HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1990-10-10 FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date�2� ._/,Q,rO
TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OCTOBER 10 , 1990
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE APPEALS THAT WERE HEARD ON OCTOBER 10 , 1990
BY THE BOARD :
APPEAL OF JUDITH Be MACINTIRE , APPELLANT , RALPH W . NASH ,
ESQ . , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A " BED AND BREAKFAST "
FACILITY FOR UP TO A MAXIMUM OF FOUR BOARDERS AND/OR
LODGERS , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN AN EXISTING SINGLE—FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 217 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE , \\ TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 126 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID
ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE BOARDER IN A SINGLE —FAMILY HOME .
NIL VOTE .
APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANT , JOSEPH M . LALLEY ,
AGENT , REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF THE SPECIAL APPROVAL
GRANTED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON JULY 30 , 1985 , FOR
THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE OPERATIONS
GARAGE . THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION IS THE INSTALLATION OF
ABOVE—GROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS WITHIN THE AREA OF THE
MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE OPERATIONS GARAGE LOCATED OFF NYS
ROUTE 366 ON CORNELL UNIVERSITY ' S PALM ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 64 - 1 -2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THE
MODIFICATION OF THE SPECIAL APPROVAL IS REQUESTED UNDER
ARTICLE V , SECTION 181r OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE .
GRANTED WITH CONDITION
APPEAL OF ITHACA COLLEGE , APPELLANT , TROWBRIDGE ASSOCIATES ,
AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF
APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF A PORTION
OF THE EXISTING ITHACA COLLEGE MAIN CAMPUS ROAD AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AUTOMOBILE PARKING LOT . ITHACA
COLLEGE IS LOCATED AT 953 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 .
GRANTED WITH CONDITION
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date 4m • :Z, 9 z o
Clerk
APPEAL OF ITHACA COLLEGE , APPELLANT , HOLT ARCHITECTS ,
AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF
APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
ACADEMIC SCIENCE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON THE ITHACA
COLLEGE CAMPUS NORTH OF WILLIAMS HALL , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . IN
ADDITION , A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV ,
SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 10 , OF SAID ORDINANCE IS REQUESTED , TO
PERMIT A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 60 FEET , AS MEASURED FROM THE
LOWEST POINT AT EXTERIOR GRADE TO THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE
ROOF LINE , 30 FEET BEING THE PERMITTED HEIGHT .
GRANTED SPECIAL APPROVAL AND
VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING , UNDER ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 77 , OF
THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR AN INTERPRETATION
BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF ARTICLE VII , SECTION 35 , OF SAID
ORDINANCE TO DETERMINE IF ANY USES PERMITTED IN BUSINESS
DISTRICTS " A" , " B " , AND " C " MAY BE PERMITTED IN BUSINESS
DISTRICT " D " .
ADJOURNED .
a
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Town of Ithaca Date Aut , 9 1
Zoning Board of Appeals Cler
October 10 , 1990
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OCTOBER 10 , 1990
PRESENT : Acting Chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Robert
Hines , Joan Reuning , Building Inspector / Zoning
Enforcement Officer Andrew Frost , Town Attorney John
Barney , Town Engineer Dan Walker .
ABSENT : Henry Aron .
OTHERS PRESENT : Cathy Valentino , Frank Smith , Judith MacIntire ,
Joseph Lalley , Chris McDonald , Danielle Landis , Daniel Walker ,
Sandy Reis , Robert Schmidt , Don Lifton , Larry Fabbroni , Janelle
Tauer , Robert O ' Brien , Tom Salm , Peter Trowbridge , R . Lovelace ,
Mike Welch , Ralph W . Nash , Esq .
Acting Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 00
p . m . and stated that all posting , publication and notification of
the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits
of same were in order .
The first Appeal on the Agenda was the following .
APPEAL OF JUDITH B . MACINTIRE , APPELLANT , RALPH W .
NASH , ESQ . , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF
ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A
" BED AND BREAKFAST " FACILITY FOR UP TO A MAXIMUM OF
FOUR BOARDERS AND/OR LODGERS , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN
AN EXISTING SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 217 EASTERN
HEIGHTS DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 57 - 1 -
8 . 126 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS
ONLY ONE BOARDER IN A SINGLE -FAMILY HOME .
Ms . Judith B . MacIntire and Attorney Ralph W . Nash appeared
before the Board .
Attorney Nash explained to the Board that Ms . MacIntire
would like to operate a Bed and Breakfast at her residence at 217
Eastern Heights Drive , using two bedrooms , a maximum of four
people ( two couples ) staying there at any one time . He said that
under the previous Ordinance , before the amendment in January
1990 , she was allowed two boarders but with the present Zoning
Ordinance she is allowed only one . Attorney Nash stated that
Ms . MacIntire did operate a small Bed and Breakfast at this
residence prior to January 1990 with two boarders as authorized
under the previous Ordinance .
Town of Ithaca 2
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10 , 1990
Attorney Nash went on to explain that Ms . MacIntire would
like to be able to continue operation and have up to four
boarders to supplement her income and in order to maintain the
residence , and she feels it would be a good addition to the
neighborhood . He stated that , as noted in the application
materials with the concurrence of the neighbors in this
application , they feel there will be no negative effect on the
surrounding neighborhood and it will be a beneficial use which
will allow Ms . MacIntire to maintain the residence .
Attorney Nash provided photos of the residence in question
to the Board members .
Acting Chairman Austen referred to statements from neighbors
at 215 Eastern Heights Drive , 216 Tudor Road , and 216 Eastern
Heights Drive in favor of the proposed Bed and Breakfast . The
statements are attached hereto as Exhibits # 1 , # 2 , and # 3 .
Acting Chairman Austen referred to letters from Cheryl and
Frank Smith at 104 Skyvue Road ; from Susan and Michael Welch at
229 Snyder Hill Road ; Roger and Kathryn Hubbs at 106 Skyvue Road ,
and a letter with several signatures , opposing the proposed Bed
and Breakfast . These letters are attached hereto as Exhibits # 4
# 51 # 6 , and # 7 .
Acting Chairman Austen opened the public hearing .
The following persons spoke to the Board and stated their
reasons for being opposed to the proposed Bed and Breakfast :
Frank Smith 104 Skyvue Road
Janelle Tauer 211 Eastern Heights Drive
Richard Lovelace 213 Eastern Heights Drive
Cathy Valentino 110 Eastern Heights Drive
Mike Welch 229 Snyder Hill Road
Attorney Nash responded to the persons who spoke to the
Board in opposition to the proposed Bed and Breakfast . He stated
that there are rental properties in this area in the R- 15 zone .
He said the commercial character of a Bed and Breakfast of the
limited nature that Mrs . MacIntire is proposing is certainly much
less of a commercial venture than is already operating in this
zone with rentals .
Attorney Nash further stated that in regard to the traffic
question , what is being talked about here is possibly one extra
vehicle a few days a month . Mrs . MacIntire has been operating
with boarders and lodgers for 2 years and there has not been any
appreciable increase of traffic and concern about traffic during
that time .
Town of Ithaca 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10 , 1990
Attorney Nash said at the present time Mrs . MacIntire does
not have a sign and she has no desire to have a sign on her
property advertising the Bed and Breakfast .
Acting Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
• Acting Chairman Austen referred to the Environmental
Assessment Form , Part II and III which was signed by Asst . Town
Planner George Frantz on October 3 , 1990 , attached hereto as
Exhibit # 8 .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT :
MOTION : By Mr . Edward King ; seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of . Mrs . Judith
MacIntire requesting variance of the requirements of Article IV ,
Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the
operation of a Bed and Breakfast facility for up to a maximum of
four boarders and/ or lodgers , proposed to be located in an
existing single - family residence at 217 Eastern Heights Drive ,
• the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does
make a negative declaration of environmental significance .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows .
Ayes - King , Reuning , Hines , Austen .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
MOTION
By Mr . Edward King :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals ,
in the matter of the Appeal of Judith MacIntire to operate a
Bed and Breakfast facility at 217 Eastern Heights Drive ,
grant and hereby does grant a variance of the requirements
of Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance with the following findings and conditions :
1 . That if the variance were not granted , it would be an
unnecessary hardship on the applicant who owns and
occupies this residence with four bedrooms as a single
family with only her father and herself residing there .
Town of Ithaca 4
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10 , 1990
2 . That the proposed use should be limited as indicated in
her application and the variance should be limited to
such period as Ms . MacIntire owns and occupies the
property or for five ( 5 ) years , whichever period is
shorter .
3 . That there shall be no exterior sign indicating that
this is a Bed and Breakfast facility .
Mr . King commented that he thought such limitations would
adequately protect the value of all properties because this will
not necessarily be a permanent situation of this house and a re -
evaluation will be done by the Board at the end of five years .
Mrs . Joan Reuning seconded the motion and stated that she
knows this is a community in which many people open up their
homes at times of graduations and big weekends at the local
Universities . She does not feel that the kind of people that are
attracted to a Bed and Breakfast facility are anything but good
influences on our children and neighborhoods .
• Town Attorney Barney suggested the following findings and
conditions to the resolution and they were accepted by Mr .
Edward King as maker of the motion and Mrs . Reuning as seconder .
4 . That the economic viability of the maintaining of the
house is in jeopardy without the granting of the
variance .
5 . That adequate parking be provided for any persons who
are staying at the Bed and Breakfast .
