Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1990-10-24 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date � ':. ` o /_. 0 f TOWN OF ITHACA C181`� ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 24 , 1990 THE FOLLOWING ARE THE APPEALS THAT WERE HEARD ON OCTOBER 24 , 1990 BY THE BOARD . APPEAL OF WILLIAM THAYER , OWNER/APPELLANT , PAMELA WILLIAMS , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 16 , AND SECTION 20 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING WITH AN EXTERIOR BUILDING HEIGHT OF 33 FEET AND AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH A HEIGHT OF 18 FEET 8 INCHES , TO BE LOCATED - ON TOWNLINE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 35 -1 - 6 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING HEIGHT OF 30 FEET AND AN ACCESSORY BUILDING HEIGHT OF 15 FEET . GRANTED APPEAL OF WILLIS S . HILKER , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE III , SECTIONS 7 AND 9 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 54 -4 - 16 . 1 AND — 16 . 2 , KNOWN AS 191 - 193 KENDALL AVENUE , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 . SAID PARCELS DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON THE COMPLETED AND PAVED PORTION OF KENDALL AVENUE . SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES A BUILDING LOT TO FRONT ON A TOWN , COUNTY , OR STATE HIGHWAY AND HAVE A FRONT YARD AT LEAST 60 FEET IN WIDTH ALONG A STREET LINE . GRANTED WITH CONDITION APPEAL OF NOREEN MARSIT , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 19 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE OPERATION OF A BUSINESS , WHICH HAS HORSE ( S ) AND CARRIAGE FOR HIRE , KNOWN AS THE " ITHACA CARRIAGE CO . " PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 294 HAYTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 1 -41 . 21 AGRICULTURAL ZONE ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 REQUIREMENTS APPLY ) . SAID ORDINANCE DOES NOT PERMIT HORSES FOR HIRE . WITH CONDITION FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date 2Aun 30 D . Town of Ithaca Clerk1 Zoning Board of Appeals October 24 , 1990 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 24 , 1990 Present : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward King , Robert Hines , Joan Reuning , Edward Austen , Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer Andrew Frost , Town Attorney John Barney . Others Present . Pam Williams , Bill Thayer , Ree Thayer , Noreen Marsit , Patricia Hall , Gerald Hall , Shirley Cowles , Bill Hilker , Mike Kobre , Marion Kobre , Eleanor Winship , Gail Levy , Joseph Marsit . Chairman Aron called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order . ® The first Appeal on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF WILLIAM THAYER , OWNER/APPELLANT , PAMELA WILLIAMS , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 16 , AND SECTION 20 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING WITH AN EXTERIOR BUILDING HEIGHT OF 33 FEET AND AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH A HEIGHT OF 18 FEET 8 INCHES , TO BE LOCATED ON TOWNLINE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 35 - 1 - 61 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING HEIGHT OF 30 FEET AND AN ACCESSORY BUILDING HEIGHT OF 15 FEET . Pam Williams , Architect for the project , presented maps of the area in question and a model of the proposed house to the Board . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Ms . Williams explained that there are 94 acres in the parcel in question . She said that the land behind the house slopes down quite sharply . The land in front of the house slopes gradually upwards to the Townline Road . Ms . Williams stated that there are no other buildings on the property at this point . The nearest neighbor is a farm " here " , about 3 acres with a farm house and an auxiliary building and a large barn . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals October 24 , 1990 Mr . William Thayer , owner of the property , stated that he thought it was significant to point out that the bend in Townline Road is the corner between the Townships of Danby , Ithaca and Newfield , they all converge on that point . He thinks it is significant also to point out that the set back from the road , that is , the length of the driveway , is on the order of 250 feet and the distance from the front of the house to Townline Road is in excess of that 250 feet , so it sits well back from the road . Mr . Thayer stated that the fall out is on the order of 35 - 40 feet from the land in front of the house to the lower field . Ms . Williams referred to the model of the house that Mr . Thayer had built and explained the set up of the rooms in the house . She explained that the grade at the apartment is what sets the grade because by Code the grade can ' t be higher than the finished floor of the apartment and that is what determines the height in question . The height in question is the lowest grade " back here " to the peak of the clear story roof . That height now is 31 feet , 11 inches . Mr . Frost explained that the initial design was showing 32 feet , 8 inches . He said Ms . Williams called and said it was going to be lower . He discussed it with -the Town Attorney and decided to give her a range and advertised it as 33 feet . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Williams if she is saying that the height will now be 32 feet minus ? Ms . Williams said yes and she explained how they were able to reduce the height . Ms . Williams said that where they pick up the extra height is in the clear story and there are three reasons why she thinks the clear story is important . First , it is an important element in the design of the house , from an architect ' s point of view , especially viewed from the front . It differentiates the center portion from the two wings . Another reason it is important is for the interior space and enhancing the quality of the southeastern light coming in the clear story windows . She said that the last reason is that it adds to the rigidity of the overall timber frame . Mrs . Thayer stated that they did not want air conditioning in the house and with the clear story windows open and lower windows open they would have a sweeping air flow . Mr . King asked Ms . Williams what the height is from the ground level in front of the house to the top of the clear story . Ms . Williams stated that it is not exceeding 24 feet . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals October 24 , 1990 Mr . King noted that the elevation at the front of the proposed house appears to be about 930 feet above sea level and the land arises to 9. 50 feet up to the road . The Gravelding property ( closest neighbor ) is about 960 - 970 elevation , therefore the proposed house will be lower than the Gravelding house . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Williams why the garage has to be 18 feet and 8 inches high . Ms . Williams responded that they call it a barn . Mr . Thayer presented photos of the barn that they have at their present home and explained that the proposed new barn will be smaller but it will be essentially the same idea . He stated that he has several pieces of equipment , such as lawn mowers , tractors , a snow blower , etc . , that they need to be able to store , as well as wood for their fireplace . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . MOTION By Mrs . Joan Reuning ; seconded by Mr . Edward Austen . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an Area Variance to allow the appellant to build the house with a height of 33 feet and a building height of 18 feet , 8 inches for the barn to be located on Townline ' Road , with the following findings . 1n that structurally the appellant feels that the house needs the extra amount of height due to the necessity for air flow . 2o that aesthetically the design calls for this added height on the building . 39 that there is no one across the road from this property whose view would be obstructed . 4o that from the road the upper level will only be 24 feet maximum height . 5a that this house is being constructed on a sloping site . 6a that the nearest neighbor has a barn that is 10 - 15 feet higher than the proposed house . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals October 24 , 1990 7o that no one appeared before the Board in opposition to the proposed construction . 8o that the differential is fairly minimal and from the front of the house it is below the 30 feet that would be permitted and for the barn it is only a 44 - inch variation . The voting on the motion was as follows . Ayes - Reuning , Austen , King , Aron , Hines . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The next Appeal on the Agenda was the following : APPEAL OF WILLIS S . HILKER , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE III , SECTIONS 7 AND 9 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 54 -4 - 16 . 1 AND - 16 . 2 , KNOWN AS 191 - 193 KENDALL AVENUE , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-9 . SAID PARCELS DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON THE COMPLETED AND PAVED PORTION OF KENDALL AVENUE . SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES A BUILDING LOT TO FRONT ON A TOWN , COUNTY , OR STATE HIGHWAY AND HAVE A FRONT YARD OF AT LEAST 60 FEET IN WIDTH ALONG A STREET LINE . Mr . Willis S . Hilker appeared before the Board . He referred to a map ( Exhibit # 1 ) and spoke of the paved area on Kendall Avenue and where the pavement ends . Town Attorney Barney explained that the matter has been researched and the question is what status the remainder of that road is in . There are two surveyors who disagreed slightly on where the road actually lies on the ground vis - a -vis the dimensions of the lots adjacent to it on the north side . He said there have been a couple of hearings with the Planning Board to try to get that resolved and now there is a petition in the process of being done where the landowners of the unapproved portion are saying that they would like to have the road finished with paving done . The Engineering staff for the Town have put together a preliminary estimate on what it is going to cost to do that and there has been some discussion as to what it is going to cost to do that and he thinks there has been some discussion • that the cost may be a little excessive considering that the base is already there . He said that they are at the stage now of trying to negotiate out the completion , probably at the expense of the landowners . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals October 24 , 1990 Mr . King asked Mr . Hilker how far it is from the end of the pavement on Kendall Avenue to his westerly property line . Mr . Hilker said that it is 150 feet at the most . Town Attorney Barney stated that they have also researched the County Clerk ' s records and they have not found anywhere where there was a conveyance of these roads to the Town . On the other hand , he said they have never found a conveyance to anybody else . The lots themselves have been conveyed right along but the road , as far as he knows , is still part of the Ithaca Land Company which is long since defunct so the Town is taking the position that from the Town ' s standpoint , they will get a Quit Claim from the landowners from the boundary line of the road to the center line of the road from all those adjoining and accept that for title purposes rather than demand anything more stringent . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Mr . Hilker stated that water and sewer has already been laid by the Town all the way to the end of Kendall and all down • Pennsylvania Avenue , the paved and unpaved portions . He said the electricity is also all the way through there so there is no problem with utilities . Mr . Hilker stated that there has never been any attempt on the part of any landowners to try to place the burden of the cost of the road development on the Town . Mr . Hilker further stated that sooner or later this is going to come to an end and the road there will be paved and it needs to be done , both for the Town ' s sake and the landowners ' sake . Mr . Hilker said that his daughter and her husband are in need of a place to build now . They have a very modest house that they are planning to put down there and they have acknowledged that they will maintain that long driveway ( 125 feet ) . Chairman Aron referred to the Environmental Assessment Form , signed by Asst . Town Planner Frantz , which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 • Environmental Assessment By Mr . Edward Austen ; seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that , in the matter of Appeal of Mr . Willis Hilker requesting a variance of the requirements of Article III , Sections 7 and 9 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a residential dwelling on Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals October 24 , 1990 Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 16 . 