Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1990-07-11 FILED 70WN of ITHACA Oeia TOWN OF ITHACA CIO* ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 11 , 1990 THE FOLLOWING ARE THE APPEALS THAT -WERE HEARD ON JULY 11 , 1990 BY THE BOARD . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM MAY 23 AND JUNE 13 , 1990 ) 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 4 , PARAGRAPH 4 , 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 , - 21 - 3 , - 14 , AND - 10 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 . ADJOURNED 9 MONTHS/GRANTED APPEAL OF STEVEN J . AND LINDA R . SCHWAGER , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE EXTENSION OF A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING/ LOT LOCATED AT 110 HOMESTEAD CIRCLE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 59 -2 -20 . 7 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE EXTENSION PROPOSED IS THE ADDITION OF LIVING SPACE TO THE EAST SIDE OF AN EXISTING SINGLE -FAMILY HOME . THE SUBJECT BUILDING/ LOT IS NON-CONFORMING IN THAT THE EXISTING NORTH SIDE BUILDING SETBACK IS 19 FEET , WHEREAS 25 FEET IS REQUIRED FOR IRREGULAR SHAPED BUILDING LOTS , AND THE NORTH SIDE REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK IS 45 FEET , WHEREAS 50 FEET IS REQUIRED . THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL BE 37 . 5 + OR - FEET FROM THE REAR LOT LINE . GRANTED 1 RUD TOWN OF ITHACA Date Town of Ithaca 1 Zoning Board of Appeals Gork July 11 , 1990 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 11 , 1990 PRESENT : Vice - chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Joan Reuning , Robert Hines , Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer Andrew Frost , Assistant Town Planner George Frantz , Town Attorney John Barney . ABSENT . Henry Aron , OTHERS PRESENT : Steve Heslop , Donald C . Ball , William Paleen , Albert Wright , John C . Gutenberger , Shirley Egan , Linda Schwager . Vice - chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 15 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 . Vice - chairman Austen announced that the third Appeal on the • Agenda for this evening , which was the Appeal of Steven L . Heslop for a variance for the construction of a single - family home on a proposed building lot fronting on Woolf Lane , is being cancelled because it did not get through the Planning Board on July 10th . The first Appeal on the Agenda was the following : ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM MAY 23 AND JUNE 13 , 1990 ) 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 4 , PARAGRAPH 4 , 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 . 21 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 , Mr . William Paleen , Director of Residence Life for Cornell ® University , addressed the Board . He stated that the project is on a site that had formerly been used for family housing and with that site there were two existing buildings that remained . One was shown on the original site plan that was approved as being Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 retained . He had a series ' of photos that he presented to the Board of the site . Mr . King stated to Mr . Paleen , for the record , that these two buildings that he is referring to are two large , formerly for storage , buildings and they are both in the north central part of the project , adjacent to each other . He asked Mr . Paleen if the first one ( the one most northerly ) and which is being retained for a community center could be referred to as Building # 1 and the second one ( the quonset hut ) being southerly from that , which is the building that Cornell is asking be retained , be referred to as Building # 2 . Mr . Paleen referred to the photos and stated that what has changed from the initial plan are a couple of things that he thinks are important to convey . First , the University did not know at the outset just how effectively Building # 1 could be retro - fitted and utilized in support of this community of graduate students and graduate families . The building now , in completed form , has proved itself to be an excellent building for the purpose of supporting the community in terms of recreational and community building activities , as well as providing a location for one of the two laundries that they determined were needed given the size and the configuration of the project . Mr . Paleen further explained that the other thing that prompts the change and therefore their request for this appeal , is the fact that they became aware ( and he wanted to stress that both buildings had been under the jurisdiction of another department in the University ) , that Building # 2 was indeed a building of excellent quality , in excellent condition and providing for a number of purposes for the department of Residence Life that it could serve in excellent fashion ; primarily in support of the Maplewood Park Community but also to a lesser degree in support of a need of the residence system of the University , again under the Department of Residence Life responsibility . The building includes 7 , 500 square feet and it is a building that is in excellent condition , as he indicated . Mr . Paleen stated that there are several concerns that he has discerned that the Board has from previous meetings and he wished to provide some information on four items . First is the concern about how this Building # 2 will be utilized . It has been characterized and again tonight been labeled as a warehouse and he thinks that is misleading . It will • be a building that they will use primarily as a service and storage facility for the project . About two - thirds or about 5 , 000 square feet , they anticipate , will be a service place and a place to store both equipment and facilities , appliances for the Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 project itself , right on the site . Mr . Paleen thinks that it is obvious that that will preclude considerable transportation to and from the site if they are able to do that right on that location . Secondly , it will provide for storage for the residents , and he knows there has been concern expressed about the appropriateness or the need to provide storage for residents , but he would simply say that it is the University ' s experience , particularly with graduate students and particularly with a high ratio of international students , which is the case with graduate population , that storage is a very important service and amenity to provide . So those are the ways in which the building will be used . Mr . Paleen stated that the remainder of the space , about 2 , 500 square feet of the 7 , 500 total , they anticipate using in support of the Department of Residence Life , the student housing activities of the University and a very low level of activity for this storage . They have about 6 , 500 furnished student accommodations that they are responsible for . They have a continuing program of the need to refurbish furnishings for those accommodations , and this area they anticipate using as a place where they would be able to temporarily store furnishings and then to remove them to where the refurbishing , refinishing , reupholstery kinds of activities take place , which is predominantly at the sheltered workshop in Cortland - - the J . M . Murray Center . Mr . Paleen said that large vans , over the road , trucks are not going to be frequenting this , if at all , and if they come in , it will be deliveries of items in support of the project of Maplewood Park itself . He said that their department has a step -van , that is the vehicle that they expect to be most commonly in and out , using this facility . So concern for its use , he hopes is adequately explained and he . thinks it is certainly a use that is compatible as far as that community is concerned and the neighborhood is concerned . Mr . Paleen stated that the second item is the concern for recreational space and the fact that the retention of this Building 42 would diminish the availability of open space . He showed some examples of the kind of space that is part of the project as it has been , developed . He showed photos 3 , 4 , and 5 , which showed the open space areas , the courtyards and the play areas . Further , with the hope that , they will be able to retain Building # 2 , it is planned that they will create a volleyball court in another part of the site that , frankly , is much more appropriately located , much more supportive in terms of proximity to more of the residents and it is that kind of active outdoor • recreation space that the site on -which Building # 2 ' rests was anticipated . Mr . Paleen went on to say that it is no longer necessary to have two laundry - common buildings so the second of those will be a recreational pavilion ( photo # 6 ) . He further Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 pointed out that by fully developing Building # 1 as a predominantly recreational community building kind of area , that is very well used already , if they were not able to retain Building # 2 , some of the space presently devoted to recreational purposes that is indoor and therefore available much of the year , would be sacrificed because they have to have service space for this very substantial student housing development . Mr . Paleen said that those are considerations that he hopes the Board will take into account as they look at the issue of recreational space on this project . Mr . Paleen said that the third item is the question of compatibility of this kind of facility in the neighborhood . He said that the neighborhood is really of a mixed character . He presented photo # 7 , and stated that it is quite clear that on three sides of what is now the Maplewood Park development , there are uses that certainly make the neighborhood a mixed character , so having a building of the kind that Building # 2 is and certainly with the consideration on the way in which the University intends to use it , he doesn ' t think it represents a serious intrusion or an anomaly in that neighborhood . Mr . Paleen showed - the Board photo # 8 , which shows the area immediately to the south of Building # 2 . There is a well -wooded knoll that is on the south side of Building # 2 and the photo is immediately to the south of that knoll , 50 yards from the building itself . He thinks it is quite evident that it is very effectively screened and over 90 % of the living units in Maplewood Park development are at that vantage point of this building . The other side of the building is very effectively screened from Maple Avenue and again , from the entry perspective , it is certainly not a dominant part of the view into the project . Mr . Paleen said that the last concern that he has discerned from the Board is the concern for aesthetics and certainly that is a very legitimate concern and one that the University shares . But it is their intent to deal with the issue of aesthetics and they do plan to paint the building and to replace the windows and to trim the building to make it appear like the community building or Building # 1 , next to Building # 2 as shown in photo # 9 and further to ensure that there is effective use of landscaping to enhance the view of that building , photo # 10 . Therefore , in terms of aesthetics , Mr . Paleen believes terms can be addressed , can be mitigated in the ways suggested and it is the University ' s intent to work closely with the staff of the Town in detailing planting plans , for example , and ensuring what the University is • doing is supported by and appreciated by the Town Planners . • Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 Mr . Paleen , in summary , stated that this building represents a