6 . That there shall be no more than four ( 4 ) persons
occupying the premises at one time .
7 . That the building shall be inspected , by Mr . Frost to
assure that all appropriate building codes and
requirements have been met .
The voting on the motion was as follows :
Ayes - King , Reuning .
Nays - Hines , Austen .
The Motion was Nil .
Town of Ithaca 5
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10 , 1990
The next Appeal on the Agenda was the following .
APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANT , JOSEPH M .
LALLEY , AGENT , REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF THE SPECIAL
APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON JULY
30 , 1985 , FOR THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY MAINTENANCE AND
SERVICE OPERATIONS GARAGE . THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION
IS THE INSTALLATION OF ABOVE -GROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS
WITHIN THE AREA OF THE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE
OPERATIONS GARAGE LOCATED OFF NYS ROUTE 366 ON CORNELL
UNIVERSITY ' S PALM ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO .
6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THE MODIFICATION OF
THE SPECIAL APPROVAL IS REQUESTED UNDER ARTICLE V ,
SECTION 18 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Mr . Joseph Lalley explained to the Board that they propose
to install two fuel tanks : one 4 , 000 gallons and one 10 , 000
gallons in an above -ground installation with a containment dike
in the area between the Maintenance and Service Operations
( M & SO ) garage and the salt grit storage building . He said they
also intend to provide some drainage with an oil separator to tie
in with some other drainage work that is going in as part of
another project in the Orchards .
Mr . Lalley stated that the use is consistent with their
other activities in that area even though it is zoned
residential .
Mr . Larry Fabbroni pointed to a map and explained the
location of the proposed tanks to the Board .
Mr . Lalley stated that the fueling is done at two places on
Campus at the present time ; one is the State Fleet Garage and
that is limited to State vehicles and the other facility is the
CU Transit Garage . The tanks at that installation are
approaching 20 years of age . He said that if approval of this
installation is given , the gasoline storage at the Bus Garage
will be converted to diesel to get more than the 2 1/ 2 days
supply than they have now for the CU transit operation .
Mr . Lalley further stated that the 10 , 000 gallon tank will
be for unleaded gasoline and the 4 , 000 gallon diesel will be for
the Grounds tractors that will be located in that vicinity with
their new facility . They are planning to install a stage 1 vapor
recovery system on both tanks that will essentially vent the
fumes during the filling operation .
• Acting Chairman Austen asked if these tanks will be visible
from the highway .
Town of Ithaca 6
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10 , 1990
Mr . Fabbroni responded that the 10 , 000 gallon tank will be
8 feet tall . The tank will be on a dike ; the maximum total
height will be 12 feet . He does not think it will be visible
from the highway . He said the tank will be painted white with a
catwalk around it for maintenance .
Acting Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one
appeared to address the Board . Acting Chairman Austen closed the
public hearing .
Acting Chairman Austen read from Part II and Part III of the
Environmental Assessment Form which was signed by Asst . Town
Planner George Frantz , and is attached hereto as Exhibit # 9 .
Mr . King stated that he thinks that it is significant that
the proposed containment is a plus for the environmental control
and is actually an improvement over the underground storage that
has previously been approved .
Environmental Assessment
By Mr . Edward King ; seconded by Mr . Robert Hines :
RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Cornell
University requesting a modification of the Special Approval
granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on July 30 , 1985 , for
the Cornell University Maintenance and Service Operations
Garage , under Article V , Section 18 , of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance , for the installation of above - ground fuel
storage tanks within the area of the Maintenance and
Service Operations Garage located off NYS 366 on Cornell
University ' s Palm Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 -
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 motion was as follows .
Ayes - King , Hines , Reuning , Austen .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Acting Chairman Austen read from the adopted Planning Board
resolution of September 18 , 1990 which is attached hereto as
Exhibit # 10 .
• Town of Ithaca 7
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10 , 1990
MOTION
By Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Edward King .
RESOLVED ; that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
modify _ and hereby does modify the Special Approval for the
installation of above - ground fuel storage tanks within the
area of the Maintenance and Service Operations Garage
located off NYS 366 on Cornell University ' s Palm Road , with
the following findings and condition :
1 . That there be approval of the final site construction
plan details by the Town Engineer .
2 . That the proposal is in compliance with Section 77 . 7 ,
subdivisions a - f of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance .
3 . No one appeared before the Board in opposition to the
proposal .
® The voting on the motion was as follows :
Ayes - Reuning , King , Austen , Hines .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
The next two Appeals on the Agenda were following :
APPEAL OF ITHACA COLLEGE , APPELLANT , TROWBRIDGE
ASSOCIATES , AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF
THE BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF
THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED
RELOCATION OF A PORTION OF THE EXISTING ITHACA COLLEGE
MAIN CAMPUS ROAD AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
AUTOMOBILE PARKING LOT . ITHACA COLLEGE IS LOCATED AT
953 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 -41 - 1-
30 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 .
APPEAL OF ITHACA COLLEGE , APPELLANT , HOLT ARCHITECTS ,
AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF
APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF
ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
OF A NEW ACADEMIC SCIENCE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON THE
ITHACA COLLEGE CAMPUS NORTH OF WILLIAMS HALL , TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT
R- 15 . IN ADDITION , A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 10 , OF SAID ORDINANCE
IS REQUESTED , TO PERMIT A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 60 FEET ,
Town of Ithaca 8
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10 , 1990
AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST POINT AT EXTERIOR GRADE TO
THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE ROOF LINE , 30 FEET BEING THE
PERMITTED HEIGHT .
Mr . Tom Salm appeared before the Board with Mr . Bob O ' Brien
from HOLT Architects . They presented a model and slides to the
Board for their review . There was extensive discussion between
Mr . Salm , Mr . O ' Brien , Mr . Trowbridge and Board members during
the slide presentation .
Acting Chairman Austen opened the public hearing .
Mr . Donald Lifton , Chase Lane , spoke to the Board in support
of the Ithaca College projects that are before the Board .
Acting Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
Acting Chairman Austen read from the adopted resolution of
the Planning Board of October 2 , 1990 which is attached hereto as
Exhibit # 11 .
Acting Chairman Austen referred to Part II of the
Environmental Assessment Form filled out by Town Planner Susan
Beeners and attached hereto as Exhibit # 12 .
Mr . King read from an excerpt from the Planning Board
meeting of October 2 , 1990 . The excerpt is attached hereto as
Exhibit # 13 .
Town Engineer Walker spoke to the Board regarding the sewer
system in the area . He stated that there is an existing sanitary
sewer system that runs from several laterals on the Campus to the
main quadrangle . He stated that his primary concern is that the
Danby Road sewer that this runs into is at capacity right now .
He has had communications with the Engineering group for Ithaca
College and they have basically shown him that the peaks from
9 , 000 gallons additional flow that will be coming from this new
building would most likely occur at times that did not peak from
the residential facilities , which is where the Town ' s major
problem is now .
Town Engineer Walker stated that he has spoken with the
Ithaca College people about flow monitoring and a pre - treatment
monitoring system as part of the Town ' s pre - treatment program
that the Town is mandated by law to initiate . The Town has to be
able to sample any sewage flow from facilities that would have
. hazardous chemicals or any waste .
Mr . King asked where that monitoring would be done .
Town of Ithaca 9
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10 , 1990
Mr . Salm stated that in this building the pre - treatment
system will have monitoring points within the building .
Mr . Walker said that in maintaining the capacity of the
Town ' s system we have to use whatever measures we can to reduce
flows as much as possible and be as economical as possible . He
said that he has recommended to Mr . Salm that installing a flow
monitoring station to actually monitor what the sewage flows are
would be appropriate for a facility this size and Mr . Salm has
expressed agreement that the College and the Town can work
together , either as part of this project or the overall plan for
Ithaca College .
Environmental Assessment ( for road and parking lot )
MOTION
By Mrs . Joan Reuning ; seconded by Mr . Edward King :
RESOLVED , that , in the matter of Ithaca College requesting
Special Approval of the Board of Appeals , under Article IV , '
® Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the
proposed relocation of a portion of the existing Ithaca
College main campus road and the construction of a new
automobile parking lot at 953 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 21 Residence District R- 151 the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeal make and hereby does make a
negative declaration of environmental significance .
The voting on the motion was as follows :
Ayes - Reuning , King , Hines , Austen .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
MOTION ( for road and parking lot )
By Mr . Edward King ; seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning
RESOLVED , That the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
adopts the recommendations of the Town Planning Board , and
grants the Special Approval for the relocation of the road
and the construction of a parking lot at Ithaca College ,
with the following findings and condition :
1 . That there is a need for the proposed use and the
existing and future character of the neighborhood will
not be adversely affected .
Town of Ithaca 10
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10 , 1990
2 . The proposed relocation of the roadway and parking lot
are in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for the
Town of Ithaca .
3 . The proposed relocation of the roadway should have a
positive effect on reducing the traffic hazards of the
• students crossing Route 96B
4 . The proposed roadway and parking lot are in compliance
with Section 77 . 7 , subdivisions a - f .
5 . That before any construction starts on the relocation
of the road , the Town Engineer be presented with and
approve grading plans , sediment and erosion control
plans , and storm water management plans .
The voting on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - King , Reuning , Hines , Austen .
Nays - None .
® The motion was unanimously carried .
