupancy at any
one time will be the ceiling for the 149 units ;
2e the applicant will cooperate with the Town in providing
information as to the occupancy of the units and leases
therefor from time to time ,
3 * the applicant will submit within 15 days after this
date a list of those units now approved for the
development , which units might contain from time to
time , at one time or another , more than 4 unrelated
people .
The voting on the motion was as follows .
Ayes - King , Reuning , Hoffmann .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Town of Ithaca 23
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
Environmental Assessment
Mr . King referred to the Short Environmental Assessment Form
done by George Frantz , dated January 18 , 1990 , and attached
hereto as Exhibits # 10 and # 11 .
Motion
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning .
RESOLVED , that this Board make and hereby does make a
negative determination of environmental significance in this
matter .
The voting was as follows .
Ayes - King , Reuning , Hoffmann .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
• Motion
By Mr . Edward King ; seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , That having addressed the environmental assessment
impact statement , this Board reaffirms the granting of the
variance in this matter as previously approved .
The voting on the` motion was as follows .
Ayes - King , Reuning , Hoffmann .
Nays - None .
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 05 p . m .
Respectfully Submitted ,
Connie J . Holcomb
Recording Secretary
A PRO
•
Edward KinAc ng , hal an
® At the 3 / 9 /88 original hearing , the minutes show ( page 6 ) :
" Mr . King asked what the building had been used for in the past and a list
presented by Ms . Rumsey with her application gave a short history of the
premises . Such list is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . Mr . King thought
that they would classify these operations as a Business C type which In -
cludes anything from retail stores to plumbing to electrical shops . "
We accordingly urge the following resolution :
" Since this property ' s customary use has been that of a Business District
" C " , this Board approves all uses authorized under Business District " C "
classification , provided that Margaret Rumsey is the property owner . "
ZBA lacks jurisdiction over use by cable company ( Art . V § 18 Par 9 )
Article V § 18 : " Use regulations . In Residence Districts R30 no building shall
be erected or extended and no land or building or part thereof shall be used
for other than any of the following purposes :
1 . One Family Dwellings . . . ( ZBA approval NOT REQUIRED )
2 . A two family dwelling . . . (ZBA approval NOT REQUIRED )
3 . Church . . . ( ZBA approval REQUIRED )
4 . Library , Museum , school ( ZBA approval REQUIRED )
5 . Public park ( ZBA approval REQUIRED )
6 . Fire station ( ZBA approval REQUIRED )
7 . Golf course ( ZBA approval REQUIRED )
8 . Garden , farm ( ZBA approval NOT REQUIRED )
9 . " Any municipal or public utility purpose necessary to the maintenance of
utility services . . . [ deals with substations and similar structures ] "
( ZBA approval NOT REQUIRED )
. Storage ban exceeded ZBA powers ( amended ordinance which allows 0/S ). 9 .
: ' Ban denied equal protection ( Park , other residents not banned )
Fifth Amendment just compensation denied ( Non - conforming use )
r
EXHIBIT # 1
EXCERPT Planning Board Meeting of July 18 , 1989 . - 2 -
Mr . Miller commented that he has lived in Ithaca 30 + years and he has
seen all kinds of businesses there , adding , no one has ever given her
a hard time before ; why all of a sudden did they pick on her .
Attorney Barney replied that he did not think anyone got picked on
particularly ; there was a decision by Judge Ellison on the case where
he specifically said that the defendant has two options ; she can
either apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals to permit outside storage ,
or she can petition and apply for rezoning of her property , adding
that she has opted to apply for rezoning . Attorney Barney stated that
he has to take issue with the statement that the Town is picking on
her , adding , the - Town has an Ordinanceto enforce . Mr . Miller
remarked that he did not have the whole story . Chairperson Grigorov
stated that Ms . Rumsey has permission to rent it for storage .
Virginia Langhans mentioned that Mr . Miller said he did not get the
Planning Board packet in the mail , so he did not read all the
material . Attorney Barney noted that the only issue was the outside
storage . Chairperson Grigorov stated that the Town is usually very
hesitant to rezone small parcels .
Ms . Langhans , directing her comment to Ms . Rumsey , wondered why
she did . ' not want to go for a variance to . try and correct the storage
area . Ms . Rumsey responded that the � Town of Ithaca took her to court .
Ms . Rumsey stated that after 34 years of non - conforming use , it was
the Town of Ithaca that took her to court , commenting that this is a
court order requesting her , after going to court , . to try to get the
matter taken care of . Chairperson Grigorov wondered if Ms . Rumsey had
the outside storage all those years . Ms . Rumsey replied , off and on
for different things , yes . Chairperson Grigorov mentioned that the
only problem was that the person renting from Ms . Rumsey places things
outdoors .
At this point , Allen Hayes , of 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road ,
addressed the Board and stated that the application that was submitted
was submitted by him , and he was advising Ms . Rumsey about it . Mr .
Hayes offered that outside storage is necessary for this particular
business , noting that the Park itself engages in outside storage , and
he felt that there is a double standard involved . Mr . Hayes commented
that Buttermilk Falls State Park stores heavy equipment in what
amounts to his front yard . Mr . Hayes held up a Tax Map showing the
park properties involved , and pointed out the area that is filled with
sheds and outside storage of steam shovels , bulldozers , trucks , etc . ,
adding that there is considerable ouside storage there which is across
the road from the house . Mr . Hayes offered that the Park has outside
storage in three other locations in the Park itself . Mr . Hayes
remarked that as he understood it , the Park has outside storage which
the Town has no control over , and which is pemitted by default . Mr .
Hayes said that where the Town does have some control , they are
attempting to prevent it , commenting that it seemed to him that that
is a double standard . Chairperson Grigorov wondered why the Zoning
Board of Appeals specifically . stated . no outside storage . Mr . Hayes
responded that one would have to ask the Zoning Board why they did not
• want outside storage . Mr . Hayes said that the Zoning Ordinance
provides for outside storage , which is so noted in Section 60 of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance .
EXHIBIT # 2
EXCERPT Planning Board Meeting of July 18 , 1989 . - 3 -
® Ms . Rumsey stated that at the time the approval was granted , and _
after people voted on it , was when someone on the Board said ; " and
let ' s have no outside storage " , commenting that she remembered someone
saying that . Ms . Langhans offered that it was probably because it was
in a residential zone . Ms . Rumsey stated that it was after it had
been voted on . Mr . Hayes stated that it is the residential zone they
are here to correct . Ms . Rumsey stated that because it is a
residential zone and it is not a residence, that is the court order to
her to get it rezoned . Attorney Barney stated that it is an
either / or , it is to either apply for rezoning or apply to the Zoning
Board of Appeals . Mr . Hayes mentioned the fact of applying to the ZBA
for approval each time there is a new tenant , adding , the ZBA cannot
act quick enough to keep the tenant from going away before the Board
can get around to hear the case , and , second , the property owner
should not be made to keep running to the ZBA and bothering them with
something that a simple rezoning would eliminate ; the proper thing to
do would be to rezone it . Mr . Hayes mentioned that it should have
been rezoned that way in the first place , and there never would have
been any question . Mr . Miller remarked that Zoning " C " is being
requested , which allows for a lot of things . that Mr . Hayes would not
want next to his house . Mr . Miller wondered why the applicant asked
for zoning " C " . Ms . Rumsey replied , that she did not have it in front
of. her to know what it all is . Ms . Rumsey said that she has no plans
for specific changes . Chairperson Grigorov said that in 50 years it
would still be zoned Business " C " . Mr . Miller stated that he worries
about the next owner if it is rezoned . Mr . Hayes stated that the
property should have been zoned Commercial Business when it was zoned
in the first place , there would be no worry if it was zoned properly
in 1954 , it is contiguous with the commercial strip in the City , Route
13 is essentially commercial from one end to the other . Mr . Miller
commented that the only thing is that there is a big railroad track
bank that hides the property in question from the rest of the Elmira
Road
Attorney Barney stated that if the property were rezoned Business
" C " , he did not see that that would permit outside storage , with Mr .
Hayes responding that it does not prohibit it . -Mr . Hayes again
mentioned Section 60 , of the Zoning Ordinance , Attorney Barney
replied . that Section 60 refers to junkyards . Mr . Hayes agreed with
Attorney Barney . Attorney Barney noted that Section 36 of the Zoning
Ordinance talks about permitted accessory uses in Business Districts
" A " ip " B " � licit " D "
and " Elf , which specifically says : " Accessory
storage buildings , but not to include outside storage . " Mr . Hayes
stated that he felt that was not a prohibition ; it just does not
approve it . Attorney Barney stated that his sense of the issue , and
he suspects Judge Ellison would agree , is that that would not permit
outside storage and one still has to seek a variance . Attorney Barney
stated that as long as the use is in a less restrictive zone , then one
does not have to go to the ZBA ; there is that - right automatically ,
however , once one gets approval for a particular business use , which
in this case is a cable company , although . he was not sure if it goes
as high as " C " or not , then any other use would be permitted in that
same level without the need of seeking a variance , or a lesser use if
it was a " C " use , and , if there was something effectively an " A " use ,
EXHIBIT # 2
EXCERPT Planning Board Meeting of July 18 , 1989 . - 4 -
® then one would be able to use an " A " use . Mr . Hayes stated that the
application before the Board was for a rezoning and is supposed to
discuss outside storage .
Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that she has been involved with
the matter since the original appeal to permit National Cable Craft to
locate there , which was approximately two years ago [ March 9 , 19881 .
Ms . Beeners stated that as she understood it , one of the things she
was looking for as far as an impact mitigation related to allowing the
Cable Craft Company to be there was a Site Plan showing how , indeed ,
parking was going to be - located , and if there was to be outside
storage . Ms . Beeners stated that she saw it as a very simple matter
of some fairly modest improvements to the site to spruce it up a
little bit , and to have some kind of screening for the areas that were
going to be , used for loading , dumpsters , etc . Ms . Beeners commented
that in about 1986 she had suggested to Ms . Rumsey that she [ Ms .
Beeners ] had considered it to be a fairly simple matter , and one that ,
hopefully , she would be able to find , in the local area , a landscape
designer who could come up with the type of screening that she [ Ms .
Beeners ] thought was appropriate . Ms . Beeners stated that she has
advised them again , that that type of a site plan showing what
existing and proposed oimprovements . there might be - related to -those
kinds of things , and that was definitely apart of what would have to
be a submission for a rezoning application , adding that she has not
received that at the present time .
• Continuing , Ms . Beeners stated that while Ms . Rumsey and Mr .
Hayes are saying that they are not proposing any improvements , there
is really not a plan that shows . where existing areas are designated
for parking , for loading , and for unloading . Ms . Beeners again noted
that she had advised Ms . Rumsey and Mr . Hayes that there has to be
some kind of screening , either landscaping or some kind of fencing ,
put in the areas where the spools . are , ' commenting that they reported
that they would rather hear that kind of a request come from the
Planning Board , as far as it being something that is deficient from
the application. . Ms . Beeners said that she did remind them that there
is , unfortunately , no outside storage within the Zoning Ordinance , and
also tried to clarify exactly what types of uses should be permitted
there , as to uses under Business " C " were really suitable for the
property . Ms . Beeners noted that they also talked a little bit about
whether or not there could be some kind of a modified Business " C " ,
with certain uses specified . Ms . Beeners stated that she also threw
out the idea of a possible Special Land Use District , commenting that
the problem with the Special Land Use District is that there can be
residence uses , and " A " , " B " , and " E business uses . Ms . Beeners
stated that there is nothing about Light Industrial or Business . " C " .
Mr . Hayes remarked that the residential designation is outlandish and
cannot be complied with in a quonset hut . Mr . Miller commented that
the applicant is asking for the but to also be changed to Business
".C " , adding that he is not worried about Ms . Rumsey , but worried about
the next owner . Chairperson Grigorov offered that there is also the
® choice of renting it to someone who would not store anything outside .
