HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1990-05-23 e•
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
'TOWN OF ITHACA Date 0
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Clerk
MAY 23 , 1990
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Joan Reuning , Edward King , Edward
Austen , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement
Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Town Engineer
Dan Walker .
OTHERS PRESENT : Gerald Rau , Tomii ' LiVigne , Chri's . Tompkins , Phil
Cox , Albert Wright , Lanny Joyce WilIAam
Paleen , P . Griffen , Ci. . . Jahkey " 'Sh:irliey `;.
Egan , John Gutenberger .
ABSENT : Robert Hines .
Chairman Aron called the meeting to order ' at 7 : 10 p . m . and
stated that all posting , publication and notification .. of ... the
public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of
same were in order .
The first Appeal on the agenda was the following :
�^ ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM OCTOBER 14 1989 ) ' OF ELSA
ADRIAN , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AN AREA VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION '" 14 OF ''°THE.. TOWN . OF
ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED
OUTSIDE WOOD DECK ADDED TO . AN EXISTING TWO-FAMILY
RESIDENCE LOCATED AT ' 117 SNYDER HILL ROAD , TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . . 6 � 57 - 1 -3 . 3 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-
15 . SAID DECK WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A BUILDING
PERMIT , IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE XIV , SECTj.ON 7. 5 , OF
SAID ORDINANCE , AND eIS LOEATEDtiLfw1y`kT -5' INCHES FROM THE
NORTHWEST SIDE YAR® : PROPERTY - 1"LINEf 15 FEET BEING
REQUIRED .
Chairman Aron read the Appeal into the recdrd �.and `referred
to the Building Location Map , certified by C . Brashear-j , Jr . ,
dated April 9 , 1990 , and attached hereto � as . Exh`ib.11t # 1 • Chairman
Aron explained that the reason the Appeal was adj6Urned the first
time was because the Board did not have,._ , a `survey ' map to 16ok at
in regard to the lot lines .
Mr . Chris Tompkins , 222 Pleasant Street , appeared as an
Agent for Elsa Adrian and explained the deck project to the
Board .
Chairman Aron read into the . 'recdrd a letter from Frank and
Blythe Baldwin , dated November 25 , 1989 , and attached hereto as
Exhibit # 2 .
Town of Ithaca 2
Zoning Board of Appeals
May, 23 ; 1990
® Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared
before the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing .
Mr . Frost explained that Mrs . Adrian applied for a building
permit , after the fact , and it was basically denied because of
the setback problem . Mr . Frost stated that he has looked at the
deck and he sees nothing wrong with it from a building code
standpoint .
MOTION
By Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant an area variance for the
existing 9 ' x 13 ' deck which is 7 feet from the
northwesterly boundary, with the following findings :
10 no one appeared in objection to the project ,
2e there was a letter from Dr .. and Mrs . Frank Baldwin
expressing no objection to the deck , providing it does
not infringe on a possible road right - of -way ;
3 * there would be a practical difficulty to remove this
deck at this point , being that it is a fairly new deck ,
4 * the house is located so close to the line that there is
not any other reasonable location to place the deck .
• The voting on the Motion was as follows .
Ayes - Austen , Reuning , King , Aron .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
The next Appeal on the Agenda was the following .
APPEAL OF THE FIRST ITHACA CHINESE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ,
APPELLANT , GERALD RAU , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE
UNDER SECTION 9 OF TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO . 7 - 19881
AS AMENDED , " REQUIRING SPRINKLER SYSTEMS TO BE
INSTALLED IN BUILDINGS IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA" , FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN
LIMITED OCCUPIED AREAS OF THE CHURCH RATHER THAN THE
ENTIRE BUILDING SPACE AS WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER THE
STANDARDS OF NFPA- 13 . SAID CHURCH IS LOCATED AT 1462
SLATERVILLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 2 -
22 . 3 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 .
Chairman Aron read the Appeal into the record and a letter
from the Church Secretary , Gerald Rau . Said letter attached
hereto as Exhibit # 3 .
® Town of Ithaca 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
Mr . Rau appeared before the Board and explained the reasons
for requesting the variance .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Rau if , when he was before the Board
the first time and agreed to have the sprinkler system installed ,
he was , at that time , apprised of the cost of this sprinkler
system .
Mr . Rau stated that he was not aware of the difference in
cost between a residential and commercial system . He was aware
of a residential system .
Chairman Aron agreed that the difference between a $ 3 , 000
and a $ 9 , 000 system is quite a bit . He asked Mr . Rau how many
members there are in the Church .
Mr . Rau stated that members are approximately 25 ; with
attendees it would be perhaps 35 , plus approximately 8 children .
Chairman Aron stated that in Mr . Rau ' s application he says
this is a residential building but it is actually a Church and
• they are tax exempt , so , whether the building is residential or
it is built as a Church with a steeple , that is just the
exterior . The interior is a Church for Church purposes ; for
general assembly of persons to come in , as well as services .
Mr . Rau agreed to Chairman Aron ' s statement , adding , in
addition to the assembly spaces and the rooms which would be used
for classrooms , there are many closets - approximately 10
enclosed spaces which are less than 35 square feet .
Chairman Aron stated that sprinkler heads in a residential
building are to be 10 feet apart . He asked what it is in a
commercial site .
Mr . Frost stated that the distance will depend on the
specifications for the individual head . Generally speaking , they
are not greater than 14 feet apart .
Mr . Rau explained that the difference with the commercial
system is that any separate enclosed space , including closet
areas , must have a sprinkler head whereas by residential code ,
only the main rooms would require a sprinkler head . He said that
means that by the commercial code , there would be more than 20
sprinkler heads necessary ; by the residential system only 10
would be required - - several in the main meeting room and one in
• each of the other rooms . The closets would not have to have a
separate head . The other difference is in the commercial system
the requirements are that every single head , all 20 -plus heads ,
would have to have a 30 -minute water supply whereas under the
® Town of Ithaca 4
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
residential system , there has to be sufficient water supply for 2
heads to run for 10 minutes . Mr . Rau explained that could be
supplied readily by a storage tank in the building without any
additional installation of external plumbing . With a commercial
system , it would require the installation of a 4 " water main from
the building , across the property , underneath Route 79 and a new
tap into the water main . So there would be the excavation cost ,
the tapping cost as well as the additional sprinkler heads and
the plumbing , and that would be very expensive .
Mr . Rau stated that they initially thought the water main
was on their Oside of the road and there was a figure of
approximately $ 500 for the excavation costs plus another $ 500 or
so for tapping the water mains . They later found out the
hydrant , which is on the front of their property , is a hydrant
which is connected to a pond and the actual Town main is on the
opposite side of the road , so that would add substantially to the
cost of sprinklering the building .
Mrs . Reuning asked Mr . Rau how many exits there are in this
building . Mr . Rau responded that there are 3 doors plus a garage
door for exterior exits .
Mr . Frost stated that he would say that , essentially , there
are 2 ways out . He said that for points of interest , the
Building Code itself would not require sprinkler installation in
this building . Likewise , with an occupancy of under 50 people ,
the area itself is not considered an area of public assembly .
The other significant issue here is that there is not a second
story involved ; it is a single story at - grade level building .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Rau what the projection of growth is
for the Church . Mr . Rau responded that the meeting area would
not have a capacity greater than approximately 60 people .
Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to
address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing .
Mr . Frost stated that it is his opinion that a residential
system would do the job for this building as long as the central
meeting area and the central hall area were well sprinklered .