Discussion followed on the Fourth Appeal before the Board
which was a request for Special Approval for the proposed
construction of a new academic science building to be located at
Ithaca College and a request for a variance from the requirements
of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 10 , of the Zoning Ordinance ,
regarding a building height of 60 feet .
Acting Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one
appeared before the Board . Acting Chairman Austen closed the
public hearing .
Mr . Donald Lifton stated to the Board that his previous
statements to the Board stand .
Mrs . Reuning stated that she thinks that the aesthetics and
everything that was presented to the Board look nice and the
request for the height variance should not be a problem .
Acting Chairman Austen read the adopted resolution from the
Planning Board of October 2 , 1990 which is attached hereto as
Exhibit # 14 .
Acting Chairman Austen read from the Environmental
Assessment Form , Part II , which was completed by Town Planner
Susan Beeners and is attached hereto as Exhibit # 15 .
• Town of Ithaca 11
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10 , 1990
Mr . King noted that there will be an impact on air quality
but it has been , satisfactorily explained that it will be dealt
with by use of the exhaust system for this new building .
Environmental Assessment
MOTION :
By Mr . Edward King ; seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that , in the matter of Ithaca College requesting
the Special Approval of the Board of Appeals , under Article
IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for
the proposed construction of a new academic science building
to be located on the Ithaca College Campus north of Williams
Hall , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Residence
District R- 15 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environ -
mental significance .
The voting on the motion was as follows :
Ayes - King , Reuning , Austen , Hines .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Height Variance
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 from the requirements
of Article IV , Section 11 , paragraph 10 , of the Zoning
Ordinance to permit a building height of 60 feet for the
proposed academic science building , as measured from the
lowest point at exterior grade to the highest point on the
roof line , to be located on the Ithaca College Campus , with
the following findings and condition :
1 . That this would be a minimal impact because of the
slope of the land .
2 . That the proposed building being contained wholly
• within the Campus , it does not appear that it would
have any adverse effect on anyone other than the
applicant .
• Town of Ithaca 12
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10 , 1990
3 . That it would create practical difficulties and
unnecessary hardship to limit the height of this
building because at least half the additional height is
functional and related to eliminating the fumes from
the science building .
4 . That the general 45 - foot height of the building itself ,
the main part of the building , is consistent with other
buildings nearby .
5 . That the height of the building rise no more than five
feet plus or minus of the requested sixty feet .
The voting on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - King , Austen , Reuning , Hines .
Nays - None .
Special Approval
MOTION :
® By Mr . Edward King ; seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant Special Approval to Ithaca College
for the proposed construction of a new academic science building
to be located on the Ithaca Collage Campus north of Williams
Hall , with the following findings and conditions :
1 . That the Board adopts the recommendations of the
Planning Board and the Town reviewers .
2 . That there is a need for this proposed building .
3 . That the construction of this proposed building will
not adversely affect the existing or probable future
character of the neighborhood .
4 . That it does not offend the Comprehensive Plan of the
Town .
5 . That it is in compliance with Section 77 . 71
subdivisions a - f of the Town Zoning Ordinance .
6 . That the proposed location is subject to approval by
the Town Engineer , prior to the issuance of the
building permit , of the design and adequacy of a ) the
water and sewer facilities serving the building ,
including any required sewage pre - treatment facilities
® Town of Ithaca 13
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10 , 1990
monitoring discharge of hazardous materials from this
sewer system ; b ) the adequacy of the sewer facility
serving the entire Ithaca College Campus and this
building ; and c ) storm water management systems .
7 . No one appeared in opposition to the project .
8 . That the construction be substantially in accordance
with the plans and models and demonstrations presented
to this Board .
The voting on the motion resulted as follows .
Ayes - King , Reuning , Austen , Hines .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING , Under Article XIV , Section 77 , of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for an interpretation by the
Board of Appeals of Article VII , Section 35 , of said Ordinance to
® determine if any uses permitted in Business Districts " A " , " B " ,
and " C " may be permitted in a Business District " D " .
Mr . Frost clarified for the Board that Business District " D "
essentially permits gas stations * when you look at Business
Districts A , B , and C in the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance , they list a
variety of permitted uses in those districts . He said that this
Board , back in 1978 , had given an interpretation that in an
industrial district , and this was particular to Bell ' s
Convenience Store on Elmira Road , that a light industrial zone is
permitted to have any one of the uses of A , B , or C and D .
Mr . Frost stated that the purpose here is prompted by an
issue before the Planning Board regarding a gas station at East
Hill Plaza where the question came up , as in many gas stations ,
they sell convenience items , whether in fact that would be a
permitted use in a Business " D " . Mr . Frost referred to a letter
from Andree Petroleum who owns and operates the gas station at
East Hill Plaza , and the interpretation of 1974 and 1976 about
light industrial zones which are attached hereto as Exhibit # 16 .
Mr . Frost emphasized that the issue is really broader than
the request from Mr . Andree . He said that Mr . Andree is just
looking at some sodas and snacks and automotive products but
retail is retail , no matter what you might sell .
Mr . Frost referred to Mr . Andree ' s letter and sketches of
the proposed building , also attached hereto as Exhibit # 16 .
Town of Ithaca 14
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 10 , 1990
Further discussion followed regarding the items that a gas
station may sell from their establishments and no conclusion was
reached by the members of the Board .
Town Attorney Barney stated that the Board might want to
indicate that it is the Board ' s interpretation that permitted
sales in conjunction with a gasoline station in a Business " D "
Zone might be snack food items , coffee , soda , cookies ,
cigarettes , various type convenience items generally used for
' immediate consumption by the patron who has purchased gasoline
products but not as an attraction for grocery store patrons .
This was agreed to by the Board .
Mr . King suggested that each Board member write their own
ideas about how it should be expressed and bring it to the next
meeting to vote on it .
The meeting adjourned at 10 : 45 p . m .
Connie J . Holcomb
Recording Secretary
Y :
Edward Austen , Acting Chairman
c .
WE RESIDING AT
UNDERSTAND THA IS IS APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE
SO THAT SHE MAY USE HER RESIDENCE AS A BED & BREAKFAST
USING TWO BEDROOMS FOR HER GUESTS . , WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY
NO OBJECTION - TO HER DOING SO . AND WE CONSENT . WE WISH
TO HAVE HER VARIANCE ACCEPTED .
TED
SIGNED• ..
ti�.
WE RESIDING AT � b . �G� �� C'�r ✓ f�Z
UNDERSTAND THAT,,ILsJkt IJIu �Tri} � �� IS APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE
SO THAT SHE MAY USE HER RESIDENCE AS A BED & BREAKFAST
USING TWO BEDROOMS FOR HER GUESTS . WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY
Nn OBJECTION - TO HER DOING SO . AND WE CONSENT . WE WISH
TO HAVE HER VARIANCE ACCEPTED .
® „ p . . _
SIGNED . . DATED
__ _ / C.
WE RESIDING AT
UNDERSTAND THATjt ( f M4Qjjt s APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE
SO THAT SHE MAY USE HER RESIDENCE AS A BED & BREAKFAST
USING TWO BEDROOMS FOR HER GUESTS . WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY
NO OBJECTION - TO HER DOING SO AND WE CONSENT . WE WISH
TO HAVE HER VARIANCE ACCEPTED .
SIGNED DATED l ��
� 3
°► c10
NN
Sic o. v o.R-,c .rc� oS'c c-e�c�v� c-e.•cY,c��[s o� (� c-��c�e.. � � e�c.�� oc� \�
� � �s pv� � \ Kms. �'� bCP✓ c'e.- cYv�:�� �'�o�� v,�G.r..� .
Cl !� s zoo c�.E %nolrm.
a 4V O**,% Ons
Ar ` 4C Nc r
\\ ve. .
.I
kk A /i�Lick ..�o �c �ino� e•�
v
U
7�t
�j��7 �?T�C.�'t-c..C�-QO �f•O KfZ-�- /1/C�,L.c.-e- �--�-� _�fM7yv�—�. � • � �-t_.
6z-
�an
�5
Roger A . Hubbs
Kathryn M . Hubbs
106 Skyvue Road
Ithaca , NY 14850
October 8 , 1990
Andrew S . Frost
Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer
Town of Ithaca
Ithaca , NY 14850
Subject : Zoning Board Public Hearing 10 / 10 / 909 Appeal of Judith
'i MacIntire , Ralph W . Nash , Esq . , Agent
Dear Mr . Frost ;
We , the undersigned residents and homeowners of Eastern Heights
Subdivision , are opposed to the above referenced appeal . Due to a
j ® conflicting public school function , we are unable to attend the
hearing , but request we go on record in opposition to the
requested variance in Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town Zoning
Ordinance . We feel Eastern Heights is a family neighborhood , and
! that requests for commercial use of subdivision property should be
firmly denied .
i
` Should it be necessary for us to appear in person at some future
' date to oppose this or any other appeals of this nature , we trust
the board will promptly notify us as to the time and place .
� Sincerely - - - - - -• -- __ . _ , ,_,,_
Roger A . Hubbs
Kathryn Hubbs
� G
. . ._ � _ C � c, e,
n
October 5 , 1990
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
126 East Seneca St ,
Ithaca , NY 14850
We wish to express our strong opposition to Judith B .