Mr . Miller mentioned a modified business use of the quonset hut , and
leave the homestead out of it .
EXHIBIT # 2
EXCERPT Planning Board Meeting of July 18 , 1989 . - 5 -
® Assistant Town Planner George Frantz wondered about the lifespan
of the quonset hut . Mr . Miller replied that it is all metal and on a
concrete floor , adding that he thought it has another 30 - 40 years .
Ms . Rumsey stated that the quonset but is being talked about for
rezoning , adding , she did not care about her house being zoned
business , although they said she must because of the size requirement .
Ms . Langhans offered that she thought the applicant should go to the
ZBA and ask for . Special Approval for screened outside storage .
Chairperson Grigorov stated that the applicant thinks she has to have
a variance every time there is a new tenant , with Ms . Rumsey noting
that that is exactly what has been said . Chairperson Grigorov
wondered if the applicant has to get the approval renewed when a
tenant is changed even if there is no change in the way its used , just
a different tenant . Attorney Barney replied that if there is a
tenancy , one dates back to a valid non - conforming use , adding , if it
is assumed the Karate school was a valid non- conforming use , then it
has to be figured out what Business. District that qualifies under , but
assuming it is a " A " , " B " , or " C ". , then any other use in that Business
District would be permitted . Continuing , Attorney Barney noted that
if the Cable Company was a less restrictive Business District and they
obtained approval for that , and once that use ended , there would be
the right to go back to the same level that existed with the prior
non - conforming use . Attorney Barney commented that if it is assumed
the Cable Company is a less restrictive use than a Karate school ,
which it probably is , and wanting to stay at the same level of
restrictiveness as a Cable Company , then , yes , one would have to come
back in for a new approval .
Chairperson Grigorov stated that the matter is a Sketch Plan
Review with the Board ' s general reaction and comments .
Stephen Smith commented that he . thought to state that the 1954
decision of zoning the property residential was incorrect just because
of the quonset but sitting there was not . correct ; zoning is not done
in spot intervals ; it is looking at large areas . Mr . Smith stated
that . he thought the property was not improperly zoned , and the best
bet would be to go for a variance , and continue with a non - conforming
use .
Mr . Miller asked about modified zoning for the quonset but only .
Ms . Beeners re.sponded that she thought it would be possible , but the
main problems are , as she sees it , that there has not been any effort
to bring in a Site Plan showing what she [ Ms . Beeners ] would consider
to be modest improvements made on the site , irrespective of what Board
is being talked about , or what zoning mechanism . Mr . Miller wondered
if Ms . Beeners was talking about landscape improvements , with Ms .
Beeners responding , yes , particularly related to the front and the
back of the quonset hut , which appeared to her , since Ms . Rumsey does
have her Bed and Breakfast at 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road , would be
in her [ Ms . Rumsey ] interest as well , to improve some of the ambiance
• on the adjacent property . Ms . Beeners stated that what she would
consider to be a minimum requirement - has not been met .
EXHIBIT # 2
EXCERPT Planning Board Meeting of July 18 , 1989 . - 6 -
® . Mr . Hayes said that he would go along with a modified Business
District that would limit it to something on the order. of just the
quonset hut . Mr . Miller wondered if all they would have to ask for is
a variance for outside storage . Attorney Barney responded that it
would have to be for the same type of occupancy , adding that he
thought they have lost the non - conforming use rights , because , if
anything , a Karate school is a permitted use in an R- 30 zone under
Section 18 , Subdivision 41 which notes private schools , and , assuming
that the Karate school is a private school , at that point the building
was presumably in compliance with R- 30 use regulations , so anything
out of R- 30 now would require a variance . Attorney Barney offered
that once it is abandoned for a period of one year , the use of a
non - conforming use has been lost . Ms . Langhans said that Judge
Ellison stated that the defendant has two options ; she can either
apply to the ZBA to permit outside storage on the property , or
petition for a rezoning . Attorney Barney stated that the applicant
has specific approval to operate a cable supply , conditioned , among
other things , on there being no outside storage . Ms . Rumsey stated
that if Attorney Barney is right on his presumption of the issue , then
that means that the quonset but is now a residence . Attorney Barney
remarked that it is an R - 30 use .
Attorney Barney stated that the other possibility is a kind of a
version of a Special Land Use District which would encompass both the
house and the quonset hut , provide specific use limitations , and allow
certain uses for the business in the quonset hut .
Chairperson Grigorov offered that she felt the simplest remedy
would be to try to get the requirement about the outside storage
lifted by the ZBA , adding that rezoning is really drastic and
permanent . Mr . Hayes stated that the quonset but must not be . zoned
residential . Mr . Hayes said that there is not anything in an R - 30
zone that that quonset but is adapted to . Attorney Barney noted that ,
among other things , an R- 30 zone permits other uses , other than a
residence . Mr . Smith stated , that the applicant already has approval
for . the . present . use ; a variance for outside storage is needed .
Ms . Rumsey mentioned the Special Use for just the quonset but
area . Attorney Barney replied that it could be looked at . Ms .
Beeners stated that it would appear to her that the way the Special
Land Use District legislation , Local Law No . 2 - 1984 , is set up , it
would be preferable to have some kind of a unified plan , and , at a
minimum , it would be appropriate to look at the Bed and Breakfast
property and the quonset but as potentially one Special Land Use
District , Ms . Beeners wondered if there could be . some decisions by
Ms : Rumsey as to , indeed , what types of uses she envisions for the
property , both the Bed and Breakfast part and the quonset hut . Ms .
Beeners said that , the Special Land Use District provisions in the
combination of " A " , " B " , and " E " , should be . firmed up as far as what
the specific types of uses would be within such district . Ms . Beeners
noted that there has to be more specificity about the types of ' uses on
the land , and also the requirements related to the process of a
rezoning have to be met , which pertain to the requirements of Site
Plan Approval in Section 46 , of the Zoning Ordinance , Ms . Beeners
EXHIBIT # 2
EXCERPT Planning Board Meeting of July 18 , 1989 . - 7 -
stated that apart from metes and bounds , a map has been submitted
showing the rough location of the three buildings on the property .