very valuable asset . It is a building of quality . It is a building that can be treated to be a complementary part of the site and certainly it is important to understand that it serves real needs of the community of Maplewood Park itself and then , in smaller measure , a very low level activity that the Department of Residence Life , . which he is responsible for , has a very substantial need to have that available and that will not create the kind of industrial or commercial sort of level of activity that a warehouse conjures up . This is not in any manner a warehouse as they anticipate its use in the future . He urged the Board to look positively on these factors as they consider the Appeal . Mr . King asked Mr . Paleen to review for him what activities go on in Building # 1 , the community building , and roughly the percentage of the floor area used for each . Mr . Paleen stated that there are approximately 5 , 000 square feet in the - building . The laundry would probably be close to 1 , 000 square feet . There is a service communications desk in • there , an office - type space , and the balance of the space is various sized rooms that are used as a television room , a large multi -purpose room that is used for aerobics , it is used as a child play area during inclement weather ; there are dance classes , recreational things of that sort continuously going on in the multi -purpose area . There are ping - pong tables in another room , community meetings for residents . Mr . King asked how this differs from what was originally laid out in the presentation . Mr . Paleen stated that as he indicated , when they presented that as part of the development to be a community facility and how well and how thoroughly they would be able to develop that space was not known . They did not have a detailed plan . In fact , the architectural plans for the retro - fitting of that building really came along later in the process and he thinks , to a degree , surprised all of them , how effectively they were able to develop all of that space . Mr . Paleen stated that the main difference is that they have this year continued to use the space in Building # 2 in support of operations and most of that was to deal with the major repair work that had to be done on the plumbing system . But the main thing that changed immediately was siting one of the laundries in Building # 1 . Mr . King asked Mr . Paleen if the present request is to eliminate a second free standing laundry building farther south which was planned for one of the green strips . • Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 Mr . Paleen said that is right . He referred to photo # 11 and stated that the pavilion is scheduled to go in the location of the orange fence in that photo . Mr . King said that there are two green strips through the project , essentially dividing it into three parts , the northerly one , which is on the south end of the north section , and the southerly one . He asked Mr . Paleen if he is planning the open pavilion in the northern green strip or the southerly . Mr . Paleen responded that it will be in the northerly green strip so that the second laundry ( which is under construction now ) , will be at the south end of the project so that proximity to laundries will be as convenient as possible to people at either end of the development . Mr . King asked Mr . Paleen if the other free - standing laundry would be in the southerly green strip . Mr . Paleen answered , yes . • Mr . King asked Mr . Paleen if the pavilion they are planning is substantially open . Mr . Paleen said that it is an open space with a roof cover and some railing around it . It will be a fair weather facility . He thinks it will be used more extensively , because in the Spring and Fall we have nice days and it will be a suitable space for a variety of outdoor activities . Mr . King stated that as Mr . Paleen has perceived the Board ' s concerns , the plan as originally presented to them called for the removal and the demolition of Building # 2 completely , leaving it as open green space and that would be immediately adjacent to Building # 1 , which is the community building , giving them a substantial lawn area . The distance between the two buildings as they stand is very small compared to what was planned for the green space . Mr . Paleen said that he thinks the picture of the completed Building # 1 shows that space . He believes it would be in the 60 - 70 foot range . There is a walk down the middle of it which he believes is an 8 - foot -wide walk and the adjacent space will be landscaped . Mr . King stated that it is occupying a 7 , 500 square foot • footprint so that means 7 , 500 square feet of lawn will not be there and that lawn area would have been immediately adjacent to this community building # 1 which is used for so many activities including children playing in it , and even though there are green • Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 strips two - thirds of the way down the project , that is not handy to the community building , so if the parents have a meeting in the community building , there is substantially no place which can take the kids outside and that is the kind of concern the Board had as well as the fact that the use is quite different from what open space would be . In response to that concern , Mr . Paleen stated that at least in part it important to understand that the family part of the project is the southerly end and he thinks that when that laundry/ common building is opened , he is sure that most of the family activity in terms of that service , at least , will be in that laundry/ common building . However , he said that he understands Mr . King ' s point and he does not contest that that would be nice to have . Really , what he is saying to the Board is that there are other factors that he thinks are very important and also very important in terms of the way in which recreation activity can be successfully provided especially during that time of the year which is most of the academic year when indoors is really the only practical way for recreation to occur . • Mr . King asked Mr . Paleen in what way are family activities confined more to the southerly part of the project . Mr . Paleen replied that that is the part of the project where the family units are located so it is a ' matter of proximity . Mr . King asked how many units there are . Mr . Paleen said there are 167 apartments , 90 of them are family units and the balance are single students . The family units are on the western side of the central parking roadway development and are on the southerly end of that side of the development ( toward Mitchell Street ) . Mr . King asked Mr . Paleen if the University had considered moving this building and would that be feasible . Mr . Paleen responded that there is no where to move it and provide the support for the Maplewood Park development . He stated that he really does not know the reality of whether that building would be movable or not . Mr . King asked if there was a possibility that the building could be cut back by one - third in the westerly end so that it did not occupy 7 , 500 square feet . • Mr . Paleen said that he thinks there are two considerations there . One , certainly the full 7 , 500 square feet can be well utilized and secondly , they would still have to have some service • Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 access to the balance of the building which he thinks to some degree would frustrate the intent of creating a lawn area because there would have to be a service drive to successfully use it for the purposes that it needs to be used . Mr . King stated that if they cut the building , they could put the service drive at the southerly end and thereby leave as much space as possible between that drive and Building # 1 to the north . They would not have _ to locate it exactly in the center . Mr . Paleen stated that the southerly side of Building # 2 abuts this rather sharp nose of land and he thinks they would have to do a good deal of excavation and probably create some retaining walls . He said that he has not really looked at that space with that idea in mind but his recall is that there would be a severe cut - into that bank in order to achieve that kind of thing . He said that he thinks the access would have to be from the west and he believes that the land form comes much closer to the building at the western end . Mr . Frost stated that it does get pretty steep over there . Mr . Paleen stated that the point that he wants to re - emphasize is that the full 7 , 500 square feet that is there really will . be well used so any diminishment of that would mean that they would forfeit part of what they . . . . . Mr . King stated that the University ' s original plan was to . relinquish 7 , 500 square feet . Mr . Paleen said , yes , and he does not know how else to say it except that they really did not perceive how the Building was going to be able to be developed and secondly because they really were not involved in using that building , did not fully appreciate just how good a facility it was and had no vision , therefore , of how well they could utilize . it . He said that he understands the Board ' s concern with the University not being able to anticipate that but this is a project that has a lot of dimensions to it and all he can do Js say that they simply have now clearly understood what is a very valuable asset and he thinks an asset that can be effectively used in a compatible way and that is their appeal . Vice - chairman Austen asked Mr . Paleen if it is correct that the southerly laundry ( toward Mitchell Street ) has no community room . • Mr . Paleen stated that there is laundry space and then there is available so that people as they are doing their laundry have the opportunity . . . . . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 Mr . Frost interjected , with the building permit that is issued right now , there has been ongoing dialogue over specifically this issue in terms of the way the building code would apply to it . He said that he personally needs to know if the space is going to be solely for the use of users of the laundry or if that space is going to be opened up to the community in general , even though they may not be doing laundry there . Mr . Frost stated that this is an issue that is ultimately going to hold up his approving that building permit . Mr . Paleen responded that that is an issue to be resolved . Mr . Frost stated that he thinks it is somewhat germane to what the Board members have been asking because he thinks they are trying to get a sense as to areas other than the main community building that are available for recreational or social use . Mr . Paleen stated that Building # 1 is the building that they anticipate to be the focus for community activity on site and the laundry/ common building has space in it which will have vending machines and small seating area so that people can be there with their children . He emphasized that the laundry/ common is at the southernmost open green space so it is really in about the center of the family housing section which is to the west of that central drive . Vice - chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Vice - chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Attorney Shirley Egan , University Counsel , stated that she thinks the presentation at the April 23rd meeting and Mr . Paleen ' s recapping of the project tonight , gives ample basis for determining that the elements of a Special Approval have been met . She stated that retention of # 2 Building and its rehabilitation clearly do not pose any threat to the health , safety , or welfare of anyone . The building is a valuable one and it is in much better condition than was originally supposed . In fact it is valued at some $ 300 , 000 . Attorney Egan went on to explain that even if it were readily visible from outside the project , it is , as some of the photographs show , no more inconsistent than a number of other buildings in the area which themselves have been enjoying adaptive re -use . It has elicited no adverse comments that have come to the University ' s ears outside of a forum like this4and in three public hearings , there has been no one who spoke in opposition to it . • Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 Attorney Egan stated that she can think of no reason why the continued use of such a building , particularly improved significantly visually , in a Town which does not have an aesthetics ordinance , would devaluate the property of anyone in the area and it is virtually unseen by anyone who does not benefit from it . Those who would benefit most directly from it , again we have heard nothing from them . She thinks that with its proposed lower level of use and traffic , it would certainly not inconvenience anyone . The access and egress are safe and surely an increase from 20 percent to 21 percent coverage of an area in a zone which permits 25 percent coverage , would not be considered detrimental to the health , safety or welfare . Attorney Egan stated that its retention , in fact , would permit increased indoor recreation . It would mean that they would not have to cut back the recreation area in Building # 1 by roughly a third which they have to have because there are certain on - site storage that would just have to go in there after all . The University has been gratified to see the use of the building by the residents and they think that the general welfare of the broader community is in fact also promoted by not taking • down a valuable building and carting she does not know how many cubic yards to a sanitary landfill . She went on to say that to the extent that Part II and III of the revised or the June 13th EAF , point to any different conclusions on this - - the University does take exception to it , for the record . Attorney Egan said that these statements may be considered to be subjective and she is prepared to admit that she might be biased so , to test herself , she cast about for more objective standards , one that the Board would be familiar with . She said that she knows , as does the Board , that this is a Special Approval but for the moment let us compare this project and this proposal to keep a non - conforming ' use to the standards that the Town would have applied to a private developer who had come forward and developed this project . The zone was R- 9 , presumably because they were two - family dwelling units formerly on the site . The zone would have limited the developer to covering 25 % of the lot area , this proposal even with the retention of the 7 , 500 square foot building , is for 21 % - 20 % without the building . In such an R- 9 zone no building could have been higher than 30 feet with accessory buildings limited to 15 feet , this building happens to split the difference and at its highest point is about 22 feet , in other areas of it , it is actually lower because of the lay of the land . Attorney Egan went on to say that the Board would say to her , but this hypothetical developer would not be in an R- 9 zone , this developer would have had to get a zone change to build a project like this one that has units that have two and three and • Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 four and five and six apartments in it . But her little analogy is still parallel - - Cornell had to get a Special Approval , specifically approving multi unit apartment buildings , so she thinks her analogy holds . In the MR zone that her hypothetical would have been in , that private developer could have covered 30 % of the lot area and no structure could have exceeded 2 stories . The only recreation requirement in a MR zone would be the only zone that did specifically have a recreation requirement , was that it be provided in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of the residents in that remaining 70 % of open space . She stated that surely no one would suggest to that developer using the Town ' s standards , that having 80 % or 79 % of open space , instead of only 70 % , with the volleyball court and the tot lot and the picnic pavilion and lawns and courtyards and walks and in addition , on top of that , having 3 , 500 square feet of indoor space for recreation or aerobic classes or dances or whatever , is too little open space and too little recreation space . Attorney Egan stated that she hopes this little analogy drawn to the Town ' s own objective standards for a similar situation is as revealing to the Board as it was to her when she • looked at the overall question of what we are really talking about in terms of open space . There was a discussion on the project when it was known as Vetsburg . Attorney Egan stated that in her analogy the hypothetical ' developer who got the approval to build a p ro7ect like the one Cornell built , had to get a zone change to a MR . Mr . King stated that we expect a lot more than that from Cornell . The general community spirit , as you remember the first hearing , was very opposed to this intensive use of 167 apartments . Attorney Egan asked if then it is alright for people who rent apartments from somebody else for them to have 70 % open space . She said that obviously an analogy like this to a Special Approval situation may not hold up in all instances but she frankly found it very revealing to see what the Town ' s own standards were for a multiple residence project which functionally she saw as virtually identical . Town Barney interjected that the last several multiple residence conversions have had additional conditions imposed in addition to the Zoning Ordinance . • Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 Attorney Egan stated to Town Attorney Barney that he is not denying that it is written in the Town ' s Ordinance that 70 % percent open is the rule . Town Attorney Barney responded , if you have a multiple residence but these came in as dormitories . That is the only reason for the Special Approval . He said if Cornell wants to go to that , fine , we had better start the whole process over again under a multiple occupancy . Attorney Egan said , of course not . She stated that an analogy is not going to be perfect in any case but she was looking for some objective benchmark written down in what the Town had and she found that very revealing , so . she put that before the Board on the record . There was further discussion regarding the Vetsburg project as it was . Town Attorney Barney asked Attorney Egan what the basis is for the value of $ 300 , 000 for the quonset but building ( # 2 ) . • Attorney Egan stated that basically it is $ 40' . 00 a square foot . Town Attorney Barney asked if the property has been assessed for tax purposes . Attorney Egan stated she would assume so . Assessed but not taxed , but she has no idea of what the assessment is . Mr . Hines asked what it would cost to build this particular building . Mr . Frost stated that for this particular building , he does not know . For residential construction now , it is up to anywhere between $ 60 and $ 90 per square footage . That is finished residential construction . He stated that , not that he wants to persuade the Board in either direction , the only thing he can say , particularly when the community building was constructed and they started opening up several things , that both of these buildings as they were originally constructed were very well made . Town Attorney asked Mr . Paleen if what he said earlier was that of the 7 , 500 square feet , 5 , 000 square feet is committed to • the Maplewood project . He asked Mr . Paleen to what purpose is that committed to Maplewood . • Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 Mr . Paleen responded that there are two components to that . One is service and storage of equipment , replacements , parts , appliances , things of that kind . Within the 5 , 000 , he would say that is probably 3 , 500 and 1 , 500 square feet for storage for residents use . He said that he thinks the word " warehouse " implies that there is delivery and removal of goods on an ongoing basis and that simply is not the way in which this will function . It is really a storage and service building . It was a warehouse for the Campus Store but that is not the way in which they will use it . Town Attorney Barney stated that he assumes they will taking these items they are servicing in and out of there . He asked if there is actually someone working in there to service them . Mr . Paleen stated that the delivery of the items to the units would be periodic , maybe annually or less , depending on what it is we are talking about . The removal of items is for individual repairs , individual operations that need to take place within the 161 apartments and that is an ongoing process . Town Attorney Barney stated that his question is , physically , what is going to happen is that there will be water tanks or water heaters of whatever and they will be delivered en masse and then taken out piece by piece as needed . Mr . Paleen responded , yes . Town Attorney Barney said that Mr . Paleen said something about servicing and repairs and he asked if that is the other 2 , 500 square feet . Mr . Paleen said , no . This would be an area that would be used by the mechanics who work in the area as a place where they would get their tools , get their parts that they need for whatever it is in front of them . Town Attorney Barney asked if they are going to be repairing water heaters there , for instance . Attorney Egan stated it will not be a repair shop . Mr . Paleen stated that it is really a staging area for a suitable stock level of items so that they are able to respond to the needs of the residents as those needs present themselves . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Paleen where the staging area is now . • Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 Mr . Paleen responded that it is in Building # 2 at this point and it really was used that way much more in terms of this major replacement of the copper tubing , for example . The people who were doing that were working out of that building . Town Attorney Barney said that the 2 , 500 square feet , that space or so that is being used for non -Maplewood residents facilities , where was that staging area before or where were those items kept before ? Mr . Paleen replied that the University presently rents a variety of storage facilities and none of them are adequate , in a variety of locations . One on West Hill , for example . At this point the University does not have a good solution for that and what they are doing is spending about $ 12 - $ 151000 a year to rent a variety of storage spaces for the purpose and all of them are much less adequate than this space . He said they have , for example , former chicken coops over in that West Hill location and it is poor space for the purpose . Mr . Hines asked Mr . Paleen what they do up in the student housing at Pleasant Grove . He asked Mr . Paleen if the University has a similar storage facility there . Mr . Paleen stated that the Hasbrouck/ Pleasant Grove projects function jointly . There is a building in the Hasbrouck development that is dedicated to these very kinds of purposes . He thinks it is important to understand that the family housing in Hasbrouck and Pleasant Grove is unfurnished housing . This need for one - third of this building relates to the furnished facilities that they provide which is really of the 7 , 000 + spaces probably over 6 , 500 of them are fully furnished units as are all the units in Maplewood Park - and that is the source of the need because they have this continual need to repair , refurbish , refurnish and reupholster furnishings . Mr . Frost stated that from a Building Code standpoint , a storage building used for housing furniture would be considered a furniture warehouse but the building in general would be classified as what is called a C - 4 , which is a storage building . Mr . Paleen stated that the important issue is the level of activity . Town Attorney Barney stated that he thinks it is a concern that the Planning Board has , in that initially the understanding was that there would be activity just within Maplewood Park and then we are talking about 2 , 500 square feet activity that is going to be related to the balance of the campus . Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 Mr . Paleen again said , but at a very low level . He said that he would project that we are talking about less than a trip a week for that purpose . Town Attorney Barney stated that Mr . Paleen said that there are 6 , 500 units that have to have furniture refurbished on the campus and this is now going to be the location where the University is going to be doing their storage for refurbishing those units . He said that he would assume that they will be in and out of there fairly regularly . Mr . Paleen said . that the ratio that is done in any given year is really very small . He thinks the life expectancy on most of their furniture is in excess of 10 years . Mr . King asked Mr . Paleen how much work they would have to do to the interior of this Building # 2 in order to use it in the way they are asking the Board to grant permission for . Mr . Paleen responded , virtually none . Mr . Frantz , for a point of information , referred to the aerial photo ' and stated that Mr . Paleen mentioned the fact that as far as industrial uses the Maplewood complex is surrounded on three sides by existing industrial uses . That situation is changing . In the Northwest corner of the project the lot between Fairview Heights Apartments and Maplewood ( the former Coal Yard ) , has been given site plan approval for a new residential apartment complex . ( That is in the City ) . So that site is being converted to residential use . He went on to say at the old Kopper ' s site , which is west of it on the southern end , the Town has had contact with both the real estate agents and the owner of that site and they are interested in developing it for residential use also . Mr . Frantz stated that another part of his concern from an open space perspective , is that the loss is significant . If you look at the site plan , there are four small open court site areas which are relatively level . These range in size from 4 , 000 to 5 , 000 square feet . where the warehouse sits there is approximately 9 , 500 and 10 , 000 square feet in one contiguous area , so altogether , loss of this is really a loss of about a third of the relatively flat area , what he considers to be usable for recreational type activities such as frisbee or ball playing . Town of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 Mr . Frantz said that another thing is if you look at the location of " these " and the location of " this " , with this being retained as open space , the people have to walk approximately 300 to 400 feet from any location in the project to reach one of five courtyard type areas . Loss of this eliminates that amenity for the lower 15 or 20 percent of the units . He said that he thinks distance is an important factor in terms of convenience . Attorney Egan stated that there is certainly a whole campus with plenty of gyms and weight rooms and basketball and baseball diamonds , etc . which the students use without cost . She does not think the students lack opportunities for recreation . Mr . King stated that amenities where you live are certainly as valuable or even more valuable than having the gyms and so on . Mr . Paleen explained that those broad green areas that are illustrated in some of the photos that were presented to the Board , are either immediately adjacent to the majority of the housing units or they are one bay removed . He said that if you look at the site plans , the adjacency is really very excellent in • relationship to those spaces . The ten percent of the units that are immediately west of buildings 1 and 2 , do have to come into the site some distance , but 'he certainly does not think it is prohibitive in anyway in terms of the residents utilizing that space . Further discussion followed on the green areas and courtyards . Mr . Hines asked Mr . Paleen the reason for the laundry being put in Building # 1 . Mr . Paleen stated that they were not able to build the laundry/ common buildings because of the delays due to weather , primarily , and they needed to deliver that service on the site as quickly as they could and in retrospect , frankly , having that laundry in the community building served some real positive ends but it was done as a matter of necessity . Mr . Wright stated that he thinks it is important to remember that when they came before this Board originally for the site plan review and approval , what has become the community building , they had anticipated remodeling only half of that building as a community facility because that was all they felt they were going to be able to afford and it would not have had a laundry in it . The entire building has now been renovated and turned over to the community with a laundry in it . He said that out of that half , they would have taken the office that is necessary to manage this facility plus the storage capacity for the students and so • Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 forth , and the other half was going to be left vacant until funds could be identified for it to be remodeled , but the proposal that the University had before the Planning Board and this Board , two years ago now , was for only half of Building # 1 to be renovated . Mr . King asked if it is correct that the question before the Board is that the second laundry/ common building need not be built but instead they would build an open pavilion there . And the second thing is whether the University may retain and use Building # 2 and the third question is for a volleyball area in the northeast part of the southerly part of the project . Attorney Egan responded , yes . Town Attorney Barney said that the volleyball question was not in the original site plan . However , it appears that the Planning Board has no problems with it . Mr . Paleen said that the Planning Board did support it . Vice - chairman Austen read from the adopted resolution of the Planning Board on May 1 , 1990 , pages 3 and 4 . The resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . Vice - chairman Austen read from the adopted SEQR findings of . the Planning Board , of May 1 , 1990 , attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 . Mrs . Reuning stated that her biggest concern is that Building # 2 would be more of a Cornell building rather than a Maplewood Residential Community Building . Mr . King agreed with her and stated that he also wonders how the residents would vote for this if they knew that the original plan was to supply green space for them in the location of Building # 2 . He said that he can understand Cornell ' s concern about a valuable building but he cannot help but conclude that they must have known how valuable the building was . Mr . King wondered if since it would not take any interior work at all to let the University continue to use the quonset but until sometime into the late Fall or early Spring and the Board could hold a public hearing at which time there would be students and residents and area people who might show up for the hearing . Mr . King asked Town Attorney Barney what he thinks on the SEQR point of the Planning Board that they said no determination • of environmental significance , either positive or negative , is being made with respect to the proposal . Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 Town Attorney Barney responded that the Planning Board was concerned about aesthetics , traffic and open space with respect to that building and they felt , generally , that there was significant impact on the environment . If they made a positive declaration , in effect , it would preclude them from doing anything further but if they made no determination at all but proceeded to make their recommendation against the removal of that building ( and during the course of discussion it became clear that was what the consensus of the Planning Board was ) . As he reads SEQR requirements , you don ' t have to make a finding . SEQR only applies if you were going to approve or fund an activity . So rather than put Cornell through the process of having them come up with an environmental impact statement , only to have the whole thing voted down , which is a waste of time , the feeling of the Planning Board was just not make an environmental determination at all because they . were going to recommend against the approval . Mr . King asked Town Attorney Barney what he thinks of this Board requiring a referendum among the residents in the Fall . • Town Attorney Barney responded that he thinks the Board could probably consider adjourning the hearing and then re - advertise it in the Fall . Mr . King asked how the University would feel about . presenting this question to the residents and having them vote on it by returning the questionnaire to the Building Commissioner sometime in the Fall . Attorney Egan pointed out that the first of these hearings was held in April and graduate students are here year round . She said that at other public hearings that have been held at various times of the year , the graduate student organization has represented itself very ably . Town Attorney Barney stated that he has been present at every hearing on this matter and he does not recall students appearing on this matter , although they did appear at the hearings regarding undergraduate students being housed at this project . Town Attorney Barney asked Attorney Egan if it would be a problem for the University giving these students a voice in this matter . Attorney Egan responded that they have had an opportunity . Town Attorney Barney asked Attorney Egan if they have sent notices to the residents or to the graduate representatives that this matter would be coming up . Town of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 Discussion followed on whether or not there is a need to ask the students their opinion on this . Mr . Hines stated that it is the Board ' s function to act in a public capacity to evaluate this project and solicit input through publicity and he doesn ' t want to delegate responsibility to students to vote on what he should be doing . He said that he would oppose a referendum because he thinks it would be difficult to implement in a meaningful way and it would really sap some of the authority of this Board . Further discussion followed on the matter of a referendum . Mr . Hines asked what the building is being used for right now . Mr . Paleen responded that at this point it is being used not at all because the major work is done . Mrs . Reuning stated that she thinks the Board ' s concern is broader than necessarily limiting it to the students and the families there but a broader feeling of the whole environment in the neighborhood as well . She said that the Board needs to know if this building is going to affect the neighborhood around there as far as the impact and so forth . Mr . Frost