Mr . Austen asked Mr . Rau how many heads there would be with
a residential sprinklering system . Mr . Rau stated that there
would be at least 10 heads which would include all of the rooms ,
including the bathrooms , kitchen and dining room areas . He was
• not including the hallway but he would find Mr . Frost ' s
suggestion to sprinkler the hallway reasonable .
Town of Ithaca 5
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
Mr . King asked Mr . Rau if there are smoke detectors and fire
extinguishers in the Church . Mr . Rau said there is a smoke
detector in the hallway and he believes in the main assembly
room . There are also two fire extinguishers located in the
garage area near the furnace room and one is right off the
assembly room in a closet adjacent to that room . The smoke
detectors are single station detectors .
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Rau where the sprinkler heads
would be located in the building .
Mr . Rau stated that there would be 3 sprinkler heads in the
main assembly room which is approximately 27 feet square with one
corner taken out for one of the bathrooms ; there are two 12 ' x
12 ' rooms and one 8 ' x 10 ' room , there would be one head required
for the dining area and one for the kitchen . He stated that he
was including one for each bathroom in the 10 that would be
required to be installed . Mr . Rau said that the only other areas
that might require heads would be the hallway which would require
either one or two , and possibly one in the furnace room , for an
approximate total of 13 heads .
• There was further discussion regarding residential versus
commercial sprinklering systems .
Mr . Austen asked Mr . Rau where the storage tank would be for
the sprinkler system . Mr . Rau stated that it would be in the
garage area .
Chairman Aron stated that what puzzles him is that Mr . Rau
came before the Board in April of 1989 and it is now the end of
May 1990 and the Church has been operating without sprinkler
systems . He asked why Mr . Rau had not notified the Board or the
Building Inspector earlier .
Mr . Rau stated that they have been attempting to raise the
money for the commercial system . He said he had not heard
anything back from the Building Inspector so he figured that
rather than raising troubles for themselves , if the Building
Inspector was not going to be concerned about the timing of it ,
then the Church would not either .
Mr . Rau said that the Building Inspector called a month or
so ago and said that they needed to act on it and it would be
possible to come before this Board again and request a variance
to put in a residential instead of a commercial system .
Town of Ithaca 6
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
Chairman Aron stated that it is annoying to him that when
this Board makes a decision and the decision meant the Church
would operate with a sprinkler system , at that time , if Mr . Rau
felt he could not do that , he should have been before this Board
a long time ago , not 13 months later .
Mr . Rau stated that he is sorry that he did not know that
before . None of the people in the Church are used to dealing
with Town Boards . He said the Church was doing , as quickly as
possible , what the Board required .
Town Attorney Barney stated that more significantly the
Church is being operated without complying with the requirements
of this Board .
MOTION
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen .
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant the variance upon the following
conditions and finding :
10 that , because it would be unnecessarily expensive and a
significant hardship on the Church to put in a
commercial sprinkler system , this Board shall modify
its condition for a sprinkler to permit the residential
type sprinkler system to be installed , but the Board
specifies that there must be at least 3 heads in the
assembly room , 1 in the Sunday School room , 1 in the
nursery room , 1 in the furnace room , and 1 in the
kitchen ,
2 * that the connecting hallway be adequately sprinklered
as the Town ' s Building Inspector might determine
reasonable and necessary ,
that
3 . / the variance is being granted because the Church is a
one - story building with several exits to the outside ,
and be it further
RESOLVED , for flexibility , the Board authorizes the Building
Inspector , upon his re - inspection , to also require
sprinklers in other rooms , depending on the actual floor
plan , use of the room , and size of the room , which details
the Board does not have before it , with the following
conditions :
® Town of Ithaca 7
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
1 . that the Church be required to provide adequate smoke
detectors in each of the other rooms , as the Building
Inspector might think reasonable ;
2 * that a storage tank will be provided for the system ,
3o that the construction of the system begin no later than
60 days from today , May 23 , 1990 , and that it be
completed with all deliberate speed ;
4 * that , if there are going to be any hold - ups for months
from now , the Church is to notify the Building
Inspector for assistance in getting this system
installed ,
5 * that a temporary certificate of occupancy could be
conditioned on the Church providing interim detectors
and extinguishers for the premises .
The voting on the Motion was as follows :
Ayes - King , Austen , Reuning , Aron .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
The next Appeal on the Agenda was the following :
APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANT , M . E . HARTZ AND
W . S . JOYCE , AGENTS , REQUESTING SPECIAL APPROVAL UNDER
ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 41 AND A VARIANCE FROM
THE 30 - FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 18 ,
PARAGRAPH 16 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE ,
FOR THE PROPOSED 70 -FOOT THERMAL STORAGE TANK PROJECT
AT CHILLED WATER PLANT III , CERTAIN PORTIONS OF WHICH
ARE TO BE LOCATED BOTH IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 AND
A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT OFF THE DRYDEN ROAD ON TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 63 - 1 -8 . 2 . A VARIANCE FROM
THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 44 , PARAGRAPH
41 AND SECTION 45 , PARAGRAPH 5 , OF SAID ORDINANCE , IS
ALSO REQUESTED FOR THOSE PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT IN THE
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT .
Mr . Philip Cox appeared before the Board , presented slides
and explained the proposed project . He stated that in the
information packet that was presented to the Board , there is a
• drawing that depicts both the site and cross - section of the tank .
Town of Ithaca 8
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
Mr . Cox explained that when they say a 70 - foot tank , 70 feet
would represent the highest part on the tank itself - that will
have them . working with a 60 - foot column of water within the
tank . They feel from a visibility point of view , it is much
better . Economically it is not quite as much - they have some
internal compromises but they think it is the best overall at
this point . He said it will be fairly inconspicuous ; it will be
a plain tank painted in a neutral color .
Chairman Aron stated that since there is an Environmental
Assessment Form before the Board , he declares this Board to be
the lead agency for the environmental review .
Chairman Aron referred to a letter from the Tompkins County
Department of Planning , dated May 16 , 1990 and signed by Mr .
James Hanson , Commissioner of Planning . The letter is attached
hereto as Exhibit # 4 .
Chairman Aron stated that this is the third plant that
Cornell is building and he is wondering how many more will be
coming in as Cornell is expanding their facilities by
approximately one to two percent ' per year . He asked Mr . Cox
whether or not there will be more of those chilled water plants
provided for the growth of the facilities .
Mr . Cox stated that the University has three plants now and
this thermal storage tank would not add anything to their
capacity ; it would just allow them to manage their present
capacity so that they can meet the demands they expect to come on
line in the next couple of years . He stated that he is not
before the Board to tell them that this is a cure - all for the
expansion that the University might see 4 , 5 , or 10 years down
the road .
Mr . Cox stated that it not at all clear to the University ,
as expansion does come along , that central chilled water plants
are necessarily the correct thing for that expansion . That will
depend on the density of the expansion and the planning of such
expansion .
Further discussion followed between Chairman Aron and Mr .
Cox regarding proposed expansion of the University .
Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared
before the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing .
• Mr . King asked Mr . Cox what color the tank will be . Mr . Cox
stated that it will be painted in earth tones , neutral .
® Town of Ithaca 9
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 199. 0
Mr . Austen asked Mr . Cox if there was thought given to
lowering the tank into the ground .
Mr . Cox stated that it was thought of but this proposal
represents the best from a hydraulic point of view to minimize
the amount of pumping energy that they would have to have . He
said this tank will be insulated .
Chairman Aron referred to the Adopted Resolutions from the
Planning Board meeting of May 15 , 1990 , which are attached hereto
as Exhibits # 5 and # 6 .
Environmental Assessment
MOTION By Mrs . Joan Reuning ; seconded by Mr . Edward Austen .
RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Cornell
University requesting Special Approval under Article V ,
Section 18 , Paragraph 4 , and a variance from the 30 - foot
maximum height requirement of Section 18 , Paragraph 16 , of
the Town of Ithaca • Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed 70 -
foot thermal storage tank project at Chilled Water Plant
III , certain portions of which are to be located both in a
Residence District R- 30 and a Light Industrial District off
the Dryden Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 63 - 1 - 8 . 2 ,
and for a variance from the requirements of Article VIII ,
Section 44 , Paragraph 4 , and Section 45 , Paragraph 5 , - of
said ordinance , for those portions of the project in the
Light Industrial District , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration
of environmental significance , with the following finding .
1 . That should any future development activities on
Cornell lands in Southeast Ithaca be considered by the
Zoning Board of Appeals , the finding of no significant
environmental impact of this particular project at this
time shall not preclude the Zoning Board of Appeals
from considering whether the possible impacts of this
project , when taken together with the possible environ -
mental impacts of future projects of Cornell University
in Southeast Ithaca , create . cumulatively significant
environmental impacts that may require .
i . additional environmental review ;
ii . possible preparation of environmental impact
statement , and/ or
• iii0 mitigation of any impacts that may then be
identified .
Town of Ithaca 10
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
The voting resulted as follows :
Ayes - Reuning , Austen , King , Aron .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Special Approval
MOTION by Mr . Edward King ; seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant Special Approval for the
proposed 70 - foot thermal storage water tank in the location
indicated with the following findings :
1s there is a need for the proposed use at this location ,
which location is the most ideal that could be found
given the nature and the character of the present uses
in that area , which are support facilities , heating
plant and so forth for the University ;
• 2 * as proposed it will not affect the existing and
probable future of the neighborhood ;
3 * the proposed design and location would not offend the
comprehensive plan of development for the Town , and
49 the proposed project is in compliance with Section 77 ,
subdivision 7 , paragraphs a - f of the Town ' s Zoning
Ordinance .
The voting was as follows .
Ayes - King , Reuning , Aron , Austen .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Height Variance
MOTION by Mr . Edward King ; seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
find and hereby does find that there would be a hardship to
make the proposed thermal storage tank smaller than the 70
• feet being requested and , therefore , grant and hereby does
grant the height variance as requested by Cornell
University .
Town of Ithaca 11
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
The voting was as follows :
Ayes - King , Austen , Reuning , Aron .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Special Approval
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant Special Approval for the
proposed additions to the east and west side of the existing
Chilled Water Plant III in connection with the above -
mentioned project on the same findings as were made for the
approval of the tank itself .
The voting on this motion was as follows :
Ayes - King , Austen , Aron , Reuning .
• Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Chairman Aron called for a 5 minute recess .
The last Appeal on the Agenda was the following :
APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANT , ALBERT L .
WRIGHT , ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES , AGENT , REQUESTING
MODIFICATION OF THE SPECIAL APPROVAL GRANTED FOR
MAPLEWOOD RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY BY THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS ON APRIL 19 , 1989 , TO PERMIT THE RETENTION OF
AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON THE SITE THAT WAS
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED , AND , TO PERMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ONE LAUNDRY/ COMMON BUILDING AND ONE
PAVILION , WHEREAS TWO NEW LAUNDRY/ COMMON BUILDINGS WERE
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED . THE REQUEST IS MADE UNDER ARTICLE
III , SECTION 41 PARAGRAPH 41 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING ORDINANCE . MAPLEWOOD RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY IS
LOCATED BETWEEN MAPLE AVENUE AND MITCHELL STREET ON
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 63 - 2 - 1 , - 2 , - 3 , - 14 ,
AND - 10 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 .
Mr . William Paleen appeared before the Board . He stated
• that he appreciates the fact that Cornell is back before the
Board for the fourth time on this project and he thanked the
Board for the opportunity . He stated that soon after they got
into the opening of the project , it became apparent that they
Town of Ithaca 12
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
had to do some things differently than they had anticipated and
that relates specifically to the amendments that they are
requesting at this time .
Mr . Paleen stated that , as the Board will remember , there
was an extremely rainy season a year ago and due to that they
were forced to delay the development of the two laundry/ common
buildings which were part of the original site plan that was
approved . In order to accommodate the needs of the residents , as
they began developing the community building , it became apparent
that that was a suitable alternative to at least developing one
of the two laundry buildings . So that . was part of what has now
been developed and completed as a very fine , high quality
community center . Therefore , they seek the Board ' s approval to
amend the original request of two laundry/ common buildings to
have one laundry/ common building and the second structure would
be a recreational pavilion .
Mr . Paleen further stated that the second request is to
retain what had been one of two buildings on the site that were
used by the Campus Store as warehouse facilities . The first of
those has been approved as part of the plan and is now the
lie community building as he mentioned . Adjacent to it is a
structure that , now that the community building has been
developed and realized its importance in total as a community
facility , really prompts looking again at the issue of retaining
a quonset style building . He said that building affords an
excellent opportunity to provide support for the community
itself , in two ways . One to be the location where the service
for that project can be conducted and secondly , to support the
storage needs of residents in addition to being the storage
location for equipment for the project itself .
Mr . Paleen explained that about one - third of the space in
the building , there being about 7 , 500 square feet * of space ,
would be planned for use as low - activity storage for the rest of
the housing operations of the University , adding that they do now
have storage in remote locations , in various locations around the
County , as well as in Cortland County . He said they can use this
facility for the purpose of staging furniture rehabilitation
projects , which is an on - going process , but a very low level of
activity in terms of access or egress from the building or the
site for this purpose .
Mr . Paleen showed slides to the Board of the area in
question and also presented some graphics .
Mr . Paleen stated that the primary purpose to which the
quonset building would be devoted , is to be the location for
service and administration , as well as operation of this Graduate
OTown of Ithaca 13
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
Student village . It will also afford the University a good
opportunity to provide on - site storage for those residents of the
village and this is a significant issue , especially for Graduate
Students because it is not uncommon that they will stay with the
University for several years and during the course of that time ,
have to leave for a period , doing research , and what the
University finds is that during that interlude , to provide them
with a place to store their personal belongings and in
anticipation of their return , is highly desirable . Mr . Paleen
further stated that they find the ability to be able to take
overload storage of things that simply can ' t fit within the
storage in the individual living units is , again , a very
desirable service and support and also enhances the quality of
the environment of the area .
Mr . Paleen explained that the University has space for about
7 , 000 students . All those spaces are furnished and they have a
continual process of trying to upgrade , to refurnish and
refurbish furnishings on a routine plan . He said they need a
staging area to do that . It is an obligation the University has ,
to be able to store , temporarily , furniture in anticipation of a
• truckload or a substantial quantity being transferred to the
Murray Center in Cortland for refurbishing and then returned .
Mr . Paleen stated that for these reasons , they feel this is
a facility that should be retained ; it is a very excellent
quality building and he thinks that frankly , the University did
not understand that when they began this project . He said the
quonset building is in good condition ; the foundation is sound
and it provides an ideal kind of facility for those several
purposes that he mentioned .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Paleen how many married graduate
students with children the University presently has and will have
in the future .
Mr . Paleen stated that there are 90 family apartments . This
year there were approximately 24 children living in the project .
He does not think that is what it will typically be because the
project was under - occupied . With 90 family apartments , he thinks
at least one - third of those families are likely to have children ,
which would make it about 30 - 35 children . He said there are
307 single graduate students who would occupy the area and it is
the recreational need of all those people that they are really
trying to address .