MacIntire ' s request for a zoning variance that would allow
her to operate a " Bed and Breakfast " from her residence at
217 Eastern Heights Drive . As owner / occupants of single -
family residences in the Eastern Heights neighborhood , we
feel that such a variance would be detrimental for the
following reasons :
1 . We strongly want to maintain the character of our
neighborhood which now consists of single - family
homes with a balanced mix of families with young
children as well as retired persons . Although the
neighborhood includes rental properties , these
Properties were designed specifically for multi -
family use , unlike that which is proposed by
Ms . MacIntire .
2 . Such a property would also add traffic to an
® already busy residential street and bring
transients into the neighborhood , creating safety
concerns to our families ( particulary our
children ) and our properties .
3 . We are further concerned about the possible
deleterious effects to our property values , . since
many of the families purchasing homes in the
neighborhood do so because of the appeal of a
single - family/ owner - occupied area .
44 We consider a " Bed and Breakfast " establishment
to be a business , and we do not want a business
in our family - oriented neighborhood .
kAlthough we will be unable to attend the meeting on October
0 because we will be attending the open house at the
aroline Elementary School , we sincerely hope that you will
onsider our objections to Ms . MacIntire ' s request and deny
d er request for a variance . Please feel free to call us if
�,
3 You should have any questions ,
. ro uu.e� a L � �
! 3 sUSCootY
� 2.73 612z,
2 � - 5632, ao � �a:..11.a.�• . . �Q .
PART II — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
• PROJECT : Request for Variance from Article IV , Section 1 1 of Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance: 217 Eastern Heights Drive
REVIEWER : George R . Frantz , Asst . Town Planner
DATE : October 3 , 1990
A. Does Action exceed any TYPE I threshold in 6 NYCRR , PART 617 . 12 ?
Yes__ Nom Action is UNLISTED(_
B . Will Action receive coordinated review as provided for UNLISTED Actions
in 6 NYCRR , PART 617 . 6 ?
Yes_ No2_ Involved Agency( ies ) :
C. Could Action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , existing
traffic patterns , solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding
problems? Explain briefly:
No significant adverse impacts anticipated. Proposed action is the grant of a variance from
® Article IV , Section 1 1 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning ordinance to allow the operation of a "bed
and breakfast " using two existing bedrooms , with a maximum of four lodgers , in an existing
residential structure. No addition to the existing home is proposed,
No significant adverse impacts to existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or
quantity , existing noise levels and traffic patterns , or solid waste production or disposal , and
no erosion , drainage or flooding problems are expected as a result of this action .
C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural resources ; or
community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly:
No significant adverse impacts anticipated. Existing character of surrounding neighborhood is
residential . Because of the nature of the proposed use and the fact that no additions or
alterations that would chane the character of the existing structure or site are proposed , no
significant adverse impacts on neighborhood character are anticipated.
C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or
threatened or other natural resources? Explain briefly.
Because the proposed use will be on an existing developed site , no significant adverse impacts
are anticipated.
C4. A community' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or
® intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly:
No significant adverse impacts with regard to community goals and plans as officially adopted
are anticipated as a result of grant of the requested variance. The subject parcel is located in a
R - 15 Residence District. Within the R - 15 ResidenceDistrictthe Zoning Ordinance allows ,
44v"/ q,0cO
among other uses , single- and two- family homes , specific public and institutional uses ,
agricultural uses , offices of a resident doctor , dentist , musician , engineer , teacher , lawyer ,
architect , artist or member of other recognized profession and quasi - profession , and
customary home occupations operFited solely by a resident of the dwelling and subject to
restrictions outlined in Article IV , Section 11 , A bed and breakfast use of the scale of the one
proposed appears to be similar in character and expected impact on the surrounding area as
those uses listed above which are already allowed within the R - 15 Residence District.
CS . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the
proposed action ? Explain briefly:
Given the small scale of the use for which the proposed variance is requested , no significant
adverse impacts with respect to the above factors are anticipated.
C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C 1 - CS ? Explain
briefly:
No significant adverse impacts anticipated.
C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ?
Explain briefly:
No significant adverse impacts anticipated.
D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?
® Yes_ No.(_ If Yes , explain briefly
PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
Because of the relatively small scale and character of the activity for which a variance is
requested , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended.
George R . Frantz
Asst, Town Planner
f�" o
6
Part 1 — rMujct, t Innrh�, tzi hnu incin rmrw%anr u6oc
' Responsibility of lead Agency
General Information ( Read Carefully)
• In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been
reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
• Identifying that an impact will be potentially large ( column .2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant.
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply
asks that it be looked at further.
• The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2 . The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and
for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other -examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation In Part 3.
• The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and
have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question.
• The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
• In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects.
Instructions (Read carefully)
a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers.
c . If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the
impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2 . If impact will occur but threshold
is lower than example, check column 1 .
d . If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3.
e . If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate
impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This
must be explained in Part 3.
® 1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
IMPACT ON LAND Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
ONO ® YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Any construction on slopes of 15 % or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed
10% ,
• Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ 13 Yes ❑ No
3 feet.
• Construction of paved parking area for 1 ,000 or more vehicles, Cl ❑ El Yes ❑ No
• Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No
3 feet of existing ground surface.
• Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or Involve more ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0N
than one phase or stage.
• Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1 ,000 C3 0-Yes ❑ No
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
• Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ C1 Yes ❑ No
• Other impacts O ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
2 . Will there be an effect tc. ... iy unique or unusual land forms found on
® the site ? ( i . e. , cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc .)® NO OYES
• Specific land forms: 0 13 ❑ Yes ❑ No
1 2 3
IMPACT ON WATER
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
' Moderate Large Mitigated 8y
3 . Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected ? Impact Impact Project Change
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)
ONO Ci-YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No
protected stream.
• Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
4 . Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body
of water? ONO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• A 10 % increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease.
• Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ❑ ❑ [] Yes No
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes No
S . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater
quality or quantity? ONO ® YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No
• Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ [3 Yes ❑ No
® have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
• Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ Cl ❑ Yes ❑ No
gallons per minute pumping capacity,
• Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
supply system.
• Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. C3 C1 ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
• Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N
day.
• Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual
contrast to natural conditions.
• Proposed Action willrequire the storage of petroleum or chemical . ❑ ® ❑ Yes ® No
products greater than 1 ,100 gallons,
• Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N
and/or sewer services.
• Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage
facilities.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Dyes C3 No
® 6 . Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface
water runoff ? ONO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ ❑ Dyes C] No
9 7
1 t 4
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitlgated By
Impact Impact Project Change
® • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No
• Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON AIR
7 . Will proposed action affect air quality? ONO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will induce 1 ,000 or more vehicle trips in any given Cl ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
hour.
• Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No
refuse per hour.
• Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ [] Yes ❑ No
heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
• Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
to industrial use.
• Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes El No
development within existing industrial areas.
• Other impacts: Cl ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
® 8 . Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species? ONO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes El No
list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site.
• Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
than for agricultural purposes.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0N
9 . Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or
non-endangered species? ONO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or : ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
• Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ [] Yes, ❑ No
of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important
vegetation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10 . Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?
ONO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No
® land ( includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
#7 9
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
• Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0N
agricultural land,
• The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ - ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more
than 2.5 acres of agricultural land.
• The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ IJ ❑ Yes ❑ No
land management systems (e. g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches,
strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ENO OYES
( If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617 . 21 ,
Appendix B .)
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposedland uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0N
or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether
man-made or natural.
• Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their
enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
• Project components that will result in the elimination or significant -❑ ❑ C3 Yes ONO
screening of scenic views known to be important to the area.
+ Other impacts : ❑ ❑ [] Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12 . Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre*
historic or paleontological importances' ENO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0N
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register
of historic places.
• Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ CYes ❑ No
project site.
• Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13 . Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
Examples that would apply to column 2 ENO OYES
® • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
9
1 2 3
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact Be
14 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems ? Moderate Large Mitigated By
■ NO DYES Impact Impact Project Change
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15 . Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or
energy supply? ONO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5 % increase in the use of ❑ ❑ C3 Yes ❑ No
any form of energy in the municipality.
• Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family
residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
16 . Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result
of the Proposed Action? ® NO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Blasting within 1 ,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No
® facility.
• Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
• Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
noise screen.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17 . Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?
ONO ®YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ® ❑ Yes ❑ No
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of
accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level
discharge or emission.
• Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
form (i .e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc.)
• Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ C3 Yes ❑ No
gas or other flammable liquids.
• Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N
within 2 ,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous
® waste.
• Other impacts : RourINE EELEaiL� nFE r- u EL VAPoRc ® ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No
t7 , 1 � INr. Atnr�MW► _ � P� ►Qpr ► n ,� L or- tACt1_ ► ty'
2 3
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact Be
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By
18 . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community ? Impact Impact Project Change
LINO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No
project is located is likely to grow by more than 5 % .
• The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 11 No
will increase by more than 5 % per year as a result of this project.
• Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ [1 Yes ENO
• Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
or areas of historic importance to the community.
• Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
(e. g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
• Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No
• Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑ No
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 11 No
19 . Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts? ONO ❑ YES
If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact - or
If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of . Impact, Proceed to Part 3
Part 3 -- EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Responsibility of lead Agency
Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, every if the impact(s) may be
mitigated.
Instructions
Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2.
1 . Briefly describe the impact
2 . Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s).
3 . Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer the question of importance, consider.
® The probability of the impact occurring
The duration of the impact
• Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value
• Whether the impact can or will be controlled
• The regional consequence of the impact
• Its potential divergence from local needs and goals
• Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact.
(Continue on attachments)
11
PART II I - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Proposed Fuel Island and Storage Tanks , Cornell University
M . &S . O . Garage .