asked if the University is storing residents ' items or furniture elsewhere at the current time . Mr . Paleen stated that there is limited storage in the living units themselves which is being used and if students have needs beyond that , they go to commercial facilities . He said that the University has not been in the position to offer them this type of service . Vice - chairman Austen asked if this space would be rented to the students . Mr . Paleen said no , it is provided without charge and that is a standard University policy . Mr . King asked the other Board members how they feel about the idea of permitting this use temporarily and deferring a final decision for 9 months or so . Mr . Hines stated that , to be honest , it is not the most attractive building in the world and he is not sure that the comments are not correct that it is essentially an outside use • that the University intends to make it . He said that it is a lot easier to wait than to tear it down and decide later that maybe it didn ' t need to be torn down . He does not know what more information is going to come to his attention in the next 9 Town of Ithaca 20 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 months but he thinks it would probably be safer to wait a while than to tear it down and then find a use for it later . The equities weigh in favor of Cornell in terms of just waiting a while . Mr . King suggested that the Board could schedule a hearing 9 months , from now , with the requirement that notice be given to residents in this project . In the meantime , Cornell would have the use of the building and could possibly investigate ways to move the building . There are lands to the north in a more industrial area which are not that far from this project . Mr . King stated that the sense of the Planning Board and his own feeling and other members here is to say no , take it down and that would be a costly decision . Mrs . Reuning stated that she agrees with Mr . King . Vice - chairman Austen asked Mr . Paleen if this building is left standing , would they have the University clean it up any for the 9 months . Town Attorney Barney stated that he thinks the Board is treading on ground here that is legally untilled . He thinks that if the Board is going to do this , it should be positive to the University that it be done with their consent , and he doesn ' t think any conditions should be imposed upon them until the final decision is made one way or the other . Town Attorney Barney stated that he thinks the choice of this Board is really ( a ) take action tonight or within a reasonable period of time because they have an application before them and they have to respond to that or ( b ) adjourn the matter , but with the consent of the applicant , for a defined period of time , and in the interim if the Board wanted to instruct the Building Inspector not to enforce or limit the use of the building as long as the use is as presented here and not to bring any action , he is quite sure the Building Inspector has other things to do with his time . Attorney Egan asked the Board if they absolutely had to vote tonight on the proposal before them , who would vote against it . Vice - chairman Austen responded that he thinks the consensus is that it would be voted down . Attorney Egan asked the Board if they had to vote tonight and the motion before them were to say that the University would be permitted a 5 , 000 square foot building cut back on the west side so there was an open yard area in front of Building # 11s entrance and a drive as feasibly as it could be to reach the Town of Ithaca 21 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 remaining eastern 5 , 000 square feet of the building so as not to intrude on there as much as possible and of course , by doing that you would eliminate the . one - third on the building that would have served anything outside of the Maplewood community ; the remaining two - thirds always would have been used strictly for Maplewood , how many Board members would vote for that . Mr . King stated that he would have to look at it again and see how much yard that would make , etc . Mr . Hines stated that he thinks hacking up the building makes a bad decision . Attorney Egan asked if the proposal were that it remain for the same size but the use were limited to the Maplewood community rather than doing any use which would serve any other portion of the Residence Life , would the Board still vote against it . Vice - chairman Austen responded that , speaking for himself , he thinks the Board is still looking for some green area there . Town Attorney Barney stated to Attorney Egan that he gets the sense that the Board is probably willing to wait to make a decision and in the interim to give the University , practically speaking , permission to use the Building as they . have requested for a period of time and then make a decision at a later point in time . He said that the University may find if they use that building in that way and get the students there that are interested enough to pay attention to what is going on and they come before the Board and say that given their druthers , they would rather have the extra storage space than the 7 , 500 feet of green space there . At that point , this Board ' s decision might be to leave the building there but he thinks the Board is acting a little bit in a vacuum here and that is probably our own fault . We probably should have sent notices to all the residents to come to the meeting . Attorney Egan stated that if there were an adjournment of a few months or even 9 months , it kind of buys them the worst of everything . They would start utilizing the building and don ' t feel justified in doing landscaping , replacing the windows , painting it and so on and it would still be an ugly building , and not shown to its best advantage . Would the Board consider a much longer period of time ; for instance , 3 years . Further discussion followed regarding the time period that might be allowed . Town of Ithaca 22 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 Mr . Wright stated that he is very sympathetic to Mr . Hines point of not letting the students be too persuasive because not only have there been three public hearings before this Board , there were two public hearings before the Planning Board . There has not been a single person speak in opposition to this from the broader community . It seems to him that there has been an incredible opportunity for the public to come forward and speak up about this issue and they have not done it . Mr . Reuning stated that tonight was the first time that it came to her mind that it is not just a Maplewood thing and she is thinking what if the residents knew that this was a Cornell building . Attorney Egan emphasized that one - third of the square footage that they have proposed would be in support of other than Maplewood . Attorney Egan asked the Board to permit the Cornell people to caucus for a few moments and the Board agreed . At this point the Cornell people left the meeting . Vice - chairman Austen called for the second Appeal on the Agenda . It was as follows : APPEAL OF STEVEN J . AND LINDA R . . SCHWAGER , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE EXTENSION OF A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING/ LOT LOCATED AT 110 HOMESTEAD CIRCLE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 59 - 2 - 20 . 7 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE EXTENSION PROPOSED IS THE ADDITION OF LIVING SPACE TO THE EAST SIDE OF AN EXISTING SINGLE -FAMILY HOME . THE SUBJECT BUILDING/ LOT IS NON-CONFORMING IN THAT THE EXISTING NORTH SIDE BUILDING SETBACK IS 19 FEET , WHEREAS 25 FEET IS REQUIRED FOR IRREGULAR SHAPED BUILDING LOTS , AND THE NORTH SIDE REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK IS 45 FEET , WHEREAS 50 FEET IS REQUIRED . THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL BE 37 . 5 + OR - FEET FROM THE REAR LOT LINE . Mrs . Linda Schwager appeared before the Board and explained the proposal to the Board . The addition would be a 14 ' x 16 ' room that would be to the back of their home and used as a family area and den . Mrs . Schwager stated that Cornell owns the lot that faces on • their backyard . That lot is not in use and has not been in use since this area was developed so she does not think they would be impinging on anyone ' s privacyor affecting anyone ' s view in any way if they were allowed to put on this addition . a • Town of Ithaca 23 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 Mr . Frost referred to the elevation drawings of the house and explained . Vice - chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Vice - chairman Austen closed the public hearing . After further discussion , Town Attorney Barney stated that if this were on a regular shaped lot , this addition could be built without any variance and he added that there is discussion in the Codes and Ordinances Committee to repeal this section which requires the additional setbacks where there are irregular lots . MOTION By Mrs -. Joan Reuning ,, seconded by Mr . Robert Hines : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals approves the addition as proposed by Mr . and Mrs . Schwager , with the following findings and condition . 10 it is in conformance with Section 77 . 7 , items a - f ; 2e no one appeared in opposition to the proposal and there were two letters received approving this addition ; 3 * the highest impact of this addition would impact Cornell ' s vacant lot to the rear of the house ; 4 * the addition would aesthetically improve the house and the environment in the neighborhood ; 5 * the location of the addition would be well within the normal setback requirements if this were a regular sized lot , 6 * that construction be substantially in accordance with the plans as submitted to the Board . The voting on the Motion was as follows . Ayes - Reuning , Hines , King , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Town of Ithaca 24 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 The Cornell matter was reconvened at 9 : 25 p . m . Attorney Egan stated that the Board has tempted the University beyond their powers to resist but she would like it on the record that they are not waiving anything important or anything like that . Town Attorney Barney stated that all the University is waiving is their right to have a speedy decision . MOTION By Mrs . Joan Reuning ; seconded by Mr . Robert Hines : RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn the matter of the Special Approval in regard to the. Quonset Hut at the Maplewood Community , subject to rescheduling approximately 9 months from tonight , with the acknowledged consent of the Applicant , and during this period of time that the Applicant not be prohibited from occupying the building in the manner which they have suggested they want to occupy it in their application , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that it is understood that if the ultimate decision of this Board is not to grant the Special Approval , the occupancy will cease subject to whatever rights the Applicant may have to challenge that decision of this Board . The voting on the motion was as follows : Ayes - Reuning , King , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Mr . Hines stated that if the Board is requiring a particular type of input or solicitation of the same , that Mr . Frost so ' advise the University what it should be in an appropriate time so that 9 months from now , when the matter is before the Board again , people will be present for input and information . MOTION By Mr . Edward King ; seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : • RESOLVED , that this Board adopt a SEQR resolution , making a negative determination of environmental significance as to the remaining two aspects of the project , namely the ® Town of Ithaca 25 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 construction of a volleyball court to the east of the southeast parking lot area and for the construction of an open pavilion in the northerly green strip , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that for any future development activities on Cornell lands in southeast Ithaca , this particular. determination shall not preclude either this Board or the Planning Board from considering whether the possible impacts of these projects when taken together with the possible environmental impacts of such future projects would create cumulatively significant envirnmental impacts which might require ( 1 ) additional environmental review , ( 2 ) possible preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement , and/ or ( 3 ) mitigation of any impacts that may then be identified . The voting on the motion was as follows . Ayes - King , Austen , Hines , Reuning . Nays - None . • The motion was carried unanimously . MOTION By Mr . Edward King . Seconded by Mr . Robert Hines : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grants the Special Approval that is necessary for the construction of a volleyball court and the open pavilion as proposed by the Applicant , the construction to be substantially in conformity with the plans submitted , with the following findings and conditions . 