Ms . Beeners stated that it would be her opinion that a topo map would
not be an absolute requirement , because , indeed , it is a flat area ,
except for the railroad enbankment , adding , the crucial elements are
landscaping , parking areas , and proposed improvements to make the
quonset but site more compatible with both the Bed and Breakfast
property and also with the Park on the other side of the road . Ms .
Langhans wondered if that would have to go through a public hearing ,
with Ms . Beeners answering , yes , one at this Board , and one at the
Town Board . Ms . Beeners noted that the rezoning matter had been
referred by the Town Board to the Planning Board , Ms . Beeners stated
that it would appear to her , based on what has been submitted , that
additional information is being requested to conform to the procedure
that is used for all rezoning applications , however , the Board is free
to make a recommendation to the Town Board ,
Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone . were prepared to make a
recommendation to the Town Board ,
Attorney Barney stated that the procedure is outlined in Section
46 . of the Zoning Ordinance , whereby there is the requirement that a
Site Plan be provided , and then the Planning Board holds a Public
Hearing on the Site Plan , and then the recommendation is passed on to
the Town Board .
® It appeared to be the consensus of the Planning Board that Ms .
Rumsey should go before the ZBA concerning the issue . Ms . Rumsey and
Mr . Hayes stated that they would take the matter to the Zoning Board
of Appeals .
Chairperson Grigorov closed the discussion of the proposed
rezoning of 110 and 116 East Buttermilk Fails Road from Residence
District R- 30 to Business District " C " at 10 : 00 p . m .
Approved by Planning Board December 14 , 1989 .
Mary S . 5ryant , Recording Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
EXHIBIT # 2
•
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
I , the undersigned Deputy Town Clerk and Secretary to the
Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York ,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY :
That I have compared the foregoing copy of the duly approved
Excerpt from the meeting of the Planning Board of said Town held
on the 18th day of July , 1989 , with the original thereof on file
in the office of the Town Clerk , and that the same is a true and
correct copy of said original and of the whole of said original
so far as the same relates to the subject matter therein referred
too
I FURTHER CERTIFY that all members of said Board had due
notice of said meeting . and that , pursuant to Section 98 of the
Public Officers Law ( Open Meetings Law ) , said meeting was open to
the general public and that further notice of the time and place
of such meeting , in addition to that required by law with respect
to that matter before the Board requiring Public Hearing , was
given to the public by posting the Agenda therefor in the
following places on the following date and by giving such other
notice as follows :
Town Clerk ' s Bulletin Board July 12 , 1989
Notice Box Outside Front
• Door of Town Hall July 12 , 1989
Affixed to Outside Door of
Town Hall Meeting Room July 12 , 1989
Service by Mail upon the
Media and Parties
with Interest July 12 , 1989
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
the seal of said Town this 15th day of December , 1989 ,
Nancy M , uller , Deputy Town Clerk
and
Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning
Board ,
S E A L
EXHIBIT # 2
NATIONAL CABLE CRAFT CORP .-
July
ORP .July 26 , 1988
Margie Rumsey - — - - -- - - - - ---- - - -
110 East Butternut Falls
Ithaca , N . Y . 14850 -
To Whom It May Concern :
A question or concern has been raised regarding our storage
of CATV materials ( coaxial cable , strand & miscellaneous hard -
ware materials ) to the rear of the quonset but warehouse that
we rent from Margie Rumsey . [As a practical . matter , we have the
. warehouse filled with other materials used in the rebuild of
' the Ithaca cable system along with the nightly storage of our
. vehicles , which is required for security purposes
It is my feeling , based on 24 years of CATV experience ,
® that this warehouse and storage facility is possibly the most
tidy operation that I have seen .
Accordingly , we request that outside storage of cable and
strand be allowed , for it is the only way we can continue using
this facility for the remainder of the project .
Most Sincerely ,
/007
All
Clark G . Cook ,— pres .
EXHIBIT # 3
P . O . Box 64 , Vestal , NY 13851 -0064 Phone (607) 748-5214
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO : Members , Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM : George R . Frantz , Asst . Town Planner � � � —
DATE : January 18 , 1990
RE : Request by Margaret Rumsey for modification of use restraints , 116
East Buttermilk Falls Road.
Town staff have not received a completed Short Environmental
Assessment form for the above referenced request . I have however visited
the site and have reviewed the attached environmental assessment of Mrs .
Rumsey ' s original appeal to allow use of her property by National Cable
Craft Corporation prepared by Susan Beeners for the Zoning Board of
Appeals and dated March 9 , 1988 . Based on my review of the proposal and
my site visit on January 18 , 1990 , the modification of the use restraints
imposed by the Zoning Board of Appeals in its. resolution of March 9 , 1988
to allow outdoor storage of materials on the site , as proposed by Mrs .
Rumsey , would have a negative visual impact on the adjacent Buttermilk
• Falls State Park .
The predominant land use in the area around the quonset but and storage
site consists of residential - and park - type uses . Although the site and the
surrounding park and residential uses are adjacent to the Elmira Road
commercial strip in Ithaca itself , they are physically and visually
separated from that commercial area by a railroad embankment
approximately twelve feet in height and covered with brush and small
trees .
The existing outdoor storage arrangement and garbage dumpster can be
categorized as industrial in nature and visually incompatible with the
surrounding land use . When I visited the site on January 18 , 1990 there
was in the area of the northerly side of the quonset but among other things
in the range of twenty to thirty CATV cable spools with varying amounts
of CATV cable on them , a 20 cubic yard roll - on refuse container with a
large pile of scrap CATV cable beside it , and two small trailers for
transporting cable .