• Mr . Paleen explained that the community building that he
mentioned has been fully developed . It includes a laundry and
he thinks it has proven to be very successful to have a laundry
and recreation space in a single building of that kind . That
Town of Ithaca 14
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
building also has in it a very large recreational space which ,
again , has been very well used and is a very highly desirable
interior kind of recreation space . He said that if the quonset
building is removed , they would have to reduce that amount of
program/ recreational space in the community building in order to
provide for operational needs of the area . So in a sense ,
retaining the quonset building will allow the University to
maintain an optimal level of recreation space on the premises ,
especially during the winter months when it really is a very
important amenity for a project of this kind .
Mr . Paleen further explained that by retaining the quonset
building they reduce the open space in the project by one
percent so the difference really seems not to be a major factor ,
especially when one realizes all the very attractive and readily
available green spaces that are spotted throughout the project .
Mr . Paleen stated that the other issue that has been raised
is the aesthetics : is this a compatible facility with the rest
of the project ? He thinks there are ways in which they can
effectively address those concerns . He presented a colored
• sketch of the proposed improvements to the quonset building . He
said that the University would intend to paint the building with
the same color scheme as the adjacent community center . They
also plan to replace the windows and to trim the windows with
wood , very much in the style of the adjacent building , which
really has been brought from being a very common warehouse to
what he thinks is a very handsome community center . In addition ,
the landscaping around it will be done in a way which will help
to screen the building .
Mr . Paleen stated that the intensity of use is substantially
less than it had been when these two structures were used by the
Campus Store and they estimate that they would be making trips
for the . purpose of off - site storage at one per week or less
during the course of a given year .
Cornell Attorney Egan addressed the Board . She stated that
the community building is a little more than 5 , 000 square feet .
It has a laundry ; in addition it has a very large , very nice ,
informal recreation space . She said that space originally would
not have been so big but after seeing how much students began
using that space , how much more of it they were able to use , and
how much more regularly the students were able to use it than the
University had anticipated , it seemed a shame to still partition
off in there the space that originally would have been .
• partitioned off for use of their storage , for use for the
project ' s own storage . She explained that the estimated space
that could be used in the quonset but for these two purposes that
are in direct support of Maplewood is two - thirds of the quonset
® Town of Ithaca 15
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
building , about 5 , 000 of the 7 , 500 square feet . The worse of it
is , even if some thirty percent of the present community building
were taken back for needs like this , it still would not address
all the needs . The project really needs that 5 , 000 square feet
of space that only the larger quonset building can provide .
Town Attorney Barney stated that the University has built
these types of projects before and he asked Attorney Egan why the
University is coming to the Board now and saying that they need
this space when they have had all this experience elsewhere on
the Campus and it was not thought about when the project was
originally planned .
Attorney Egan stated that it was planned and it was planned
for the community building by the architects . She said it was
determined to come to the Board for this action - last Fall .
Town Attorney Barney stated that when the original Special
Approval was given , the same considerations would have been
available to the University and yet at that time the plan was to
eliminate the building .
• Attorney Egan stated that while that is correct , the
community building would have been less of a community building ;
it would have had a smaller recreation space in it , and if they
had not had the disruptive building cycle with the rains and so
on , they probably would never have had this lucky silver lining
in here of discovering how much more the students were really
using that , and they would have gone and used that building for
this very purpose . She said that the University is trying to
improve the quality of life for the students at this space based
on what the University discovered through this happy accident .
Attorney Egan addressed the needs finding . In reference to
the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood ,
the quonset building has always been there . Most of its closest
neighbors , besides the Maplewood residents , are the old laundry ,
the old train depot , the coal office , veg crops buildings , things
of that nature , so it seems to her that the fact that something
that has already been there for a while , makes it a little
difficult to ' say that the existing and probable future character
of the neighborhood would be adversely affected by something
which has been there since long before some of the other aspects
of the neighborhood were .
Attorney Egan went on to say that the University also feels
• that inasmuch as the building serves residential needs and this
is a high density residential area , any high residential area is
going to have to have some kind of support facilities - a place
where things are stored . They feel that having a support
Town of Ithaca 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
building of this nature in a high density residential area is
indeed part of the character of what you get in an area such as
this . She stated that it may not look like another house , but
you will notice too , that it is not higher than the houses ;
landscaping -wise it tucks back into a hillside ; it is screened
from it ; there are certainly other buildings in close proximity
around it which are quasi - industrial and industrial type looking
buildings .
Attorney Egan stated that while this may not be an ideal
building that you would build from scratch , it is a very valuable
building - it is worth $ 300 , 000 .
Attorney Egan said that the third point has been that the
specific proposed change in land use as a result of this project
may not be in line with the comprehensive plan . This is much the
same as she was saying on the last point . She said the zoning
plan , of course , is the comprehensive plan , and this is for an R-
9 zone , high density residential . Once again , she would make
the argument that any high density residential project of this
size is going to have to have buildings like this . Therefore ,
• the University does not feel that it is a potentially
incompatible land use whatsoever and would hope that the Board ,
after hearing the arguments , would agree with them on this .
Mr . King asked Attorney Egan if she could tell the Board
about the laundry - lounge facilities and the pavilion . He stated
that the original plan , according to the papers , was for there to
be two of these laundry - lounge facilities . He asked Attorney
Egan where they would be and asked her to show the . Board on the
sketch she had on the wall . "
Attorney Egan stated that one laundry - lounge facility is
wrapped into the community building .
Mr . King stated that that always was planned for that .
Attorney Egan said , no , not the laundry . She said there
would have been two laundries , in two different locations . They
have one laundry so they just planned on building the other one
so it is the same number of laundries . Attorney Egan and Mr .
Paleen showed the Board where the laundries would be on the
sketch that they had attached to the wall . Mr . Paleen explained
that the laundry was installed in the community building as a
change when they recognized that they could not build the smaller
units for this past year . Mr . Paleen stated , " this one " will be
• constructed this summer as a laundry and " this one " is being
brought to the Board as a proposal to create a pavilion - type
recreational building .
Town of Ithaca 17
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
Mr . King stated , for clarification , that Mr . Paleen is
indicating that the southernmost laundry building will be
constructed as originally planned within the green area " there " .
Mr . King asked if they are going to change that building into a
pavilion .
Mr . Paleen stated that the original second laundry building
is proposed to be built as an open air pavilion , with picnic
tables .
Mr . King stated that he would point out that the original
plans of August 10 , 1988 , showed a laundry/ community building in
the northernmost building .
Mr . Frost said that he has a plan from the University ' s
original appeal dated June 6 , 1988 and it shows it as a community
building , although within the project description that was part
of the original Board of Appeals application , they talked about 2
laundry / lounge buildings and the existing building to be
partially renovated from management office and medium use , which
is the community building . Mr . Frost read the following from the
appeal of 6/ 6 / 88 : " The remainder of the building , which is the
community building , is committed to service community and will be
renovated as program is developed and funds become available . "
Attorney Egan , in response to Mr . King ' s point about the
northernmost building , stated that she does not know what
accounts for that , but she thinks the fact remains that in
addition to the laundry in the community building , to build 2
more laundry buildings is totally unnecessary .
Mr . Wright stated that he thinks he can shed some light on
the confusion . He said that the plan that Mr . King is looking at
is dated July 1 , 1988 . That is the plan that was submitted as
part of this Appeal and is the amended plan . It is not the
original plan .
Mr . Frost stated to Mr . King that technically speaking the
map that he is looking at should have a date that shows revised
1990 .
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Paleen how many units there
are in this project .