10 that there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location as demonstrated by the applicants ; 2e that these two features would not adversely affect the project or the neighborhood ; 30 that the proposal is in conformance with Section 77 . 7 , subdivisions a - f . 4 * that plant material be supplied to screen the existing fencing at the southern entrance of the East Ithaca Recreation Way , such plantings to be subject to the approval of the Town Planner ; 5a that such plantings and construction be completed by September 1 , 1991 . ® Town of Ithaca 26 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11 , 1990 The voting on the motion was as follows : Ayes - King , Reuning , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9 : 36 p . m . Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary APPROVED : • Edward Austen , Vice-chair • Maplewood Residential Community , Cornell University - 3 - Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals in re Special Approval granted April 19 , 1989 Planning Board , May 1 , 1990 laundry / lounge buildings ( one laundry facility having been located in the existing Community Building ) , and , to permit the construction of one volleyball court in the eastern part of the site . 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 , 2 . This is the modification of a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review .- - The Town of Ithaca Planning Board and the Tompkins County Planning Department are involved agencies in coordinated review . 3 . Cornell University has indicated that the warehouse building is to be used not only for the Maplewood Residential Community but also for other facilities on the Cornell Campus . 4 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 1 , 1990 , has reviewed the application materials , including environmental assessment forms , for this action . 5 . The Town Planner initially recommended . a negative determination of environmental significance for this action based upon the initial understanding that the quonset but was intended solely for use by only the Maplewood Community . 6 . The proposed extended use of the warehouse in what is essentially a residential use is incompatible with residential use . 7 . The original approval of this project assumed the open space obtained by demolition of the . quonset but would be available to the residents of the Community . 8 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 1 , 1990 , has reviewed the application materials for this action , and has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance for portions of the proposed action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board , in making recommendation to ' the Zoning Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the following : a . there may be a need for the proposed use in the proposed location , as demonstrated by the applicant , bo however , the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will be adversely affected as a result of this • project , as to the retention of the quonset hut , ce the specific proposedchange in land use as a result of this project may not be in accordance with a comprehensive plan • Maplewood Residential Community , Cornell University - 4 - Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals in re Special Approval granted April 19 , 1989 Planning Board , May 1 , 1990 of development of the Town , given that it mixes potentially incompatible land uses insofar as it relates to the retention of the quonset hut . 2 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the aforementioned request for Special Approval be denied , except for the construction of one laundry / lounge building and one -pavilion instead of two new laundry / lounge buildings , and to permit the construction of one volleyball court in the eastern part of the site , subject to the following condition : a . the completion of all site and building improvements excluding the volleyball court , by September 1 , 1990 , and to include further the addition of plant material to screen the c existing fencing at the southern entrance to the East Ithaca Recreation Way , such planting . to be subject to approval by the Town Planner . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Langhans , Lesser , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - Miller . CARRIED . Nan y M . euller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . May 4 , 1990 . ��h , h ; +- i �,� , , D►-1 Maplewood Residential Community , Cornell University - 2 - Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals in re Special Approval granted April 19 , 1989 Planning Board , May 1 , 1990 THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board , as an involved agency in coordinated review of this action , recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for the proposed Maplewood modifications , except for the retention of the quonset hut , as to which no determination of environmental significance is being made . 2 . That the Planning Board report and recommend and hereby does report and recommend to the Zoning -Board of Appeals that , should 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 portions of this particular project at this time shall not preclude either Board from considering whether the possible impacts of this project , when taken together with the possible environmental impacts of such future projects , create cumulatively significant environmental impacts that may require : is 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 , Langhans, Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Maplewood Residential Community , Cornell University Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals in re Special Approval granted April 19 , 1989 Planning Board , May 1 , 1990 MOTION _ by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . William Lesser : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for modification of the Special Approval granted for Maplewood Residential Community , Cornell University , by said Zoning Board of Appeals on April 19 , 1989 , to permit the retention of an • existing warehouse building on the site for storage support of the Maplewood residential uses ; to permit the construction of one laundry / lounge building and one pavilion instead of two new A ATT4 IDA V)1 r1 ` OF PUBLICA TION TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, JULY 11 , 1990 7:00 P. M. B direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Ap- AC J "URNAL peals NOTICE IS HEREBY IT-11GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town once from the re of Ithaca on Wednesday, July I Article V, Sectionuiremeni;oi 11 , 1990, in Town Hall , 126of State of New Toric , Toinpk- ins County , ss . : East Seneca Street, (FIRST I Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordi-� Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST nonce for the proposed con- : 9 Side ), Ithaca, N. Y. , COM- I struction of a single-family ! Gall Sullins MENCING AT 7:00 P. M. , on � home on a proposed building ' btln �� duly Sw'( > rtl , deposes and lot fronting ) the following matters. i g on Woolf Lanel ADJOURNED APPEAL (from with a lot width at the street says , that she/ he resides in Ithaca , County and state ahlresald and that May 23 and June 13, 1990) of line proposed to be 43.73 feet, Cornell University, Appellant, whereas 100 feet is required. ? l she/he Is Clerk k Albert L. Wright, Architectural The subject lot is proposed to-• Services, Agent, requesting be subd ivided from Town of of The Ithaca Journal a ublic newspaper rinted and Published in modification of the Special Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-23-1 - {) }� p Approval granted for Maple- 16, with portions of the lot for. woodResidential Community merly known as Tax Parcel Ithaca aforesaid . and that a notice , of which the annexed Is a true by the Zoning Board of Ap- No. 6-23- 1 -11 . 111 , Residence peals on April 19, 1989; to per- District R-30. copy . was published in said paper mit the retention of an exist- Said Zoning Board of Appeals ing warehouse building on will at said time, 7:00 P. m. , ' A the site that was originally and said place, hear .4.,- sons� I 996- proposed to be removed , and, or objectionsrthereto. Persons i to permit the construction of one laundry/common build- may appear by agent or in ing and one pavilion , where- person. two new laundry/cam- Andrew S. Frost m m m o n buildings were Building Inspector/Zoning En- originally proposed. The re- forcement Officer quest is made under Article III , Town of Ithaca Section 4, Paragraph 4, of the 273- 1747-,` and that tile Res e first publication of said notice was on the Town of Ithaca Zoning i- July 6, 1990 �� Hance . Maplewood Resi - 1 dential Community is located day of 19 �� between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-63-2- 10 -20 -3, - 14, and - 10. 2, Resi- ' dente District R-9. APPEAL of Steven J . and Linda R. Schwager, Appellants, re- '. questing authorization by the pur- Subn4� JAA ' ed and sworn to before me , this 54, day Zoning Board of Appeals, suant to Article XII , Section 54, 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Of `�/�% , ordinance, for the extension of a non-conforming building- /lot located at 110 Homestead Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- JJ � cel No. 6-59-2-20. 7, Residence District R- 15. The extension proposed is the addition of liv- Notary PUNIC . ing space to the east side of an existing single -family home. The subject building- /lot is non-conforming in that JEAN FORD the existing north side build ing setback is 19 feet, where. Notary Public, State of New `fork as 25 feet is required for irreg- ular shaped building lots, and NO. 4654410 the north side rear yard build- ing setback is 45 feet, where- Qualified in Tompkins Count as 50 feet is required. The pro- posed addition will be 37. 