• The cable spools , refuse container and scrap cable were all readily visible
from the parking lot of Buttermilk Falls State Park . Although there a
number of small trees along the property line between the Rumsey site and
Buttermilk Falls State Park which would have foliage during the summer EXHIBIT # 4
months , these trees would not provide sufficient screening even during the
,n
• 1
summer months . In their current winter state they do not provide any
screening capability .
In addition to being visible from the parking lot of the park , the site is
® visible from the top of the railroad embankment . This should be taken into
consideration in any assessment of the impact of outdoor storage at the
site , as the railroad embankment is owned by the Finger Lakes State Parks
Commission and is slated to be included in the Commission ' s proposed
Cayuga Inlet bikeway .
Given the above a modification of the Zoning Board of Appeals resolution
of March 9 , 1988 could have a significant adverse visual impact on the
surrounding area , unless some provision for adequate screening of the site
from the adjacent state park were required . In order to ensure optimal
mitigation , of the visual impact such screen .should extend along or in
close proximity of the property line with Buttermilk Falls State Park from
opposite the southern end of the quonset but to the northern edge of the
storage area .
EXHIBIT # 4
N
���y �1-•Tat I! -
a -moo
PMJWr i.o. NUMaaR •tT.tt SEOR
AppwWlx C
State Entllronmental Ouallty Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
® For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART 1 — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project aponsor)
1 . APPLICANT (SPONSOR 2. ECT NAM[
azr e �� 6--1 • S�� AG�-
3. PROJECT LOCATION:
MunichWtty ( fo�L. f C �J . County
4. PRECISE LOCATION Mum addma and road Intsrseetimw prominent lan&nwV* ate.. or
A 55 °CIES .�' I Lam'` ,B v'T7-i61J�1 LL 5 (�—
• A -r A D D aF �. � c� A(ru� ccs Q® ,� . St �� �jv't '1�t «-tom is s $ t -s .
6. IS PROPOSED ACTION:
❑ Now ❑ Expansion (9ModifIutIW&tt*mtl0n
Go DESCRIBE PROJECT 8RIEFLY: p
WA-PIT (b FrrJT bj U 1 l G �� f OJG� R� �R G >=. 7a K/t
7 . AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED:
Inttialry aera Ultimately aeras
a. WILL PROPOSED =WPII COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS?
❑ Yes &ft It No, de aft Weft
9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT?
c %nWmW O Indwtrw gCorrwrar W D Aptbultum arkrForo WOpen epaooser
O eller
B c-�rcr�..RJ� c c.� �cc_s �Jt•'r� t��t- �-I�
10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING* NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL-AGENCY (FEDERAL.
STATE OR LOCAL)?
❑ Yao Nd\ If m list apwom and psrtMttapgrvrale
11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VAUD PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
❑ Yes 1xW If yes. IM apuicy rwns and psnNtlapprowl
12. AS A RESULT OF FROP08ED ACTION VOLL EX{STINO PERMITAPPRIOVAL MWIM MODIFICAMN?
13 Yes Mo .
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED A&M 18 TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOwLWG2
Appilamnl1spmmm num kA %
000004ME SOON
If the action Is In the -Coastal Area, and you an a state agency, complete the
Coastal Aasessment Form beton proomm Ing with this assossmmnt
OVER
1
EXHIBIT # 5
Iblf mss ,
nt��
A . Action is Unlisted .
Be Action will receive coordinated review ( Tompkins County
Planning Dept . - N . Y . S . G . M . L 235 - m ) .
Ci Could action result - - in anyadverse effects_ o or
i` g_f -- the
C1 . Existing air quality , surrJA!a!t ur groundwater
gaa_lit ;�_c, rsuar�tity , noise levels . exis, i g_ traff � c
pattarns , solid waste production or dj, ap„ sal , potentiajf=
ero on_ . ..SLIa. nage _ or flooding problems ?
The level of use proposed would not represent any
significant adverse impact to traffic patterns or any
Significant conflict with Park traffic , provided that
traffic control signage is strictly obeyed . No significant
adverse impacts are expected with respect to the other
factors listed above , provided that a. site . plan showing
proposed site improvements ( regrading at south end of
building , new parking areas , proposed dumpster location ,
proposed screening ) is submitted and approved .
A _ at.he . i r�
agri » lt.nr� al _ arr+hooloojStoriC .
or other nat.Ural or cultural resourceG or commnity or
neiahborhood charaeter ?
The visual and aesthetic impact of the building and
site , with respect to the proximity of the site to
Buttermilk Falls State Park , is the chief area of impact .
The site is not similar either to the character of the park
or to the character of the adjacent bed and brazkakfast . A
suitable location for the dumpster that would be placed on
site for approximately 2 1 / 92 years , forold cable , needs to
be determined . The dumpster should be screened• with fencing
and / or landscaping . Parking on the east side of the -
building should be limited . Itis pr : ferred that parking
and utility areas be located on the west side of the
Louilding as much as possible , and that buffer plantings
should be installed . to minimize impact on the character of
the park .
C3 . Vctatio �_�' _ s shellfish or wildlife
npFcic , _svgnificant _babitatslsrrtthrgQtened _or - eIldaag red
No signiy icant apc: :: aE. s oxV i.. ,J. st on the site
that wouldba
impar
� _-- —ccnnitr _ _tzititi_g_piUr� s u _dUals_as_
} 7
pt �_: c. __;_ r _a _,_ l� a _g=_ 'r _ _
l ♦ J. .JI yJ. liad V,a 1U :wJ , h1L 1W :) �J 1i .a . .. J )C i ea i• 1. {y� ♦ . V V
%:p lY — .J 1.% p ,n- 1. 111.. VC: .... U ...IC .J ll �l �.i L/ 1 the uA. 1V a 1 . �'. .Jy
. , ,• • • 6. - Id
p cc - c s
in I. n
. . li J \Ji . LSI V ...� .Ii :•: iJi- 11 . 1r ll rl ` pVs J, W1I \A U ,� a 1e, J .7 C. i ,Ve
uS e wi. ; h re -Pect t :: t .raf f is tr, ai-i the previous Karate school . EXHIBIT
i .. c .. ,. 1G . . i v . VI . 6 ., Gfi :. rig Uruani3 . 11.. e , t G # rj
rA ,LO% thoriZati :jr, the proposed use , which is light
ir: :lustrial , :Ji� u � G :jt1 ; a ) t ::3t no buSainess use would be allowed
a. r. tl"ie 3:" L 1' V:, a u S �. f "the isolated , low - %wlSibilit. y
l oca;tuiC) n ( iA ` ;"Its 4 ne5s Use 1. 8 riot eife -- tive . I'40
signif icant. a1v %:; rse impa ,: ; t with respect to community plans
and goals , cr to land use intensity is expected , provided
that the Zoning Board of Appeals finds grounds for the
appeal .