Mr . Paleen said that there are 77 4 - person single student
units and 90 family units , for a total of 167 units .
•
Town of Ithaca 18
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
There was discussion between Town Attorney Barney and Mr .
Paleen regarding the population in the project . Mr . Paleen said
that there are also 3 efficiencies that are occupied by resident
advisors .
Mr . Frost stated that there are 3 additional buildings that
really are a part of the project , also .
Town Attorney Barney asked how many acres total are in the
project . Mr . Paleen answered , 17 total .
Chairman Aron read a letter from the Tompkins County
Planning Department , signed by Commissioner James Hanson , dated
April 17 , 1990 . The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit # 7 .
Chairman Aron read from Part II of the Environmental
Assessment and the recommendation from Part IIA , signed by Susan
Beeners on April 12 , 1990 , and attached hereto as Exhibit # 8 .
Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to
address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing .
• Chairman Aron stated that he does not understand why the
laundry facility was not thought of and planned for when the
project was being developed . He further stated that when he
heard the counselor speaking about storing motorcycles , etc . , he
wondered why Cornell is all of a sudden responsible for the
students ' automobiles and their motorcycles . and so forth . He ,
thinks that responsibility should lie with the students , not with
Cornell University .
Mr . Austen , for a point of interest , stated that when the
Board gave approval for that project , the community building was
going to be used as a community building entirely and not a
laundry and now part of the space is taken up by what was going
to be a laundry in another area , thereby removing some valuable
community space . He asked if the office for the project is now
in the quonset building .
Mr . Paleen responded that the laundry is the only thing that
is in the community building that wasn ' t anticipated . The other
part of the community building that they anticipated was to be
devoted to operations , and that is what they have put into the
quonset building - that and operations storage .
Mr . Paleen said that he thinks the University underestimated
how effectively the community building would work out in terms of
the space in it and the way in which it can be used . He said
that in the first year , with less than full occupancy , the level
of activity in there , he thinks has astounded all of them .
® Town of Ithaca 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 23 , 1990
Mr . Austen stated that he thinks he was looking at it as a
good time to get rid of an ugly building .
Mr . Paleen replied that it can be made better but he thinks
the fact that it is in the condition that it is in , to , remove it
would be to demolish a very significant asset .
Motion
Chairman Aron made a motion to adjourn the matter until June
13 , 1990 , for consideration of a Board decision , the Public
Hearing having been closed .
The motion was seconded by Mr . King .
The voting on the motion was as follows :
Ayes - Aron , King , Reuning , Austen .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
• The meeting adjourned at 10 : 02 p . m .
Connie J . Holcomb
Recording Secretary
APPROVED :
Henry Aron , Chairman
"* TO PINE TREE. ROAD
SNYDER HILL ROAD
ry .
R/w—� p S 3 7 ° 571E 1001 iocoA NTS
• W —
I • • I .
REF MAP - 01MAP OF A PORTION OF . I
LANDS OF E. J• ARGETSINGER1
DATED MAY 22 , 1967
BY JOHN S. MACNEILL
7 PARCEL3 PARCEL 2 PARCEL I
E
ft DCKS
PICHEL
No. 117 27, + ( R. 0.)
N
N
w ELSA C. ADRIAN o
;.� La
o
e DEEDS BOOK 629, PAGE 35cm
I � I
� TAX . MAP PARCEL No. 57 - I - 3 . 3 Ip
O I 1
I
N 37' 57' W 100 ' I IOo' NTS
O
' BALDWIN ( R,Q )
• j •
NOT VALID UNLESS SIGNED IN RED
BUILDING LOCATION MAP ,�� oit hEw
�R. w, eq�f� p •.
No. 117 SNYDER HILL ROAD w
L O T 96 , TOWN OF I THA CA
1
MPKINS COUNTY RK NEW Y r ..l. +ara..r. 6" u. .. ., . .,..,
YORK a ..�,.,.. :. X44 3819 ,�' EXIIIBIT # 1
LE I 30• APR 9, 1990 '" Y� :rM1. . 4a
RON STAKE fAluosU�
hl bi
y,
T •
/ t
r , ;,, � z,,...�
C�\ toe
D�° `� �� I , 7
� M1
�i
� � t � • i {fib
l
EXHIBIT # 2
z
i
1462 Slaterville Road
® Ithaca , NY 14850
April 3 , 1990
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear members of the Zoning Board of Appeals,
Enclosed is an application for permission to install a residential code
sprinkler system instead of a commercial code sprinkler system in the
property of the First Ithaca Chinese Alliance Church at 1462 Slaterville Road ,
Town of Ithaca .
Request for the variance is based on the following considerations :
1 ) The building is of residential design and construction , with many
closets and enclosed areas , each of which would require a seperate sprinkler
head under the commercial code . The large number of heads and requirement
of a 30 minute water supply for every head would require installation of a new
4 inch supply line from the water main on the other side of Route 79 to the
building. The anticipated cost of such a system is in excess of . $9000. A
residential system would not require as many heads or- .- a new .. supply line and
could be installed for approximately $3000 .
2) Little benefit is expected from the additional cost. Both systems
would allow time for occupants to escape. With little flamable material , it is
likely that one or two heads would control any fire until the Fire Department
could arrive . The additional capacity of the commercial system would probably
never be needed .
3 ) The anticipated risk of fire is low. The building will be used less than
10 hours per week , at least until the church is able to call a full time pastor.
The natural gas heating and electrical systems are relatively new and in good
condition and there are few electrical appliances . No smoking will be
allowewd in the building. Overnight use, if any, will . be extremely rare .
4) There are two means of egress from every room , including the
bathrooms , and first floor windows in every room except the bathrooms ,
allowing for easy exit .
In view of the high cost , low anticipated benefit, and low risk of fire , we
hereby ask for the variance.
Sincerely ,
EXHIBIT # 3 raid A . Rau
• Church Secretary
EVA *A
Tompkins County
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
Biggs Building A, 301 Dates Drive
Ithaca, New York 14850
James W. Hanson, Jr. Telephone
Commissioner of Planning (607) 274-5360
May 16, 1990
To: George Frantz, Ithaca Town Planning
From: James Hanson, Commissioner of Planning
41
Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 2394 and -m of the New York State General
Municipal Law.
Proposed discretionary action: Proposed Thermal Storage Project at Chilled Water Plant III
® (within 500 feet of municipal boundary)
This memorandum acknowledges your referral of the proposalidentified above for review and
comment by the County Planning Department,
ZONING REVIEW, pursuant to NY General Municipal Law, Section 239-1 and -m.
The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity,
county, or state interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning
Department and you are free to act without prejudice.
copy: Ithaca City Planning
file
• EXHIBIT # 4
Thermal Storage Project and Expansion of Chilled Water Plant III - 1 -
Cornell -University , Dryden Road
Report to Zoning Board of Appeals - - .
Portions in Residence District R- 30
® Planning Board , May 15 , 1990
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Thermal Storage Project and Expansion of
Chilled Water Plant III
Cornell University , Dryden Road
Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals - -
Portions in Residence District R - 30
Planning Board , May 15 , 1990
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board
of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval ,
pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for that portion of the proposed Cornell
University Thermal Storage Project at Chilled Water Plant III
located within a Residence District R- 30 , proposed to consist of
a . four million gallon thermal storage tank 107 ± feet in diameter
and 70 ± feet high , and further , Consideration of a Report to the
Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for a variance
from the maximum allowable heights . a as forth in Article VIII ,
Section 44 , Paragraph 4 , and Article V . Section 18 , Paragraph 16 ,
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . .
2 . The Cornell University Thermal Storage Project at Chilled . Water
Plant III is proposed to be located off Dryden Road approximately
750 feet east of its intersection with Campus Road on Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 6371 - 8 . 2 .
3 . This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review in coordinated review . The Town of Ithaca
Planning Board is an involved agency in coordinated review of
this project .
4 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 15 , 1990 , has
reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form
and review , and other submissions related to this proposal .
5 . The Town Planning Department has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of
environmental significance be made for this action .
y{. 2 . That the Planning Board report and recommend and hereby does
report and recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that , should
EXHIBIT # 5
Thermal Storage Project and Expansion of Chilled Water Plant III - 2 -
Cornell University , Dryden Road
Report to - Zoning Board of Appeals - -
Portions in Residence District R - 30
® Planning Board , May 15 , 1990
any future development activities on Cornell lands in Southeast
Ithaca be considered by the Planning Board or the Zoning Board of
Appeals , the finding of no significant environmental impact of
this particular project at this time shall not preclude either
the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals from considering
whether the possible impacts of this project , when taken together
with the possible environmental impacts of future projects of
Cornell University in Southeast Ithaca , create cumulatively
significant environmental impacts that may require :
i . additional environmental review ,
ii . possible preparation of environmental impact statements ,
and / or
iii . mitigation of any impacts that may then be identified .
3 . That the Planning Board , in making recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the
following :
a . there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location , as demonstrated by review of the information
presented by the applicant ,
® be the existing andprobable future character of the
neighborhood will not be adversely affected , given the
proposed design of the project , its location , and industrial
character of land uses in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed projects
c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development of the Town .
4 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the
Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for
Special Approval for the proposed Cornell University Thermal
Storage Project at Chilled Water Plant III be granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals .
5 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the
Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for a
variance from the maximum allowable heights as set forth in
Article VIII , Section 44 , Paragraph 4 , and Article V , Section 18 ,
Paragraph 16 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance be granted
by the Zoning Board of Appeals .
AND , BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend that
Cornell University continue to develop an overall plan for growth of
the University in the East Ithaca area which will enable the Planning
EXHIBIT # 5
Thermal Storage Project and Expansion of Chilled Water Plant III - 3 -
Cornell University , Dryden Road
Report to Zoning Board of Appeals - -
Portions in Residence District R - 30
® Planning Board , May 15 , 1990
Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals to better evaluate the immediate
and cumulative impacts on the Town of Ithaca of individual Cornell
University projects .
Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Langhans , Lesser , Miller , Hoffmann .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nanby M Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
May 18 , 1990 .
EXHIBIT # 5
•
Thermal Storage Project at Chilled Water Plant III - 1 -
Cornell University , Dryden Road
Site Plan Approval , Portions in Light Industrial District
Planning Board , May 15 , 1990
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR
Thermal Storage Project at
Chilled Water Plant III
Cornell University , Dryden Road
Site Plan Approval , Portions in Light
Industrial District
Planning Board , May 15 , 1990
MOTION by Mr . Robert Ken erson , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans :
WHEREAS :
i . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for that
portion of the proposed Cornell University Thermal Storage
Project at Chilled Water Plant III located within a Light
Industrial District , proposed to consist of a four million gallon
thermal storage tank 107 ± feet in diameter and 70 ± feet high , and
the addition of approximately 1 , 800 sq . ft . of floor area to
Chilled Water Plant III .
2 . The Cornell University Thermal Storage Project at Chilled Water
Plant III is proposed to be located off Dryden Road approximately
750 feet east of its intersection with Campus Road on Town of
® Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 63 - 1 - 8 . 2 .
3 . This is a Type I action for which , the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review for site plan approval .
4 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 15 , 1990 , has
reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form
and review , and other submissions related to this proposal .
5 . The Town Planning Department has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board , acting a Lead Agency for environmental
review for site plan approval , make and hereby does make a
negative determination of environmental significance .
2 . The finding of no significant environmental impact of this
particular project at this time shall not preclude either the
Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals from considering
whether the possible impacts of this project , when taken together
with the possible environmental impacts of future projects of
Cornell University in Southeast Ithaca , create cumulatively
• significant environmental impacts that may require :
EXHIBIT # 6
Thermal Storage Project at Chilled Water Plant III - 2 -
' Cornell University , Dryden Road
Site Plan Approval , Portions in Light Industrial District
Planning Board , May 15 , 1990
i . additional environmental review ;
ii . possible preparation of environmental impact statements ,
and / or
iii . mitigation of any impacts that may then be identified .
Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Langhans , Lesser , Miller , Hoffmann .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Thermal Storage Project at
Chilled Water Plant III
Cornell University , Dryden Road
Site Plan Approval , Portions in Light
Industrial District
Planning Board , May 15 , 1990
MOTION by Mr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Miller :
WHEREAS :
• 1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for that
portion of the proposed Cornell University Thermal Storage
Project at Chilled Water Plant III located within a Light
Industrial District , proposed to consist of a four million gallon
thermal storage tank 107 ± feet in diameter and 70 ± feet high , and
the addition of approximately 1 , 800 sq . ft . of floor area to
Chilled Water Plant III .
2 . The Cornell University Thermal Storage Project at Chilled Water
Plant III is proposed to be located off Dryden Road approximately
750 feet east of its intersection with Campus Road on Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 63 - 1 - 8 . 2 .
3 . This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review for site
plan approval , has , on May 15 , 1990 , made a negative
determination of environmental significance .
4 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 15 , 1990 , has
reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form
and review , and other submissions related to this proposal .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Site Plan
• Approval to that portion of the Cornell University Thermal Storage
Project at Chilled Water Plant III located within the Light Industrial
EXHIBIT # 6
Thermal Storage Project at Chilled Water Plant III - 3 -
Cornell . University , Dryden Road
Site Plan Approval , Portions in Light Industrial District
Planning Board , May 15 , 1990
District , as proposed , subject to the grant of required variances from
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , and subject to the color
of the tank being a neutral color approved by the Town Engineer and
Town Planner .
Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Langhans , Lesser , Miller , Hoffmann .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board ,
May 18 , 1990 .
EXHIBIT # 6
- '&1`1%1
Tompkins County
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
Biggs Building A, 301 Dates Drive
Ithaca, New York 14850
James W. Hanson, Jr. Telephone
Commissioner of Planning (607) 274-5360
April 17, 1990
To: Susan Beeners, Town of Ithaca Planning
Fromi James Hanson , Commissioner of Plann ' g
Re : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York State General
Municipal Law.
Proposed discretionary action : Special Approval of modification of former Special Approval
for Cornell University Maplewood Graduate Student Housing, Mitchell Street to Maple
Avenue (municipal boundary, county highway)
Tax Map No. 63-2- 1 et al.
This memorandum acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review
and comment by the County Planning Department.
ZONING REVIEW, pursuant to NY General Municipal Law, Section 239-1 and -m.
The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity,
county, or state interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the County
Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice.
copy: file
Jon Meigs, City of Ithaca Planning
•
EXHIBIT # 7
Part 2 — PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE
Responsibility of lead Agency c
General Information ( Read Carefully) �� �� G �0��
• In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question : Have my responses and determinations been
® reasonablef The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
• Identifying that an impact will be potentially large ( column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant.
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply
asks that it be looked at further.
• The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and
for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
• The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and
have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question.
• The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
• In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects.
Instructions (Read carefully)
a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers.
c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the
impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold
is lower than example, check column 1 .
d . If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3.
e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated. by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate
impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This
must be explained in Part 3.