5 Commission expires May 31, 19 % / lus/minus feet from the rear Pot line. APPEAL of Steven L. Heslop, Appellant, requesting a vari- FM TOWN Of ITHACA Date TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk ® ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 27 , 1990 PRESENT : Vice - chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Robert Hines , Joan Reuning , Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer Andrew Frost , Town Attorney John Barney . ABSENT : Henry Aron . OTHERS PRESENT : Robert Fay , Carol Fay , Jeffrey Boronkay , Jody Boronkay , Barry Wixsom , Jim Hilker . Vice - chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 p . m . and stated that all posting , notification and publication 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 : APPEAL OF ROBERT AND CAROL FAY , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND ADDITIONAL LIVING ® SPACE , AT AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING BUILDING/ LOT LOCATED AT 318 EASTWOOD AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 60 - 1 - 35 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID BUILDING/ LOT IS NON- CONFORMING , IN PART , BECAUSE SUBJECT PARCEL IS NOT 60 FEET WIDE AT THE STREET LINE OF A TOWN , COUNTY , OR STATE HIGHWAY . Vice - chairman Austen read the Appeal into the record . Mr . Robert Fay addressed the Board and explained the proposed addition . He stated that they have a large lot at the very end of Eastwood Avenue , which dead ends at their property line . When they bought the property 20 years ago , the then owner Mr . William Coggshall had plans to develop the 3 to 4 acres behind them and to see Eastwood Avenue extended up into that property . That property of Coggshalls has not been developed and Eastwood Avenue has been extended so they are still connected to Eastwood Avenue by the same gravel driveway which they have had since the land was purchased . Vice - chairman Austen asked if anyone else uses that driveway . Mr . Fay responded , yes . The driveway is used by his family and by the neighbors ( the Finlays ) across on the side of the driveway and to the east . He explained that both the Finlays and • he have a 50 - foot right - of -way over that driveway . ® Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals June 27 , 1990 Mr . King noted that on the upper part of the map , Mr . Fay indicated two parcels " A " and he sees from the Tax Map that Mr . Fay ' s main parcel , No . 60 - 1 - 35 is the rectangular parcel on which the house is now situated . The triangular parcel is indicated to be Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 60 - 1 - 34 . 1 . He asked Mr . Fay if there is a reason why he has those in two separate tax parcels . Mr . Fay stated that they actually have three tax parcels . They have , in addition , one to the west which is , in fact , in the City of Ithaca . He stated that he believes the City of Ithaca boundary now runs along the brook on the map . Mr . King said that he has a vague recollection that the City line was shifted in that area . Mr . King asked Mr . Fay if he has any thoughts of sub - dividing his property . Mr . Fay responded , no . • In answer to Mrs . Reuning ' s question , Mr . Frost showed sketches of the proposed addition and stated that the addition will be 36 feet long by 24 feet deep . It will be one large room over a 3 - car garage . The height will be 21 feet at the peak . There will be a deck on the northside ( backside ) of the addition . Mr . Frost , for the record , stated that Mr . Fay has clarified it for him , but since there is a discrepancy of some information on the Building Permit application , he has a distance shown of 15 feet from what he would consider the back of the house to the back property line , which would be deficient in terms of what would be required . He stated that Mr . Fay has done some measuring and feels that he actually has 30 feet , which would be the minimum rear yard set back requirement for the building . Mr . Fay said that if you , in fact , look at that yard , there is just one big lawn , no fences , no divisions ; in fact , without going to the pipes and working with a transit , you would not be able to tell where it was dashed , where the 227 - foot property line is , it appears that this entire area is one backyard . He stated that his calculation was based on the plot plan and explained that the 15 feet is wrong and the 30 - foot figure is correct . Mr . Frost agreed . • Vice - chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to speak to the Board . Vice - chairman Austen closed the public hearing . ® Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals June 27 , 1990 Mrs . Reuning asked if Mrs . Coggshall still owns that land . Mr . Fay responded no , it is owned by Pamela Clermont . Mr . Frost stated that Mrs . Clermont called him and the only question she had was whether or not the addition would be encroaching upon any part of the right - of -way and other than that she has no objection to the proposed addition . Mr . King noted that the Board has an indication in the record that the southwesterly corner of Mr . Fay ' s proposed addition would be about 45 feet north of the front line of the right - of -way and that the southwesterly corner of the existing main house is also about 45 feet north of the north line of the right - of -way . He said that would mean that the nearest point of both the existing house and the addition would not be closer than 45 feet to the right - of -way . Mr . Fay said that he believes that to be approximately true . He showed the existing house more like 38 - 39 feet and the addition , something in excess of 40 to the right - of -way . Further discussion followed regarding consolidating the parcels . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines ; seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals authorizes the issuance of a Building Permit for the construction of the garage and additional living space at 318 Eastwood Avenue as submitted to the Zoning Officer , subject the following condition and upon the following findings : 16 that the occupants file a document suitable for recording , to be reviewed by Town Attorney Barney , indicating the adoption of the perimeter boundaries of the two parcels as constituting one building lot for future purposes and that the document be recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s office ; 29 that the addition is compatible with Section 77 . 7 , paragraphs a - f ; • 3o that there was correspondence from the closest neighbor approving of the proposed addition and no one appeared before the Board in opposition . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals June 27 , 1990 A vote on the motion resulted as follows . Ayes - King , Hines , Austen , Reuning . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The second Appeal on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF JEFFREY AND JODY BORONKAY , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 18 , FOR THE OPERATION OF A GROUP FAMILY DAY CARE HOME FOR UP TO 12 CHILDREN PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT3 EVERGREEN LANE , BEING A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 22 - 1 - 1 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . Mr . and Mrs . Jeffrey Boronkay appeared before the Board and Mr . Boronkay explained the project . Mr . Boronkay stated that they are having a new home built at 3 Evergreen Lane in the Poyer Subdivision . It is a two - story residential home with a walk- out basement to the backyard area . It is on one and one -half acres , mostly of a rectangular nature . The walk - out portion of the basement , which is at the end of the house , is going to have 600 square feet finished with heat and that is the designated area for the family day care which Mrs . Boronkay will be operating . Mr . Boronkay explained that it is an operation which will run from 9 : 00 a . m . to 12 noon , 3 mornings a week , Tuesday , Wednesday and Thursday , for a total of 9 hours with a maximum number of 12 children . The children will be supervised at all times by Mrs . Boronkay and an assistant and playground activities will be in the backyard , which is approximately an acre of land . Mr . Boronkay went on to explain that the 600 - square - foot portion has two separate means of egress and five windows . Mrs . Boronkay stated that there is also a 4 -head sprinkler installed for the 600 - square - foot portion of the house . Mrs . Boronkay stated that the property is all bordered with evergreens on both sides and the back side that are tall so the play area won ' t be seen from the other properties . Vice - chairman Austen read into the record a letter signed by 11 neighbors of the Boronkays , which is attached hereto as • Exhibit # 1 . Vice - chairman Austen asked Mrs . Boronkay what ages the children that would be attending her day care are . ® Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals June 27 , 1990 Mrs . Boronkay responded that they are pre - schoolers , 2 1/ 2 to 4 years old and they would only be there nine hours per week . Mrs . Boronkay stated that there would be no sign on the property advertising the day care . Vice - chairman Austen read a letter from David J . Stotz , dated 6/ 7 / 90 , attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 . Vice - chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Vice - chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Vice - chairman Austen read Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form , dated 6/ 21/ 90 and signed by George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner . That portion of the EAF is attached hereto as Exhibit # 3 . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mrs . Joan Reuning ; seconded by Mr . Robert Hines : RESOLVED , that in the matter of the request by Jeffrey and Jody Boronkay for the operation of a Group Family Day Care Home for up to 12 children proposed to be located at 3 Evergreen Lane , being a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 22 - 1 - 1 . 2 , Residence district R- 30 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance . The voting on the Environmental Assessment was as follows : Ayes - Reuning , Hines , Austen , King . Nays - None . The Motion was carried unanimously . Mr . King asked the Boronkays about the area where the children will be dropped off and picked up . Mrs . Boronkay responded that they have a turn - around and also Evergreen Lane is a cul - de - sac . • ® Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals June 27 , 1990 MOTION By Mrs . Joan Reuning ; seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant Special Approval to Jeffrey and Jody Boronkay for the operation of a Group Family Day Care Home for up to 12 children , proposed to be located at 3 Evergreen Lane , with the following findings and conditions : 16 there is a real need for this type of facility in the area of Evergreen Lane ; 29 no one appeared in opposition to the proposal and there were letters presented in favor of the Group Family Day Care Home ; 39 the proposal is in conformance with the requirements of Section 77 . 7 , paragraphs a - f ; 4 * that the home not be operated for more than 12 children and that it be operated in the basement of the home and in the play area , 5 * that the home may be operated for 3 undesignated week days for a period of 3 hours per day . The voting on the Motion was as follows : Ayes - Reuning , King , Austen , Hines . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The third Appeal on the Agenda was the following : APPEAL OF BARRY WIXSON , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE -FAMILY HOME WITH A PROPOSED NORTH SIDEYARD BUILDING SETBACK OF 17 FEET AND A SOUTH SIDEYARD BUILDING SETBACK OF 17 FEET , WHEREAS A 25 -FOOT SIDEYARD BUILDING SETBACK IS REQUIRED FOR LOTS UPON WHICH A 100 - FOOT BY 150 FOOT RECTANGLE CANNOT BE INSCRIBED . SAID HOME IS PROPOSED FOR LOCATION AT 122 PARK LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 56 - 3 - 13 . 