® 1 . Describe Impact.
Proposed Action will involve the storage of 14 , 000 gallons of fuel products ( diesel and gasoline )
in two tanks , and amount which is greater than the 1 , 100 gallon threshold for petroleum or
chemical products under Part 11 question 4115 . Potential major spill or leak of fuel onto ground
may have a potential large impact on the environment .
2 . How Could Project Impact Be Mitigated?
The impact of a potential spill or leak of fuel cannot be mitigated or reduced to a small or
moderate impact by project changes.
3 . Based On The Information Available , Decide If It Is Reasonable To Conclude
That This Impact Is Or Is Not Important.
The design features of the proposed fuel storage tanks , specifically the proposed fuel tanks will
be located above ground , and be surrounded by steel dikes designed to contain 1 10 % of the
largest tank capacity in event of tank rupture ( See attached information sheet. ) , and the use of
double - walled piping between the tanks and the fuel island itself , make the probability of a
major fuel spill or leak and resultant potential lard impact low . The proposed facilities will be
constructed in conformance with applicable requirements of the N .Y . Fire Protection Association
Code enforced by the Town of Ithaca Zoning and Building Department. In addition , potential spills
at the fuel pump island will be directed by the pitch of the concrete pavement into a drainage
® system with an oil /water separator to capture the spilled fuel .
Also , if a failure of the dike system occurs and fuel does escape onto the surrounding ground ,
Cornell University' s Life Safety Division is equipped with personnel and equipment to respond to
such emergency situations in a timely manner . Thus the duration of any potential leak and
resulting impact on the environment is likely to be short term in nature ; it can be controlled
through generally accepted methods , including existing cleanup technology ; and the regional
consequence of the impact appears to be limited.
No resource of value which could be permanently lost has been identified.
No potential divergence from local goals or needs has been identified.
Based on the above and the information provided in Part I and Part I I , it is reasonable to conclude
that the potential large impact identified in Part I I , Question V 51 is not important.
Staff Recommendation : Determination of Significance
Staff recommends a negative determination of environmental significance for the project as
proposed. This recommendation is based on the design of the project , including design of the fuel
storage and transmission facitlities , and spill containment facilities ; uses anticipated ; its
® location and general character of surrounding land use ; the relatively small scale of the project ;
and the information and analysis provided in Parts I , I I , and I I I of the LEAF .
9� i f�qo
Cornell University
Maintenance and Service Operations ' Garage
South of Route 366 and West of Game Farm Road
Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals
® Planning Board , September 18 , 1990
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Cornell University
Maintenance and Service Operations ' Garage
South of Route 366 and West of Game Farm Road
Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals
Planning Board , September 18 , 1990
MOTION by Mr . Robert Miller , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson :
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 by the Zoning Board
of Appeals on July 30 , 1985 for the Cornell University
Maintenance and Service Operations ' Garage , to permit the
installation of above - ground fuel storage tanks for the
previously approved fuel island portion of the project .
2 . The proposed project is located within the existing Cornell
University Maintenance and Service Operations ' Complex ,
approximately 1 , 300 feet south of NYS Route 366 and 1 , 800 feet
west of Game Farm Road , on Town of Ithace Tax Parcel No .
® 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 ,
3 . This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
coordinated review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is an
involved agency in coordinated review .
4 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on September 18 , 1990 , has
reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form
and review , and other submissions related to this proposal .
5 . The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for this
action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of
environmental significance be made for this action .
2 . That the Planning Board , in making recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the
following :
® a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location .
lit
Cornell University
Maintenance and Service Operations ' Garage
South of Route 366 and West of Game Farm Road
Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals
® Planning Board , September 18 , 1990
b . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood will not be adversely affected .
c . The proposed use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan
of development of the Town .
3 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the
Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for
modification of the Special Approval granted by the Zoning Board
of Appeals on July 30 , 1985 for the Cornell University
Maintenance and Service Operations ' Garage , to permit the
installation of above - ground fuel storage tanks for the
previously approved fuel island portion of the project , be
approved subject to the following condition :
I * Approval of final site construction plan details by the Town
Engineer .
Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Hoffmann .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
Lop
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
September 21 , 1990 .
Ithaca College
Relocation of Existing Main Campus Road
and Constriction of Replacement Parking
Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals
Planning Board , October 2 , 1990
ADOPTED RESOLUTION ; Ithaca College
Relocation of Existing Main Campus Road
and Construction of Replacement Parking
Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals
Planning Board , October 2 , 1990
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Stephen Smith :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board
of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval of the
proposed Ithaca College Road Relocation project , proposed to
consist of relocation of the existing main Campus road and the
construction of replacement parking , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 21 Residence District R- 15 ,
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
coordinated review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is an
involved agency in coordinated review .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on October 2 , 1990 , has
reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form
and review , and other submissions related to this proposal .
4 . The Town Planner has recommended that a negative determination of
environmental significance be made for this action .
*- THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of
environmental significance be made for this action .
2 . That the Planning Board , in making recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the
following ;
a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location .
b . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood will not be adversely affected .
C9 The proposed use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan
of development of the Town .
,mac
i
�i
Ithaca College - 2e
Relocation of Existing Main Campus Road
and Construction of Replacement Parking
Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals
Planning Board , October 2 , 1990
3 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the
Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for
Special Approval of the proposed Ithaca College Road Relocation
project , proposed to consist of relocation of the existing main
Campus road and the construction of replacement parking , be
granted .
Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
0044
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board ,
October 4 , 1990 .
, r7 SJ / l� < lY1 z4e.� z
= w ,
Part 2 — PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE
Responsibility of Lead Agent `,
t' General Information ( Read Carefully) G �"�' t UU P • � f�673ZV1
• In completing the form the reviewer shoupirm
Dy the question: Have my responses ,and determinations beep
reasonable) The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst, tjj�j of Ytfiiill 1p1 ZlC(-D
• Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant.
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simpIN
i
asks that it be looked at further.
• The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold o�
It magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State am
for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriat<
for a Potential Lar Impact response, thus requiring�' Pa eq al evaluation in Part 3.
• The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative anc
have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question .
• The number of examples p per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
• In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects.
Instructions (Read carefully)
a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers.
c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of th
f impact. if impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshol-
1 is lower than example, check column 1 .
d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART
e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderat
impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not
possible. 7h
must be explained in Part 3,
1 2 3
® Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
IMPACT ON LAND Impact Impact Project Change
j 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
ONO ■YES
{ Examples that would apply to column 2
• Any construction on slopes of 15 % or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 . • ❑ 41 syes ❑ No
foot of Iengthl or where the general slopes in the project area exceed
1096 .
• Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No
3 feet. 6e rTrswn Env. V"
• Construction of paved parking area for or more vehicles. f�e �0 L7 0 MYes ❑ NO
• Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No
3 feet of existing ground surface.
• Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ )Yes ❑ No
than one phase or stage.
• Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1 .000 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
• Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ Ne
: ,. ;:, ; ; • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ Ne
__ ' • Other impacts ❑ 13 Oyes ❑No
2 . Will there be an effect till ... oy unique or unusual land forms found on
the site? (i .e. , cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) MNO OYES
• Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No
0
6
66-1n, yv?
w % TI4v ZesA A6i.--)�JDA iol iojRD
Pik A-V 0 TUD eof�� • 16)s-lll( 4
1 Y `
2 3
IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential Can Impact Be
. �.. 3 . Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected ? Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change.
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)
PNO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
: :; • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Dredging more than 100 cubic . yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONe
" = protected stream.
1 :`: • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ Oyes ONo
"'",'' • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
;i'. : ' ' • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ [] Yes ❑ No
4 . Will proposed action affect any non•protected existing or new body
of water? ONO ANYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ® SYes ONo
or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease.
• Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ❑ ❑ [] Yes [1 No
j • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [3 No
i
S . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater
quality or quantity? ONO SYES
1 Examples that would apply to column 2
.� • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ Oyes 11 No
• Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
® have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
:j • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ O OYes [] No
gallons per minute pumping capacity,
• Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
supply system,
• Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONa
• liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONb
do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
i Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ❑ ❑ . ❑ Yes 13 No
day.
• Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ Yes 13 No
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual
contrast to natural condi kmL ` ,wk f0 J 44 N y , cea-0 Gjfw DIAJ
• Proposed Action will require the storage of or chemical ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
products greater than 1 ,100 gallons.
• Proposed Action will allow residential uses In areas without water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ Nc
and/or sewer services.
• Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which. may ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ w
require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage .
facilities.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Nr
6 . Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface
water runoff ? ANO AYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
®. • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Nc
�rNr 1 2 3
i ;? Small to Potential Can Impact Be
:i Moderate Large Mitigated By
" Impact Impact Project Change
• Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion, ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No
• Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Other impacts: 54e.� draw, Arte, t >Mv�,r6yn�►�to� S0 ❑ Oyes ONo
: 1
t
. 1.
IMPACT ON AIR
7 . Will proposed action affect air quality? ONO EYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will induce 1 ,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No
hour,
• Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
refuse per hour.
• Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ C] Yes ❑ No
heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
j • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
to industrial use.
• Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
development within existing industrial areas,
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
J IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8 . Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered }
® species? INNO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site,
• Removal of an g
y portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 13 No
• Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No
than for agricultural purposes,
• Other impacts: ❑ D ❑Yes ❑ No
9 . Will Proposed Action substantially affect norimthreatened or
nonmendangered species? NNO ❑YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ Pio
migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species,
• Proposed Action requires the removal of more than . 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important
vegetation,
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10 , Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?