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
IMPACT ON LAND Impact Impact Project Change
1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
ONO IIBYES
Examples that would apply to column 2 � -� - L�
Any construction on slopes of 15 % or greater, (15 foot rise per , 100 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed .
10% .
• Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ Yes [:] No
3 feet.
• Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. 0 ❑ ❑ Yes - ❑ No
• Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
3 feet of existing ground surface,
• Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
than one phase or stage.
• Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1 ,000 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
• Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Construction in a designated floodway. " ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Other im acts 514Po� bUi � G>' i � � c-aVP�d j� ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
C I °7a
2 . Will there be an effect h. ,. . iy unique or unusual land forms found on
the site ? ( i .e. , cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc .)JSNO OYES
• Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C1 No
EXHIBIT # 8 6
• 1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
IMPACT ON WATER Moderate Large Mitigated By
3 . Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected ? Impact Impact Project Change
® (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)
PINO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 11 No
• Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ C3 Yes ❑ No
protected stream.
• Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Other impacts: ' ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
4 . Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body
of water? JKNO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• A 10 % increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease.
• Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. . ❑ ❑ C3 Yes ❑ No
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ [1 Yes ❑ No
5 . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater
quality or quantity? IONO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 11 No
have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
• Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ ❑ [] Yes 0 N
gallons per minute pumping capacity.
, . • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
supply system.
• Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ . ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N
do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
• Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
day.
• Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual
contrast to natural conditions.
• Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
products greater than 1 ,100 gallons.
• Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
and/or sewer services.
• Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrialuses which may , ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage
facilities.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Dyes 0 N
® 6 . Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface
water runoff ? ONO WYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No
EIIBIT # g 7
1 2 3 .
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
® • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No
• Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C1 No
• Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Other impacts: 03 ; 104L Zoe dY� a � I - O ❑ Yes C3 No
IMPACT ON AIR
7 . Will proposed action affect air quality? 19NO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will induce 1 ,000 or more vehicle trips in any given C3 13 ❑ Yes C3 No
hour.
• Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
refuse per hour.
• Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ C1 Yes C3 No
heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
• Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No
to industrial use.
• Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
development within existing industrial areas.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8 . Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species? aNO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
' list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site.
• .Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
than for agricultural purposes.
• Other impacts: O ❑ ❑ Yes ONo
9 . Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or
non-endangered species? VINO ❑YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any . resident or ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
• Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No
of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important
vegetation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10 . Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?
PFN0 OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
land ( includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc .)
EXHIBIT # 8 8
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
• Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
agricultural . land.
• The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres - ❑ ❑ 13 Yes CJ No
of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more
than 2. 5 acres of agricultural land.
• The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
land management systems (e. g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches,
strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0N
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ONO J9YES
( If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21 ,
Appendix B.)
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No
. or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether
man-made or natural. SP1L =7 -0, ..j
• Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of . , ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their
® enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
• Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ C3 Yes 0N
screening of scenic views known to be important to the area.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12 . Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance? FNO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register -
of historic places.
• Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ [] Yes ❑ No
project site.
• Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ . ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13 . Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
• Examples that would apply to column 2 ONO ,6'IIYES
• The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ 13 Yes ❑ No
• A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No
• Other impacts: Ye mnlyaA I GW o e1 !LA4 Q ✓e. ` ) ❑ C3 Yes ❑ No
Q`/ 1'e1\14 AQ �,�vl Uvynleda.. t
IBIT # 8 9
t
1 2 3
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact Be
14 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation . systems ? _ Moderate Large Mitigated By
ONO OYES Impact Impact Project Change
® Examples that would apply to column 2
• Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Proposed .Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
1 ° YS , � ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Other impacts: �^ e a`'
13
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15 . Will proposed action affect the communitys sources of fuel or -
energy supply? ANO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5 % increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
any form of energy in the municipality.
• Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ C3 ❑ Yes ❑ No
' transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family
residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
16 . Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result
of the Proposed Action? ® NO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2 S4 = - Pt
• Blasting within 1 ,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive C3 Oyes ❑ No
facility.
• Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ C3 ❑ Yes ❑ No
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
t • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a C3 13 ❑ Yes ❑ No
noise screen. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH _
17 . Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?
JINO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ 0 ❑ Yes ❑ No
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of
accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level
discharge or emission.
• Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [3 No
form (i .e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc.)
• Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
gas or other flammable liquids.
• Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance 1:10
C3 Yes C3 NO
within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous
waste.
• Other impacts : ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
EXHIBIT # 8 10
f r .
1 2 3
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact Be
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By
18 . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community ? Impact Impact Project Change
ONO JOYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• The permanent population of the city, town oor village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
project is located is likely to grow by more than 596 .
• The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N
will increase by more than 5 % per year as a result of this project ,
• Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ® ❑ 11 Yes ONO
--- + Proposed action will cause a change in the density-of -land -use,.--.- _ ®_ T___❑_ __ _❑Yes__❑ No_ _
• Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures Cl ❑ ❑ Yes ONO
or areas of historic importance to the community.
• • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N
(e. g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
• Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ® ❑ 11 Yes ❑ No
• Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [:] No
• Other impacts: - - - - ❑--- ❑ 11 Yes ❑ No
19 . Is there, or is there likely to be, : . public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts? ❑ NO *YES
If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or
If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3
Part 3w— EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Responsibility of Lead Agency
Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be
mitigated.
Instructions
Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2:
1 . Briefly describe the impact
2 . Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s).
3 . Based on the information -available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer the question of importance, consider.
• The probability of the impact occurring
• The duration of the impact
0 Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value
• Whether the impact can or will be controlled
• The regional consequence of the impact
• Its potential divergence from local needs and goals
• Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact.
(Continue on attachments)
EXHIBIT # 8
11
� y
PART IIa Environmental Review - Proposed Maplewood
Modifications
REVIEWER : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner 56 q -117440
LEAD AGENCY : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
INVOLVED AGENCIES : Town of Ithaca Planning Board , Tompkins
County Planning Department
IMPACT ON LAND
Retention of the warehouse building would represent a
1 % change in site building coverage ( a change from 20 to
21 % , with 25 % the maximum permitted in R - 9 Residence
Districts ) , representing a moderate , site - localized impact .
IMPACT ON WATER
Site - localized drainage improvements have been made
around the warehouse , and no significant adverse impacts are
expected as a result of this action . As a related matter on
the Maplewood site , drainage improvements in the area of the
retention ponds to alleviate standing water is presently
required prior to June 1 , 1990 .
® IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
Retention of the warehouse building on the site would
have a moderate localized impact with the retention of a
quasi - industrial service building in the Maplewood
residential setting , near similar Cornell facilities on
Maple Avenue . This impact would be partly controlled
through proposed minor building improvements such as the
framing replacement that is proposed . Additional plantings
at the southwest corner of the building would also assist in
screening the building .
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATION
Retention of the warehouse building would be a
deviation from the original plan in that the provision of a
lawn play area proposed and approved for the warehouse site
would not occur . This would result in increased building
density and lack of open space amenity adjacent to the
Community building .
The applicant has stated that the child population in
1989 / 90 totalled 23 , mostly of preschool age , and that the 2
tot lots originally and presently planned for the site would
be sufficient for that population . The replacement of a
laundry - lounge building by a pavilion , and the addition of a
volleyball court would partly mitigate the impact of the
loss of open space next to the Community building , but may
reduce the utility of the Community Building surroundings
Iu
for any outdoor gatherings or passive use .
IT # 8
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
With the transfer of Maplewood storage space from the
Community building as originally proposed to the warehouse
building , no significant increase in traffic volumes is
expected .