4 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . Mr . Barry Wixson appeared before the Board . • Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Wixson what the length of the proposed house is . ® Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals June 27 , 1990 Mr . Wixson stated that the house is to be 68 feet long . He explained that there will be a garage with living space on top of the garage . Town Attorney Barney asked if the house could be oriented so that it would run the long way , front to back . Mr . Wixson explained that that would really be hard because he is using the basement for the living area . Mr . Frost stated that the lot is going up hill so if the house were not running parallel to the road , then one half of the house would be deep within the ground and from a construction standpoint that would not be practicable . Town Attorney Barney stated that the hardship here appears to be the topography . Mr . Wixson explained that he was unaware of the change in the Ordinance when he bought the land 2 years ago . ® Mr . Frost stated that the recent change is where the Town built in this rectangle requirement that if you couldn ' t inscribe the rectangle , then you had to increase your setbacks . He said the Codes and Ordinance Committee is proposing to modify that law to amend the Ordinance . Mrs . Reuning asked Mr . Wixson if there is a house to the west of his land . Mr . Wixson stated that no , it is only a lot at this time but it is going to be a building lot . Further discussion followed regarding the shape of the lot and the requirements of the Town Ordinance . Vice - chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared before the Board . Vice - chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Vice - chairman Austen read into the record a note from Mr . William Frandsen , attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 . Vice - chairman Austen asked Mr . Wixson if this house is being built for re - sale . • Mr . Wixson responded , yes . ® Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals June 27 , 1990 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 a variance to permit the construction of a single family home on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 56 - 3 - 13 . 4 , known as 122 Park Lane , and that the Board further grant a variance , if it should be deemed required , as to the size of the lot being somewhat under 15 , 000 sq . feet , with the following findings and condition : 1 . there are practical difficulties in that it would cause unnecessary hardship to require conformance to Section 14 of the Ordinance in regard to the size of this lot insofar as that requires that a rectangle 100 feet in width and 150 feet in depth be inscribed within the boundaries of the lot , 2 * no one appeared before the Board in opposition to the ® proposal and there was written indication from the owner of the substantial undeveloped land adjacent east and south approving of the proposed construction ; 3o the topography of the lot extending at a considerable elevation up to the road to the west would not permit a re - orientation of the proposed structure with the main access east and west inasmuch as that would require that a substantial part of the house be built into the side hill , that being part of the practical difficulty ; 49 that the house shall be constructed no closer than 17 feet to either the north or south side yard lot lines . The voting on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Reuning , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The meeting adjourned at 8 : 35 p . m . • ® Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals June 27 , 1990 Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary APPROVED : EXward Vice-chairman • ® To : Town of Ithaca , Zoning Board of Appeals We the undersigned acknowledge that Jody D . Boronkay and Jeffrey J . Boronkay are requesting Special Approval to operate a small nursery school from their home at 3 Evergreen Lane , Ithaca , NY 14850 . The nursery school will be operated by Jody D . Boronkay on Tuesday , Wednesday and Thursday from 9 : 00 a . m . to 12 : 00 noon and that all activities from the school will be confined to their property at 3 Evergreen Lane and will be supervised by qualified teachers at all times . We further acknowledge that the proposed nursery school at 3 Evergreen Lane will be in proximity to our property and that we believe that it will not have any adverse impact on the • neighborhood or quality of life . Name Address Phone t sq 2 3 * NX-CL neo . 7 3 7 50 6e V,4,d 7,z C( 7 9, 72 17 Z, ZJzl • �/, �' �Zd� o� u �e 73 EXHIBIT #1 6 / 7 / 90 4 Evergreen Lane Ithaca , N . Y . 14850 To whom it may concern . Mrs . Boronkay recently contacted us concerning her plans to operate a nursery school on Evergreen Lane . She indicated that the school would have approximately 18 children enrolled and would operate from 9AM till Noon , three days a week . She also indicated that all of the children would be adequately supervised at all times , and that all play areas , activities , and equipment would be located behind the house . We would like to be consulted should plans be considered to change the hours of operation , or substantially increase enrollment ; our concerns being evening or weekend operation , or an excessive number of persons given the residential character of the neighborhood . We also would object to the placement of signs on the house or on the property . Provided these conditions are met we have absolutely no objection to the operation of this nursery school . Quite the contrary ; we applaud the positive contribution such a facility will make to the Ithaca community . Very truly yours , David tot • EXHIBIT # 2 C6 Lona term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - 05 ? ® None anticipated . C7 Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? None anticipated . Do Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated . PART III Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action , the small scale of it , and the information above , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended . Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Asst . . Town Planner Review Date : June 21 , 1990 I • EXHIBIT # 3 &LA h , ' L a TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - ; NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS r it WEDNESDAY , JUNE 27 , 1990 ! : 7 : 00 P . M . By * direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals . NOTICE I HEREBY , GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board . of . Appeal .. . of . . the : Town . of Ithaca on Wednesday , June 27 , 1990 , in Town . Hall , . 126 Ear. Seneca ' Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca, N . Y . COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters . -- APPEAL- -of- -Robert- - and Carol - Fay , Appellants , requesting - authorization--by-the— Board of Appeals , pursuant to Article XII , Section 54 , . of the - Town c Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a garage ar- additional living space , at an existing non - conforming building / lc located at 318 Eastwood Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 3 ` Residence District R- 15 . Said building / lot is non - conforming , in . part because subject parcel - is not 60 feet wide at the street line of a Town County., or State highway . APPEAL of Jeffrey and Jody Boronkay , Appellants , requesting Special Approval of the Board of Appeals , . pursuant to -Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 1E o for the operation of a Group Family Day Care Home for up to 12 childre proposed to be located at 3 Evergreen Lane , being a portion of Town c Parcell No . 6 - 22 1 =1 : 2 ; Residence District R- 30 - : : APPEAL of Barr Wixson Appellant ,ppellant , requesting variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to ` permit - the construction of a sin le - famil home with a y g y proposed north sideyard building setback of 17 feet and a south sideyard building setback of 17 feet , whereas a 25 - foot sideyard building setback is 1 required for lots upon which a 100 - foot by 150 - foot rectangle cannot b� inscribed . Said home is proposed for location at 122 Park Lane , Town off, Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 56 - 3 - 13 . 4 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m : , and sai place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections theretc ' Persons may appear by agent or in person . - Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273 - 1747 _ 9 d Dated : June 19 1990 v / Publish : June 22 , 1990 a�s �� ' 1571n 7 fN TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD .OF APPEALS, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS , WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 1990, 7:00 P. M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Ap: ALr1E IT peals NOTICE IS _ HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearingst will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, June 27, 1990, in Town Hall , 126 State of New Fork , Tompkiiiis >✓ e iukty . ss . : East Seneca Street (FIRST Floor, - REAR Entrance, WEST._ Gall SWIMS Side ), Ithaca, N . Y. , COM- - being duly sworn . deposes and MENCING AT 7 ;00 . P. M. , on ., the following matters. sa s , that she/he resides in Ithaca , county and state aforesaid and that APPEAL of Robert and Carol y Fay, Appellants, requesting � D ��.i , authorization by the Board of , 1 H� she/ he is IIIPSection54,uof theant oTownc XIof a of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the proposed construction of a 11 Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice , of which the annexed k a true garage and additional living ' space, at an existing non-con- • copy , was published in said paper forming building/lot located at 318 Eastwood Avenue, ' Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 15. Said Residence District `� -c' � � � R- 15. Said building/lot is non- conforming, in part, because subject parcel is not 60 feet 1 wide at the street line of 'a Town, County, or State high- way. qW APPEAL of Jeffrey and Jody Boronkoy, Appellants, re- Gvesting Special Approval of and that the first publication of said notice was on the the Board of Appeals, put; suant to Article V, Section 18, day of Paragraph 18, for the opera- �y ;n 1 9 d tion of a Group Family Day Care Home for up to 12 chil- dren proposed to be located at 3 Evergreen Lane, being a ` portion of Town of Ithaca Tdzt Parcel No . 6-22- 1 - 1 . 2, Resi- dence District R-30. " APPEAL of Barry Wixson , Ap- ; Subscribed and sworn to before me , this J cia , pellant, requesting variance from the requirements of Arti- cleIV, Section 14, of the Town Of 19 . of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, ' to permit the construction of a , single-family home with a . proposed north sideyard ,'. 4 building setback of 17 feet . and a south sideyard building ; setback of 17 feet, whereas a Notary Public . 25-foot sideyard building set- back is required for lots upon ' JEAN FORD which a 100-foot by 150-foot rectangle cannot be inscribed. PUbkc, State of New York Said home is Proposed for to- ` faN cation at 122 Park Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-56- : No. `+ 65s " 10 3- 13. 4, Residence District R- . cunt 15. ualiiied in Tomokln5 31t 19 � Said Zoning Board of Appeals ices N�aX will at said time, 7 :00 . m. , Comm 15510n exp. and said place, hear allpper= sons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons ,.I may appear by agent or in ' person. Andrew S. Frost, Building In- i Spector/Zoning Enforcement • Officer, Town of Ithaca, 1 273- 1747. June 22, 1990 I / �