10NO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
t 1 Z 3
Nil
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
4
,ra Impact Impact Project Change
,;;;:;;; • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
agricultural land.
" '�' • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ - ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
; fr :F43r
5� ;, of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District. more
than 2.5 acres of agricultural land
• The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ 13 ❑ Yes CJ No
land management systems (e.g,, subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches,
strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm
.-III field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ [I Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ONO OYES
( If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617. 21 ,
Appendix B.)
J Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ [] Yes ❑ No
or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether
man-made or natural .
• Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their .
enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
• Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N
screening of scenic views known to be important to the area.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12 . Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pw '
historic or paleontological importance? ENO OYES
r.
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substanta ?y
❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register
' of historic places.
rC:
'.f :; ;. , • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yet ❑ No
;.: project site.
.y
• • Proposed Action will occur In an area designated as sensitive for ❑ . ❑ ❑Yes ❑fW
. archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory.
:,1 • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yet ❑ i le
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13 . Will Proposed . Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
` Examples that would apply to column 2 ONO EYES
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ [] Yes [3 No
' • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. 13 ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Other impacts: - _rPG1 u Ld - ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N
9
� �z
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
Small to Potential Can Impact 6t
;:. . : .
14 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems ? Moderate Lame Mitigated By
ONO BYES Impact Impact Project Chang .
.`: Examples that would apply to column 2
• Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Nc
• Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems.
Cl ❑ ❑ Yes Chic.
r • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Nr
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15 . Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or
energy supply?
ONO mYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5 % increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N�
1 i any form of energy in the municipality.
• • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes t
� ❑ N
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family
residences or to serve a major commercial or in ustrial use.
• Other impacts:
Prr
_ I2rgv, U, > _ ' vi Yf_,
® ❑ ❑ Yes Chic
CGrGiy C7'l YJ o 7�
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
16 . Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result
of the Proposed Action? ONO 11YES
j Examples that would apply to column 2
• Blasting within 1 ,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 13 r*
facility,
• Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 Ne
® • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N,
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
• Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ [] Yes ❑ N(
noise screen,
• Other impacts 4ee L24 CZV? � 1� C B iti ® 13 ❑ Yes ❑ N<
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17 . Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?
ONO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ Q ❑Yes ❑ Pb
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of
accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level .
discharge or emission,
• Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Plc
form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, Irritating,
infectious, etc.)
• Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N+
gas or other flammable liquids.
• Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ 1:1 Yes ❑ K
within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous
waste,
• Other impacts: ❑ C ❑ Yes ❑ N/
10
. ., .. ...... . .... . . . . . . ... ..•• . . . . .
w
1 2 3
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER
' Small to Potential Can Impact Be
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By
18 . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community ) Impact Impact Project Change
ONO INYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
project is located is likely to grow by more than 5 %.
• The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
will increase by more than 5 % -per year as a result of this project.
v;Vt • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ r4o
"` • Proposed action will cause a than
, • `.: ge in the density of land use. ❑ 10
Yes [2 No
• Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ [] Yes ❑ No
or areas of historic Importance to the community,
• Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
(e. g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
• Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ■ IlYes ❑ No
• Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N
J • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
1
i
19 . Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts? IIENO OYES
If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact - or
If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of . Impact, Proceed to Part 3
Y01A
art 3 — VALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS loJZI140
Responsibility of Lead Agency
Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially targe, even if the impact(s) may be
mitipted.
Instructions
Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: .
1 . Briefly describe the impact.
2 . Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s).
3 , Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer the question of importance, consider.
• The probability of the impact occurring
I • The duration of the impact
• Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value
• Whether the impact can or will be controlled
1 • The regional consequence of the impact
• Its potential divergence from local needs and goals
• Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact.
(Continue on attachments)
EXCERPT / PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 2 , 1990
Comments from Town Planner Susan Beeners
Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts
Ithaca College Road Relocation - EAF Pa t III
Ithaca College Science Building - ERF art III
i
At this point , Ms . Beeners , referring to Impacts on Land for the
Ithaca College Road Relocation EAF Part II , Page 6 , noted that any
construction on slopes of 15 % or greater is a Potential Large Impact
because there are embankments that are going to have slopes at 15 % or
more . Proposed building will be sited on slopes of 80 . Construction
of paved parking area for 100 or more vehicles is also a Potential
Large Impact , adding , the net increase proposed by Ithaca College is
101 vehicles . Construction that will continue for more than one year
or involve more than one phase or stage is also a Potential Large
Impact . Ms . Beeners remarked that the above is the extent of
potential large impacts on land . Ms . Beeners noted that it is
checked yes as to Can Impact be Mitigated by Project Change ,
commenting , yes , of course , it could be mitigated by forgetting about
the project entirely , and by reducing the project in size . With
respect to the SEAR Part III probability of impacts to land , duration
of impacts , irreversibility , control , regional consequences ,
potential divergence from local needs and goals , and known
objections to the project , with all of those considerations , Ms .
® Beeners would say that the benefits of the project are recommended to
outweigh any of the potential localized negative impacts . Ms .
Beeners also said that there has been discussion with the applicants
with respect to erosion and sedimentation control .
As to Impacts on water , Ms . Beeners mentioned the lower pond that
is on the site plan is going to be increased from . 3 to . 4 of an acre
so that is going to be over a 10 % increase in a surface area of water
body . Mr . Trowbridge stated that there is a small retention pond
that currently exists below the parking lot , and that is being
enlarged to accommodate additional run - off . Ms . Beeners stated that
the additional run - off accommodation is a real beneficial impact ,
because of the fact that it is adding to some control of storm
drainage down the hill . Ms . Beeners stated that the above is the
only Potential Large Impact under water . Ms . Beeners stated that all
the issues that are supposed to be addressed under Part III have been
duly considered and that , again , beneficial impacts outweigh
potential adverse impacts .
At this time , Ms . Beeners proceeded to Page 11 of the EAF , under
No . 18 , " Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land
use " . Ms . Beeners said that , yes , it does have a Potential Large
Impact , and also checked that the impact could be mitigated by
Project change . Ms . Beeners stated that there is also a Potential
Large Impact in that the proposed action will set an important
precedent for future projects , and also checked yes that the impact
could be mitigated by project change . Ms . Beeners stated that , at
® this time , the impacts related to the road relocation , with respect
to Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood are not really
considered at this time to be adverse impacts . Ms . Beeners said that
I . C . is going through a Master Plan process accompanied by a Generic
Environmental Impact Statement , and if there is anything as far as
potential development of new buildings along the road , then such
h;6, Of �3
Excerpt / Planning Board Meeting - October 2 , 1990
would be subject to further environmental review by the Town . Ms .
Beeners said that aspects such as the net increase in parking by 101
spaces , moving away from NCR and putting the parking on the Campus is
a very good idea . Ms . Beeners said that in the long - run , one will
have to look at it , very carefully , to make sure that the traffic
using the existing service road , which goes down behind Rogan ' s is
continued to be monitored . Ms . Beeners said that it is her
understanding that tickets are issued if there is abuse in the use of
the service road . Tom Salm , V . P . for Business Affairs at Ithaca
College , responded that the service road is restricted all the time ;
it is intended for Physical Plant , Safety , and Security use , but
students obviously use it to walk down off the Campus . Mr . Salm
stated that the road is posted as restricted access .
At this time , Town Planner Susan Beeners reviewed the Ithaca
College Science Building EAF Part II . There will be some
construction involving slopes of 15 % or greater , and as Mr .
Trowbridge pointed out the building itself is going to be sited
pretty much on slopes of about 8 % . The slopes with the steeper
degree of slope to them will be basically landscaped or stablized as
one would normally approach that . Again , that was checked as
Potential Large Impact because it was involving that threshold , and
in the example , yes , indeed , the impact could be changed . Ms .
Beeners said that there will be some construction involving slopes of
15 % or greater . Ms . Beeners noted that , as Mr . Trowbridge pointed
out , the building itself is going to be sited pretty much on slopes
of about 80 . The slopes with the steeper degree of slope to them
® will be basically landscaped or stablized as one would normally
approach that . Ms . Beeners stated that the above was checked as
Potential Large Impact because it was involving that threshold , and
in the example , yes , indeed , the impact could be mitigated by project
change , but that would only really be if there was a drastic
modification to the project itself , which Ms . Beeners did not think
was appropriate . Other Potential Large Impacts would then also
relate to construction continuing for more than one year or involve
more than one phase , adding , the impact could be mitigated by project
change , yes , but not really that great of an idea . Ms . Beeners said
that all the other impacts she went through she decided that they
were pretty negligible impacts ; small to moderate , except when she
got to Page 11 , Growth and Character of the neighborhood . Ms .