subsftaUent devgj.Qr..#mgi�' or re ),
til i� �Jbs.lYp. be i "aced by the rop4x!;Ld action ?
I14ot expected provided that any future change in use of
the building is made subject to review by the Zoning Board
of Appeals .
� • u4T1€��L7i . �rcrt t��m„rs�i�mula;�,�ve � or c, thar
effects not _identified in C1 - 05 ?
Not expected .
Q?.4ttharimpacts Uaaludin€ changes in use of �gdth=
suAatityrt _? � Z_
Not expected .
® D . s there , nr is there likely to bes controversy related
�� ^ t taadverse e'.
No controversy is expected at this time .
�L'•T I I I
A negative determination of environmental significance
is recommended , provided that
1s a site plan by an architect or engineer is
:. ubmittad for approval by the Town Engineer and Town Planner
showing proposed improvements to the south End of the
building , proposed parking areas , with a minimum amount of
parking on the east side of the building , the location of
the dumpster , fencing around the dumpster , and buffer
piantings to adequately screen the site from the park .
L the ZiOning Board of Appeals finds sufficient
grounds for appeal .
Lead Agency : Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , 'Town Planner
Review Date : March 9 , 1988
EXHIBIT # 5
' PLOT PLAN
INFORMATION TO BE SHObM :
1 . Dimensions of lot . 4 . Dimensions and location of proposed structure( s) or
2 . Distance of structures from: or additlon( s) .
� . Road, . 5 . Nerves of neighbors vdho bound lot .
Both side lot lines, 6 . Setback df nelghbors .
c . Rear. of lot . 7 . Street name and number .
3 . North arrow. 8 . Show existing structures In contrasting lines .
CO
' tic .r 5 .
____ , • 5 . 4
AC . 0 -
.\ r4 \ r
. 5 . 8 � . ti ,
AC . ,
C
1 .73 a A - - �► .-- mom°' rp4o - t
_
y D
of
1 I I 10 • . 1 • . 1 1 1, . 1 + 010 / . / . ... , • ♦ �, ` . � � .. 'I . � l ! Ii rf . / � 11 � ) . � . .
Signature of Owner/Appe i l ant : Date:
Signature of Appellant/Agent : Date' . . r`� / 9 �
EXfiIBIT # 6 _- --,�-
-,. . -
:� - .- ..��- aTMws verls,nii'te•.�a. ....-,,.. ._ -.-:: 'r 'Cu.a. -- ._a.._Pvs!>::�..:.:..+ . :. . .,.�:."Y••.^.r f.$1C"Y1isc .�.. . . .. : i'::' -l:> .iit._.`..iiai:Gti:_�Y.:
.I
4� ¢P
/ i DpiI
CP
io
® 14' � s�
a0 _
r r 00 elm
r 1 t sc ,N4
x - -
4)0 T000e goo'
or
So
1 `
i
�w � r "' Y �/ RRIZ6EG TO 86P Co/yV9jrBO
�z ��.:� �, a � ;�ca �-s Aloe PARCEL . OFLAN2
�, •_ ?p r ea 587- 7oS /
6Y ZOO/S A AND 1
$
\ &O. Oyeerow,v of sr�eA4#a nt:
/S. O• / n. $ CALG /"3 3a�
ip
a!'do','¢ y � A1C . v w( a'1P ( ;ted eeL du 3ho� 1 Z I
; /
• o O - IUO�GnTa1 P%Pa oR Piw+ Povj�O
rTaars fActrcct C40) �- Y • LnioKa-ca 3/* q;F Ply+ To Os »T'
53? - ea ?
T.'R so - / - J. 82, L) Mg0 AN0 SO4-Vd7 4 %1 M6fAr S QUSSLr2 J ?,
LRro svtvrro -N:r.' S.° uCws� NOto99'MIk-/•
EXHIBIT # 71
oeoe 1 i
1 '
Macera / Lanphere 1 - Lot Subdivision - 1 -
` *, 115 Rich Road
Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board , December 19 , 1989
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Macera / Lanphere 1 - Lot Subdivision
115 Rich Road
Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board , December 19 , 1989
MOTION by Mr . Robert Miller , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of a 1 . 07 - acre parcel from Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 50 - 1 - 5 . 2 , 1 . 73 acres total , located at 115 Rich
Road , Residence District R- 15 .
2 . This is a Type II action requiring no further environmental
review .
3 . The Planning Board , at . Public Hearing on December 19 , 1989 , has
reviewed the proposed subdivision plat and other application
materials .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
® Subdivision Approval to the proposed subdivision as presented , subject
to the following conditions .
1 . The grant of variance or other approval by the Zoning Board of
Appeals with respect to . frontage requirements and construction of
a building off of a public road .
2 . That any construction occur at least 70 feet southeasterly of the
northwesterly line , 15 feet from the southwesterly line , 30 feet
from the southeasterly line , and 15 feet from the northeasterly
line . -
3 . That any occupancy of any building constructed on the proposed
lot be limited to no more than one family .
4 . That there be no further subdivision of said proposed lot .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , May , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIM6kUSLY .
� c
Nancy M . uller , Secretary ,
VQwn tkf Ithaca Planning Bard .
December 26 , 1989 .