The warehouse is proposed at present to be used for
storage and shop functions exclusively for the Maplewood
Community . It has also been stated that the warehouse would
be used to consolidate furniture and appliances currently in
several off - site locations . If the warehouse were used for
storage and repair of furniture and appliances for other
housing locations off - site , there would be additional
► service traffic generated , particularly between semesters .
Potential traffic impacts for such off - site service should
be further addressed a part of an overall review of Cornell
' development in Souteast Ithaca .
NOISE & ODOR IMPACTS
It is assumed that the use of the proposed pavilion for
outdoor gatherings and bands would be monitored by Residence
Life or subject to the requirements of the Town Noise
Ordinance .
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
• Plan modifications would deviate from the plan
originally approved. , and would result in a higher level of
land use intensity . The retention of the Warehouse in a
site originally proposed and approved as a lawn play area is
of concern because of the reduction in buffer open space and
recreational amenity in the vicinity of the Community
building .
Replacement of the 1 of the two Laundry - Lounge
buildings by a pavilion will assist in enhancing the open
space on the interior of the site and in mitigating this
impact , but there would be a resultant increase in land use
and building use intensity in the Community building and
warehouse as a result of consolidation of laundry and
storage functions .
Based on currently known planning at Cornell , it is
likely that additional housing will be located in the
vicinity or in other areas peripheral to the campus . The
retention of on - site storage on the Maplewood site may
represent a precedent for other on - site storage at those
locations .
The presently proposed Warehouse has additional
capacity at present , but applicants propose that it would be
for storage needs exclusively for the Maplewood Community .
Potential future use of this building to serve off - site
storage needs should be further clarified in any overall
environmental review of Cornell planning activities .
The alternative of dem-olishing or relocating the
IRIBIT # 8 Warehouse would entail the relocation of storage of supplies
and furniture for Maplewood off - site , resulting in potential
increases in service traffic on local roads .
Impacts related to increased land use intensity ,
deviations from the originally - approved plan , and
f
1
precedent - setting are considered to be moderate in scale at
present time , but should be further identified and reviewed
in any overall environmental review , particularly with
respect to present or future simultaneous development
actions on Cornell lands in the vicinity .
19 . Is there , or is there likely to be , public controversy
related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? -
Density and form of the project , particularly with
respect to land coverage by buildings , has been of concern
by area residents . It is likely that there will be
controversy with respect to Warehouse retention on the site .
RECOMMENDATION
A negative determination of environmental significance
is recommended for this action . Impacts related to the
change in the recreational program of the site are
considered to be moderate , and substantially mitigated by
the provision of the volleyball court and pavilion . Traffic
impacts related to on - site storage of furniture and supplies
exclusively for the Maplewood community are not expected to
deviate from the original plan . Aesthetic impacts of
retention of the Warehouse would be partly mitigated through
the provision of additional landscaping at the southwest
corner of the Warehouse .
f Mitigation of impacts related to the potential use of
the Warehouse for storage and repair of furniture for
off - site locations should be further addressed in an overall
environmental review of Cornell expansion into southeast
Ithaca .
In the further review of simultaneous development
actions by Cornell , the potential impact to pedestrian
safety from increased traffic volumes on Maple Avenue as a
result of the proposed Park and Ride Lot and other proposed
projects in the East Hill Plaza vicinity should be further
addressed .
® EXHIBIT #18
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING '- -)
BOARD OF APPEALS, NOTICE
OF PUBLIC HEARINGS , .. -_
WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 1990, :
7:00 P. M.
By direction of the Chairman ' „
NVOINOMM of the Zoning Board of
ACA L peals, NOTICE t H . :•l,
GIVEN that Public HearingsHIE ITH "
will be held by the Zoningoning :" .
Board of Appeals of the Town'_"`
of Ithaca on Wednesday, May
23, 1990 in Town Holl , 126 East
State of New York . Tompkins County , ss . : Seneca Street (FIRST floor;
REAR . entrance, , WEST - ,side
Gall SullinsIthaca,' ' N.Y: ' COMMENCII --
belll `_ duly sworn , deposes and AT 7 :00 P. M. , on the following
matters:
ADJOURNED APPEAL (from Oc- ,: j
says , that she/ he resides in Ithaca , county and ` tate aforesaid Lind that tober 11 , 1989) of Elsa Adrian, '
appellant, requesting on area
she / he is Clerk variance from the require-
ments of Article IV, Section 14,
of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed Lind published in of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
p p Ordinance, for a newly 'con-
structed outside wood deck„
Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice , of which the annexed is a true added to on existing two-fam-
ily residence located at , 117
COPY , Was published in said paper Snyder Hill Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57- 1 -
3. 3, Residence District R- 15.
Said deck was constructed
A C without a building permit in
violation of Article XIV, Sec- 1 �
tion 75, of said ordinance, and
is located 6 feet, 5 inches from
the northwest side yard prop-
erty line, 15 feet being re-
quired.
APPEAL of the First Ithaca
and that the .First UNIcatlon of said notice was on the Chinese Christian Church Agent,pellant, Gerald Rau, Ag ,
ent
1 � - requesting a variance under
day of r ,nl o� 19 , 6 Section 9 of Town of Ithaca Lo-
cal Law No . 7- 1988, as
amended, "Requiring Sprin-
kler Systems to be Installed in
Buildings in the Town of Itho
—^� ca", for the installation of an
automatic sprinkler system in
limited occupied areas of the
Church rather than the entire
Subscribed and sworn to before me , chis , daV building space as would be
required under the standards
OI 19 � �/ J of NFPA- 13. ' Said Church is lo- '
—! c� cated at 1462 Slaterville Road, ''I
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 1
6-58-2-22. 3, Residence District
R- 15.
APPEAL of Cornell University,
Appellant, M. E. Hartz and
Notary P" 1' o W. S. Joyce, Agents, request-
permit the retention or an ing Special Approval under
existing warehouse building Article V, Section 18, Par-
JEAN FCR on the site that was originally ograph 4, and a variance from
proposed to be removed, and , the 30-foot maximum. height !
Notary Public State Cf New YOrk to permit the construction of requirement of ' Section 18,
one laundry/common build- Paragraph 16, of the Town of I
No. 455 ' i '� ing and one pavilion, where- Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for
as two new laundry/common the proposed 70-foot thermal
buildings were originally pro- storage tank project at Chilled
Qualified In Tcmp .I< I :),S Count yn , posed. The request is made Water Plant III, certain por.
(�/,j// under Article 111, Section 4, tions of which ore to be lo-
Commission expires May 31, 19 Paragraph 4, of the Town of cared both in a Residence Dis-
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Ma- trict R-30 and a Light Industrial
plewood Residential Commu- District off the Dryden Road,
unity is located between Maple on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
t ArtE466)0114 "libli:Strleet on No . 6-63- 1 -8. 2. A ; variance
Town of Ithaca Tox Pbrcels'No. from the requirements of Arti
• 6-63-2- 1 , -2, -3, - 14, and - 10. 2. cle VIII , Section 44, Paragraph
Residence District R-9. 4, and Section 45, Paragraph
Said Zoning Board of Appeals 5, of said Ordinance, is also
will at said time, 7 :00 p. m . , requested for those portions of
and said place, hear all per- the project in the Light Indus-
/ / ( / sons in support such matters trial District.
or objections thereto. Persons APPEAL of .Cornell University,
I may appear by agent or in Appellant, Albert L. Wright,
I
person. Architectural Services, Agent,
Andrew S. Frost requesting modification 'of the
Building Inspector/- Special Approval granted for
Zoning Enforcement Officer Maplewood Residential Com-
Town of Ithaca munity by the Zoning Board of
I , . _ , .. 1 .. 273- 1747 Appeals on April 19, 1989, to