Beeners said that here is an example where it gets really hard in
figuring out which one to check - Small to Moderate or Potential
Large . " Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans
or goals . " Ms . Beeners recommendation is that there would be a Small
to Moderate Impact related to the fact that the building would not
comply with the 30 ' maximum height in the R - 15 zone . As it was
discussed in the presentation related to the height and the context
on the site , the height of 45 ' or 60 ' to the top of the fan gallery
overall height of 601 . The granting of a variance by the ZBA would
not be of significant impact , given that its interior of the Campus
seems to be designed quite well , and fits in with the other buildings
there on Campus . " Proposed action will cause a change in the density
® of land use . " There is Potential Large Impact with respect to that
as it is a trend as far as locating and expanding the core of the
I . C . Campus . Also , there is the fact related to that trend that an
important precedent would be set for future projects , e . g . , more
buildings in the general vicinity of the central core , and possibly
more buildings with heights of over 301 , those impacts are
a'WL #I&
Excerpt / Planning Board Meeting - October 2 , 1990
• controllable and are not terribly important . Ms . Beeners , commenting
on Part 3 as far as probability , duration , irreversibility , and the
other aspects related to answering a question of importance , she sees
no significant adverse impacts that would warrant recommending
anything other than a Negative Determination of Environmental
Significance ,
Dan Walker pointed out that there were indeed issues related to
both sewer and water which need further review , and that these issues
need to also be identified within the SEAR review .
( NOTES TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS )
1 . The Part III SEQR Form shows October 3 , 1990 modifications per
Dan Walker ' s comments on water usage at the October 2 , 1990
Planning Board Meeting .
Staff still recommends a Negative Determination of Environmental
Significance having fully considered present information , and the
issues of Part III of the SEQR Form .
2 . Harry Missirian of The Tompkins County Planning Department , per a
telephone call on October 10 , 1990 indicated that the County has
no negative comment pursuant to N . Y . S . General Municipal Law
Section 239 - m and authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to
proceed .
® Susan Beeners
Town Planner.
mb
10 / 10 / 90
Ithaca College New Science Facility
j Adjacent to Williams Hall and the Roy H . Park
School of Communications
Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals
Planning Board , October 2 , 1990
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Ithaca College New Science Facility
Adjacent to Williams Hall and the Roy H . Park
School of Communications
Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals
Planning Board , October 2 , 1990
MOTION by Mr . Robert Ken erson , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board
of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval of the
proposed Ithaca College New Science Facility , proposed to be
located on the Ithaca College Campus adjacent to Williams Hall
and the Roy H . Park School of Communications , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 ,
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
coordinated review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is an
involved agency in coordinated review ,
® 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on October 2 , 1990 , has
reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form
and review , and other submissions related to this proposal .
4 . The Town Planner has recommended that a negative determination of
environmental significance be made for this action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of
environmental significance be made for this action .
2 . That the Planning Board , in making recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the
following :
a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location .
b . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood will not be adversely affected .
c . The proposed use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan
of development of the Town .
0/ L
Ithaca College New Science Facility
j Adjacent to Williams Hall and the Roy H . Park
School of Communications
Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals
Planning Board , October 2 , 1990
I
3 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the
Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for
Special Approval as stated herein and including a variance
request for an overall building height of 60 feet , be granted ,
subject to the following conditions :
1 . grant of a variance for the proposed height of the building ,
r approval of which is recommended , and
29 approval by the Town Engineer of the design and adequacy of
the water and sewer facilities serving the building prior to
the issuance of any building permit .
Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
® Nancy M * 67uller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board ,
October 4 , 1990 .
Part 2 — PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE
Responsibility of lead Agency G
General Information ( Read Carefully) 7oeP07
• In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question : Have my res onses and dlerminations bee
{ reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. �� jpl2 (/; D
• Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant.
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simpl
asks that it be looked at further.
• The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold c
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State ant
for most situations. But, for any specific projector site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
lar for a Potential res
Large Impact pa gorse, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
• The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore. the examples are illustrative an
have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question
• The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
• In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects.
Instructions (Read carefully)
a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers,
a c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of tt
impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but thresho
is lower than example, check column 1 .
d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART
e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to modem
impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A. No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. T�
{ must be explained in Part 3.
1 2 3
® Small to Potential Can Impact
Moderate Large Mitigated By
IMPACT ON LAND Impact Impact Project Chanpp
1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
' ONO NYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Any construction on slows of 15 % or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ 9 %1 MYes 0 M
foot of length), or where the geneial slopes in the project area exceed
1096 .
• Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑
❑ Y
❑ es ONc
3 feet � � TJwn Ehv , .
• Const }sion of payed parking prea for ,c more vehicles. U �7 ❑ Oyes 13 r*
CAW
• Cons tion on ladn�d wherelSC. °rocc iso poosse, or generally within ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑Pk
3 feet of existing ground surface,
• Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ■ *Yes ❑ Nle
than one phase or stage.
• Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1 .000 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑Nle
tons of natural material (i.e,, rock or soil) per year,
• Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ Nle
• Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Nle.
• Other impacts ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 13 1*
2 . Will there be an effect V. ... 1y unique or unusual land forms found on
the site ? ( i . e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)IBNO OYES
• Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ON,
6
l-G G ENI • (LIJ�5vi��
went 7.e� A ACo �C I� Iujgt
p%b ArnoyTtl;> D
6i-l- -AE /s
• •4ta�+r t � A
3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
IMPACT ON WATER
3 . Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected ? Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
• ' (Under Articles 15, 24, I5 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)
MNO BYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• • Dredging mono than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
Protected stream,
• Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO
• Other impacts:
13 ❑ ❑ Yes ONO
1 4 . Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ONO ?YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• A 10% increase or decrease in the surface are of any body of waer _ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. � - ro& d y"J" Z . per )
• Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. I l ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0N
• Other impacts: v� ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
S . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater
quality or quantity? ONO ®YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO
• Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ . ❑ ❑ Yes ONO
® have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
• Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO
! gallons per minute pumping capacity.
• Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO
supply system,
• Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ [Dyes ❑ No
liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ( 1 ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
• Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 .gallons per ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO
day. - " o � IDL4T re&f -fv Y. � , �ms�1�S� -pg 10 ) 2( �] D
• Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or ther discharge into an ® ❑ ❑ Yes 13 No
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious1sual = .
contrast to natural conditions, tens a. r
. • ( � . � " /n?�l � ;��¢., � V► H cam
Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑Yes ONO
products greater than 1 ,100 gallons.
• Proposed Action will allow residential uses In areas without water ❑ ❑ (Dyes ONO
and/or sewer services.
• Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO
require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage
facilities.
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO
6 . Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface
water runoff ?
ONO YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
7
Coe i�
3 .
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Protect Change
': ` • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No
' : • Proposed /Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N
• Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
jsI Other impacts: L, %4d,4 (It ooit ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON AIR
7 . Will proposed action affect air quality? ONO IVES .
Examples that would apply to column 2
I : • Proposed Action will induce 1 ,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ Oyes C3 No
hour,
• Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
refuse per hour.
• Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
• Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of la{'d committed ❑ Dyes ❑ No
to industrial use. Fjl (00� � S� �-r, i( 5 ►+ 01/�--�e�lyv�, 4r��c
i `+
• Proposed action will allow an increase in the densi of industrial ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No
development within existing industrial areas.
• Other impacts: Cl ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8 . Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species? #ONO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
' list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site,
• Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
• Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No
than for agricultural purposes,
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
,
9 . Will Proposed Action substantially affect nowthreatened .or
noneendangered species? 040 OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C3 No
migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
• Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No
of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important
vegetation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10 . Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?
%NO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) i
® 8
.000,
1 Z 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project oject Change �
• Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
' agricultural land.
• The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ - ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District more
than 2.5 acres of agricultural land.
• The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO '
land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches,
strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm
"- field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
• Other impacts: ❑ O 13 Yes ❑ No
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources ? TPNO DYES
{ If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617. 21 ,
Appendix B.)
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 13 No
or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether
man-made or natural.
i • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their
enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
• Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ 13 Yes ❑ No
® screening of scenic views known to be important to the area,
• Other impacts: ❑ ' ❑ 13 Yes ONO
/ �L+S.s✓l Z,C c� i►t r K ovye ✓l. S k 1 Acts 4 C4lM I tS— cOhlAa�i1 Liz,
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12 , Will Proposed . Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance? ANO ❑ YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ Oyes ONO
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register
' of historic places,
i • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ O Oyes ONO
project site.
• Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ . ❑ Oyes ONO
archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory.
i
• Other impacts:--h
CLAS �.w� i ti — 5 � ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO
I
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13 . Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities ?
Examples that would apply to column 2 )(NO OYES
• The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N®
1 • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
:.® • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N®
' r g
r�
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact Be
14 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems ? Moderate Large Mitigated By
• ONO SPY ES Impact Impact Project Change
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Proposed Action will result in mayor traffic problems. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes , ❑ No
• Other impacts: � � G+ � �' ' >M t 0 E3 Oyes ❑ No
1 nt �ht ttck.,i
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15 . Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or
energy supply? ONO IJYES
` Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5 % increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
any form of energy in the municipality.
• Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family
residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use.
• Other impacts: Q �y Yadil4 ceyof) n/wj 0 ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
1 NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
1 16 . Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result
of the Proposed Action? ❑ NO 11YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Blasting within 1 ,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No
® facility.
• Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
• Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No
noise screen.
• Other impactle *W ftVVr#VAA ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ NO
to CA vtwrs
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17 . Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?
ONO *YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ Q Oyes ❑ Nb
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of
accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level
discharge or emission.
• Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ Ne
form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc.)
• Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ Nr
gas or other flammable liquids,
• Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ Nc
within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous
waste.
• Other impacts: 14! 1 i C&A-!o • 10 ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Nc
® QLd 94 C4v% 44td '1414
i J �l 1 C1a�V►. tafa � � 10 J
ap:
2 3
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Small to Potential Can Impact as
18 . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
ONO *YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
project is located is likely to grow by more than S %.