` ( o EXHIBIT # 8
" Danby Road Housing "
1033 Danby Road
Final Site Plan Approval
Planning Board , November 15 , 1988
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : " Danby Road Housing "
1033 Danby Road
Final Site Plan Approval
Planning Board , November 15 , 1988
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for
the proposed " Danby Road Housing " project , proposed to be located
in a Multiple Residence District at 1033 Danby Road , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 1 . 2 , - 2 . 2 , and - 6 .
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Planning Board , on
September 6 , 1988 , made a negative determination of environmental
significance , and granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval with
certain conditions .
3 . The Planning Board , . at Public Hearing on November 15 , 1988 , has
• reviewed the final site plan and other application submissions
for final site plan approval .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Site
Plan Approval to the project as proposed , subject to the following
conditions :
1 . That the maximum height of all buildings on the site shall be
thirty ( 30 ) feet , excepting the two buildings in the northeast
portion of the site which shall have a height not exceeding
thirty - three ( 33 ) feet .
2 . Approval of final site working . drawings by the Town Engineer
prior to the issuance of any building permits , with said working
drawings to have no deviations from the distances between the
building and parking areas and the boundaries of the project as
shown on the site plan approved by the Planning Board on November
15 , 1988 , or on a subsequent revised site plan as would be
subject to approval by the Planning Board ,
3 . Approval of water and sewer systems design by the Tompkins County
Health Department prior to the issuance of any building permits .
4 . Approval of an agreement with respect to the private long - term
maintenance of the proposed retention pond by the Town Attorney
EXHIBIT # 9
� y r
" Danby Road Housing "
1033 Danby Road
Final Site Plan Approval
Planning Board , November 15 , 1988
and the New . York State Department of Transportation Regional
Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits .
5 . Approval of the final planting installation schedule , and
approval of the design of the protective fencing in the northwest
portion of the site , by the Town Planner prior to the issuan: of
any building permits .
6 . The planting plan shall include the addition of evergreen trees
for naturalizing in the conservation areas on the south and east
edges of the site , and the addition of evergreen trees in the
entrance pla-ntings near Danby Road , . to be approved by the Town
Planner .
7 . The proposed drive lanes on the site , with the exception of the
divided access road , shall have a minimum width of 25 feet .
8 . The project shall have a maximum occupancy of 600 people , except
as may be subsequently modified upon approval by the Planning
Board .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Ken erson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nancy M . OPuller , Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board . .
November 17 , 1988 .
EXHIBIT # 9
14464 (2187)—Text 12
'�. 1?ROJECT I.D. NUMBER 617.21 SEOR
Appendix C
State Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION (TO be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor)
I . APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2 . PROJECT NAME
JMS Ithaca Realty , Inc . College Circle Apartments
1. PROJECT LOCATION:
Municipality Town of Ithaca County Tompkins
a . PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide nap)
College Circle & Danby Road
1033 Danby Road
S . IS PROPOSED ACTION:
❑ New ❑ Expansion ® ModlflcatkxValteratlon
8 , DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY:
Project is to construct 149 rental housing units plus management office .
Project has site plan approval from Town of Ithaca Planning Board ;
however , zoning ordinance has been amended .
7 . AMOUNT OF LANAFFECTED:
Initially 3o . ? acres Ultimately 30 . 5 acres
8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS?
Cl Yes ONO If No, descrbebriefly Zoning ordinance has been amended to limit occupancy
of a dwelling unit to a maximum of 4 unrelated persons . Project as approved
Mould have 5 , 6 or 7 unrelated in certain units .
9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT?
❑ Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commerclal ❑ Agriculture ❑ Park/Forest/Open space ❑ Other
Describe, Project Site : Multiple Dwellings
North Border : College Athletic Fields South Border : Rental Housing
West Border : Single Family Homes East Border : - Undeveloped
10 . DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL,
STATE OR LOCAL)?
® Yes ❑ No If yes, 110 agency(s) and permittapprovals Town of Ithaca Planning Board Site Plan
Review , Building Permits , Certificates of Compliance ; Tompkins County Health Dept . ,
water & sewer syst. ems ; NYS Dept of Transportation , curb cut & drainage .
11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VAUD PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
® Yes ❑ No If yes, list agency name and permwapproval Town of Ithaca : Site Plan Approva1 ,
Building Permits and Certificates of Compliance for all of Phase I , Building Permits
for most of Phase II ; Health Dept . approval of water / sewer ; NYSDOT : curb cut &
drainage .
12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?
❑ Yes ® No
1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Applbsntftwo r name: John Novarr , V . P . , JMS Ithaca Realty , Inc . Date:
signature:
If the action Is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency,ge cy, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form Wore proceeding with this assessment
OVER
i
EXHIBIT # 10
r•
i PART II — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency)
A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE 1 THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 917. 12? It yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF.
❑ Yes BNo
S. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 817.8? If No, a negative declaration
may be superseded by another Involved agency.
® ❑ Yes No
C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten. If legible)
C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production. or dlgposal,
potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly:
X SEE ATTACHED
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaoologlcalt historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly:
SEE ATUCHED
_ C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly:
.,R6 SFE Am=
C4. A community's exlsMg plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change In use or Intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly
6 SEE ATTACK
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be Induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly.
,?Ko SEE ATTACHED
09. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effect$ not Identified In C1Z5? Explain briefly.
too SEE ATTACM
C7. Other Impacts (including changes In use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly.
SEE ATTACHED
D. . IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO OF. CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?
❑ Yes E] No If Yes, explain briefly
PART 111—DETERMINATION, OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency)
INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect Identified above, determine whether It Is substantial, large, Important or otherwise signiflcant.
Each effect should be assessed In connection with Its (a) setting ate, urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d)
Irreversiblllty; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that
explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse Impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed.
❑ Check this box if you have Identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse Impacts which MAY
occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration,
❑ Check this box If you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting
documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT. result In any significant adverse environmental Impacts
AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination.
Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Name of It"ponsible Officer in Load Agency Title of Responsible Off icer
Signature of Itesponsible-Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Freparer (if differerit fmm responsible icer
Date
2
EXHJBIT # 10
r �
PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PROJECT : Request for variance from maximum occupancy limits of
® Zoning Ordinance , College Circle apartment complex , 1033
Danby Road
REVIEWER : George R . Frantz , Asst . Town Planner
DATE : January 18 , 1990
A . Does Action exceed any TYPE 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR , PART
617 . 12 ?
Yes No.X— Action is UNLISTED_X_
B . Will Action receive coordinated review as provided for
UNLISTED Actions in 6 NYCRR , PART 617 . 6 ?
Yes No—Xt Involved Agency0es ) :
C . Could Action result in any adverse effects associated with
the following :
C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity ,
noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production or
disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain
briefly :
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated . Proposed action would
be an increase in the number of unrelated persons allowed to occupy
individual units within existing apartment structures . No changes in
land use , additional construction or changes in existing site plan as
approved are proposed .
C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural
resources ; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly :
No significant adverse impacts on aesthetic , agricultural ,
archaeological , historic , or other natural resources , or on community or
neighborhood character are anticipated . Proposed action will allow
increased residential densities within specific structures in the overall
complex . However it would not result in an overall increase in project
density , which is limited to 600 occupants .
EXHIBIT # 11
N �
C3 _ Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species ,
* significant habitats , or threatened or other natural resources ? Explain
briefly .
None expected .
C4. A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ?
Explain briefly:
None anticipated: No change in use or intensity of land use or other
natural resources is proposed as a result of proposed action .
C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or. related activities likely to
be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly :
None anticipated .
C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not
identified in C 1 - 05 ? Explain briefly :
None anticipated .
® C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or
type of energy ) ? Explain briefly :
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts ?
Yes No_XL If Yes , explain briefly
PART III - DETERMINATION OF S16NIFICANCE
Given the small scale of the proposed action and the above observations ,
a negative determination of environmental significant is recommended .
EXHIBIT # 11
. . - . . - . . . .- .. - - .-_ r-a- . . •. ar•. ..v. .. -. a.� - ..• a.. .. . . . . . . ..a .. . ... , • . Mar ... �.r.a.. ...a..aarwarL�:IIC -
AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION
TOWN OF APPEAL ZONING
BOARD OF . APPEALS;-:, NOTICE
OF PUBLI.C ` HEARINGS , '
WEDNESDAY,'>. JANUARY , 524;
1990, 7 : 00 P. m
B direction of thhairman
of the ZoningKBe•Coard of `Ap-
Ttm ITHACA JOURNAL peals NOTICE HEREBY' Said Zoningg Board of Appeals )
GIVEN that Public
Hearings_, wi1161 ,s6id : time; 7:00 p. m. ,
will be held by the Zoning bond said place, ` hedr' all per- ,
Board of Appeals of the Town • sons in support of such matters
of Ithaca on Wednesday, Jan- tor `objections thereto: Persons
State of New York , Tompkins County , ssuary 24, 1990, in Town Hall, ;r;moy , appear by'_ agent or in
. . 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRSLi ; 'erson:r; r
Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST�.Pwt 'r -� j�' . Anrdrew S' Frost,
Gail Sullins Side ), Ithaca, N . Y. , COMB" = Building Inspector/Zoning i
being duly sworn , deposes and MENCING AT 7:00 P. M. , on , �a ; . ::Enforcement Officer,'.,
the following matters. `t i • Town. of Ithaca '
says , that she/he resides in Ithaca , county and state aforesaid and that MODIFIED APPEAL (from Morch ;.'i ',< tJst f •i , '.473- 1747
91 1988 ) of Margaret Rumsey, .'Jonudry 1_9, 1990 : .
she/he is Clerk Appellant, Allen W. Hayes,
Agent, requesting authoriza
of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper rinted and published in tion from the Zoning Board of
pp p Appeals, under Article XII ,
Sections 54 and 55, of the
Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice , of which the annexed is a true Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordi-
nonce, for the extension of a
copy , was published in said paper non -conforming use, from o
more restrictive use to a less
/�. restrictive use, located at 116
J � � \ ^ Q East Buttermilk Falls Road,
1 Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
6-38- 1 -3, Residence District R- �.
30. The proposed use is to be a
television cable system serv-
ice center with outside star- I
age . Approval for use as al
television cable system sery
ice center was granted by said
and that the first publication of said notice was on the Hoard of Appeals on March 9, ;
1988, with no outside storage '
permitted. The existing build-
y of �tL� . ca 19 ing was previously used as
karate instruction school .
APPEAL of Anna Mocera and
Brion E . Lonphere , ApFellonts, l
requesting variance from the :
requirements of Article IV, 1
Section 16, of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to
Sub 'bed and sworn to before me , this day permit the construction of o
home, proposed to be located
at the rear 115 Rich Rood ,
Of /L 19 on anewly-susubdivided lot that
does not front on a town,
county, or state highway,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
5-43- 1 -5. 2, Residence District I
R- 15. Said lot has a 20-foot-
wide access drive fronting on
Notary Public . Rich Road and o width of 241 i
feet commencing approxi
mately 200 feet from the street
JEAN nORD line, whereas a minimum
PUb� IC �tcUe co New York width at the street line of 60 �
Notary feet, and a lot width at the .
maximum front yard setback
No, 45542 10 ( 50 feet from the street line ) of
100 feet, are required . )
Qualified in Tcrripkins COUnt APPEAL of JMS Realty Co . , l
�j / Owner/A.ppellont, John No
Commission expires May 31 , 1 varr, Agent, requesting vari- '
once from the requirements of
Article VI , Section 26, of the '
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordi -
nance, to permit occupancy
by more than four unrelated
persons per dwelling unit at
the College Circle apartments
located at 1031 -33 Danby
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Par-
cels No. 6-43 - 1 - 1 . 2, -2. 2, and -
6, Multiple Residence District.
I