• The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No
will increase by more than S% per year as a result of this protect
• Proposed action vdil cortflict, with offic ally adopted plans or goals. ❑ oyes ❑ No
v
• Proposed action w' cause as c'9ange in the density of land use. ❑ 1111Yes QNo
1 • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No
or areas of historic importance to the community.
• Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 13 No
(e. g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
• Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects, ❑ IR 111Yes ❑ No
• Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment .2 ❑ ❑ Yes 13 No
• Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONo
19 . Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts? ® NO [DYES
If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact - or
I If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of. Impact, Proceed to Part 3
Part 3 EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACT
Responsibility of Lead Agency
Part 3 must be prepared if one or more Impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the Impact(s) may be
mitigated.
Instructions
Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2:
1 . Briefly describe the impact
2 . Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s).
3 . Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable .to conclude that this impact is importefnt.
To answer the question of importance, consider.
• The probability of the impact occurring
• The duration of the impact
• Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value
• Whether the impact can or will be controlled � �
• The regional consequence of the impact
• Its potential divergence from local needs and goals E b /
• Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact.
(Continue on attachments) �3
11 �
ANDREE PETROLEUM
684 Third Street , P . 0 . Box 641
Ithaca , New York 14851
September 28 , 1990
Mr . Andy Frost C ► i1 Q
Town of Ithaca J
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca , New York 14850
Dear Andy :
In response to our phone conversation on Friday , September 21 , 1990 .
The enclosed sketch is the proposed layout for the building at our
East Hill Gasoline Station . A 30 ' X 20 ' or smaller building will be used .
This is not intended to be a convenience store . There will be no
deli and no beer . The following list will give you an idea of the type
of products we want to sell : automotive products ( motor oil , c' ry gas ,
antifreeze , windshield wash , snowbrushes , ice scrapers ) , cigarettes , soda ,
juice , coffee , candy , gum , chips , cookies , peanuts , newspapers , ice . . . .
® these items will be consumed immediately after purchase .
If you have any questions , please give me a call .
jSincerely ,
Robert P . Andree
RPA : sb
Enclosure
i
I
I
I
,
,
` (vim✓ �
I
,
I
i
i
I � ,
I � I
I
I I .
I 1
•
I j
i
I
I ,
j
• i i ,
{
I ;
i
Ol
04
cr
{
ooe
.. ..__._ _ ._ .11141111.--
. ._
i
SURVEY of SELF- SERVE GAS STATIONS in the ITHACA AREA
• 1 . Bell ' s - self serve / C - store
2 . Hess - self serve / gas , cigarettes , automotive , soda machine
3 . A- Plus , Rt . 13 - self serve / C - store
4 . Chuck ' s Mobil - self serve / C - store
5 . Sunoco , Rt . 13 - self and full serve / repairs , soda , automotive , cigarettes
6 . Jay St . Mobil - self serve / repairs , soda , snacks , cigarettes
7 . A - Plus , Green St . - self serve / C - store
8 . Adm . Chin , Varna - self serve / repairs , C - store
9 . Jim ' s Place - self serve / C - store
10 . Rogans - self serve / C - store
11 . Sunoco , Rt . 96B - self serve / C - store
12 . Triphammer Mobil - self serve / repairs , soda , candy, cigarettes , snacks
13 . Triphammer Sunoco - self and full serve / car rental , soda machine
14 . Corners Mobil - self serve / C - store
15 . Corners Sunoco - self serve / repairs , soda machine , candy
��
.., . .. GO0 (<
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
March 9 , 1974
10 : 00 A . M .
PRESENT : Vice -Chairman Laurene Ripley , Roger Sovocool , Jack Hewett ,
Ed Austen , David Cowan ( Assistant to the Zoning Officer ) .
The Zoning Board of Appeals met to act upon the request
of the Planning Board at a meeting of the Planning Board held on
the 2Gth day of February , 1974 , for an interpretation of the
present Zoning Ordinance regarding the placing of a retail store in
a Light Industeial District .
After discussion , it was MOVED by Mrs . Ripley arca seconded
® by Mr . Sovocool :
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals interprets - the
present Zoning Ordinance to allow within Light Industrial Districts
any lawful use allowed in the more restrictive zones , with the
exception of dwellings .,
Aye - Ripley , Sovocool , Hewett , Austen .
Nay - None .
The Motion was carried unanimously .
r '
BROUGHT TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 17 , 1976 ,
( in connection with Bell ', s Grocery request for gasoline Island )
RE-AFFIRMED ON THAT DATE .
N . M . F . ( Secretary ) A
r'
Excerpt from Minutes of Planning Board Meeting held on February 26 , 1974
PRESENT : Chairman Barbara Holcomb , Robert Scannell , Daniel Baker ,
Robert Christianson , Sam Slack , Nancy Fuller ( Sec . )
ABSENT : Arnold Albrecht , John Lowe , Maurice Harris
'1
MOTION by Mr . Sam Slack , seconded by Robert Scannell .
RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca request
from the Zoning Board of Appeals ` an interpretation of the present
Zoning Ordinance regarding the placing of a retail store in a
Light Industrial District .
We refer them particularly to Article VIII , page 17 , Light
Industrial Districts , and
Article X , page . 2.0 , Industrial Products .
The land in question is presently zoned Light Industrial .
All in favor .
Motion carried unanimously .
FFI DA VI T OF PURL 1 CA TION
pellont , HOLT Architects,
Agent, requesting the Special
Approval of the Board of Ap-
peals, under Article IV, Sec-
tion 11 , of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance, for the
TACA. JOURNAL
proposed - construction . of a
new academic science build-
ing to be located on the IthacaTHE '
College Campus north of Wil-
Iuralr
liams Hall , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6-41 - 1 -30. 2, Resi-
enceState of New York , Tompkins County , Ss . : ttiion, a Dvariance from the re- -
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING quirements of Article IV,
Gail Sullins � duly sworn , deposes and BOARD OF APPEALS Section 11 , eq 10, . of
bele ` said Ordinanccee is s requested,
nested,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS to permit a building height of
says , that she/ he resides in Ithaca , COUniV and stoic alilres�lld and that WED. , OCT. 10, 1990, 7P. M. 60 feet, as measured from the
y By direction of the Chairman lowest point at exterior grade
she/ he is Clerk peals the Zoning BoardH REBY of Ato the highest point on . the
NOTICGIVEN that Public Hearings roof line, ei feet being the .
of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in will be held by the Zoning permittedheight.
HEARING,
Board of Appeals of the Town under Article XIV, Section 77,
Ithaca aforesaid , and Char a notice , of which The annexed is a Trlle of Ithaca on Wednesday, Oc- of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
sober 10, 1990, in Town Hall , Ordinance, for an interpreta-
126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST tion by the Board of Appeals
copy , was published in said paper Floor, REAR Entrance , WEST of Article VII, Section 35, of
Side ), Ithaca, N. Y. , COM- said Ordinance to determine if
(( ^^ -- Gq MENCING AT 7:00 P. M. , on any uses permitted in Business
�'L� i,, � � - S , ` 1 a the following matters. Districts 'A", "B", and "C"
k�j it APPEAL of Judith B. Maclntire, may be permitted in a Busi=
Appellant, Ralph W. Nash, ness District "D".
Esq. , Agent, requesting vari- Said Zoning Board of Appeals
once at the requirements of will at said time, 7:00 . m. ,
Article IV, Section 11 , of the
Town' of Ithaca Zoning Ord '- and said place, hear of per-
nonce , toPermit the operation sons in support of such matters
of a "Bed and Breakfast" fa- or objections thereto. Persons
cilit for up to a maximum of may appear by agent or in
nd that the first publication of said notice was on the four boarders and/or lodgers, Person .
l proposed to be located in on Andrew S. Frost
ng
day of b t ), p�f j 19 �� existing single-family resi - Building Inspectorfficer r
dente at 217 Eastern Heights Enforcementt Officer Offic
Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- Town of Ithaca
1 cel No. 6-57- 1 -8. 126, Res'- 273- 1747
October 5, 1990
dente District R- 15. Said Ordi-
nance permits only one
boarder in a single-family
home.
Subscribed and sworn to before me , this day APPEAL of Cornell University,Appellant, Joseph M. Lalley,
of �7 Agent, requesting a modifica-.
j� 19 � O tion of the Special Approval
granted by the Zoning Board
of Appeals on July 30, 1985
for the Cornell University
L� Maintenance and Service Op-
erations Garage. The request-
ed modification is the installa-
Notary Public . tion of above-ground fuel
J storage tanks within the area
of the Maintenance and Serv-
JEAN FORD ice Operations Garage lo-
cated off NYS Rte. 366 on Cor-
Notary Public State of New Yorpl& Tell University's Palm Road,
� Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
NLG ` 0 6-64- 1 -2, Residence District R-
O. v 30. The modification of the
QQualified Ifl Cr 1 Uf1S COUflty Special Approval is requested
{-�' I f under Article V, Section 18, of
Commission expires May 3I I � the Town of Ithaca Zoning Or-
dinance .
APPEAL of Ithaca College, Ap-
pellant, Trowbridge Asso-
ciates, Agent, requesting the
Special Approval of the Board
of Appeals, under Article IV,
Section 11 , of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for
the proposed relocation of a
portion of the existing Ithaca
® College main campus rood
and the construction of a new
automobile parking lot. Ithaca
College is located of 953 Dan-
by Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6-41 - 1 -30. 2, Resi -
dence District R- 15.
APPEAL of Ithaca College, Ap-
Jb