1 and - 16 . 2 , known as 191 - 193 Kendall Avenue , Residence District R- 9 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of. Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance . The voting on the negative declaration was as follows . Ayes - Austen , King , Reuning , Hines , Aron . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Mrs . Winship , owner of lots 18 and 19 on Kendall Avenue , spoke to the Board regarding the use of Mr . Hilker ' s driveway and whether or not if they wanted to build a house there , that meant that the driveway keeps on extending . Town Attorney Barney responded that the Town hopes that the matter will be resolved and the road will be paved . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . • MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines ; seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and here by does grant an Area Variance to Mr . Willis Hilker for the construction of a house as indicated on the premises identified as 191 - 193 Kendall Avenue , with the following findings and condition : 10 that there is a practical difficulty in that Mr . Hilker has a long - standing ownership of a lot on a road which , at minimum , has been offered for public use . 2 * that he has by operation of law a private easement in connection with use of that area of roadway , along with other owners of adjoining lots . 3 * that to deprive Mr . Hilker of a building permit would impose an unnecessary burden and hardship on him . 4e that the granting of the variance is in compliance with the ordinances of the Town of Ithaca . • 5 * that the access drive shall be a minimum width of 15 feet . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals October 24 , 1990 6 * that this is doing what the Town has been looking for , that is , taking two lots and making one lot out of them and making reasonable size yards . 7 * that no one appeared in opposition to the proposed construction of this single - family house . The voting on the motion was as follows : Ayes - Hines , Aron , King , Reuning , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The next Appeal on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF NOREEN MARSIT , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V , SECTION 19 , PARAGRAPH 61 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE OPERATION OF A BUSINESS , WHICH HAS HORSE ( S ) AND CARRIAGE FOR HIRE , KNOWN AS THE " ITHACA CARRIAGE CO . " is PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 294 HAYTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 1 - 41 . 2 , AGRICULTURAL ZONE ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 REQUIREMENTS APPLY ) . SAID ORDINANCE DOES NOT PERMIT HORSES FOR HIRE . Mrs . Noreen Marsit appeared before the Board and explained the proposal for her business . She said that about 2 1 / 2 years ago she started driving around the neighborhood with her horse and carriage ; then in mid -July she decided she was ready to start a business giving persons carriage rides . She stated that she does not bring customers on the property ; all the business is done at someone else ' s house or downtown . Mrs . Marsit went on to explain that she does not have any employees ; there is no extra trucking up and down the road or extra cars coming into her property . She said that she would really like this to be her business and she is the only driver of the carriage . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Marsit how many horses she has . Mrs . Marsit replied that she has 3 horses on 10 1/ 2 acres of property . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Mrs . Marsit presented photos to the Board of the horses and the carriage that she does her business with and explained that most of the carriage rides are for weddings , anniversaries ,es , etc . She said that she feels she is offering a nostalgic service to the community . ® Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals October 24 , 1990 Mr . Kobre , 290 Hayts Road , spoke to the Board about Mrs . Marsit boarding horses on her property . Mrs . Marsit responded that she has boarded horses . She advertises in the Ithaca Journal for boarding horses . She has one boarder horse at this time . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Marsit how long she has been boarding horses . Mrs . Marsit said approximately 2 years . Mr . Austen pointed out that on two sides of Mrs . Marsit ' s property there are farms . Discussion followed regarding whether this Appeal should be for a Use Variance . Town Attorney Barney stated that his view is that it is a Use Variance . Mr . Joesph Marsit stated to the Board that that house and barn have been used as a business since the 1940 ' s or 1501s . He said that there was a saw mill there and then a back hoe and dozer business was run out of there right up until he moved in . Ms . Gail Levy , 68 North Van Dorn Road , questioned the Board for the need of a variance in this case at all . Mrs . Marsit stated that she does not have a horse for hire , she hires out a carriage and her services . She even advertises carriage service for hire , not a horse . Further discussion followed on the floor regarding the businesses that have been run on that property and the time frames of such businesses . Mr . King stated . that he agrees with Mrs . Reuning that the nature of this operation seems proper in an Agricultural District and he does not think they need a Use Variance . He said that he thinks what Mrs . Marsit is doing is not utilizing the property in a commercial way . Town Attorney Barney asked what about the sign . Mr . King said that the sign is something else again . Mr . Frost stated that the sign could be permitted by the Sign Ordinance . If Mrs . Marsit occupies the property as the " Ithaca Carriage Co . " the sign may be permitted to remain with • what it says but it would have to be reduced or a variance would have to be granted for the size that it is . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals October 24 , 1990 Mrs . Marsit stated that if the sign is a problem , she will remove it . The idea of the sign for her was more decoration , not really advertising . Environmental Assessment By Mr . Edward Austen ; seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning . RESOLVED , That , in the matter of the Appeal of Noreen Marsit requesting variance of the requirements of Article V , Section 19 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the operation of a business , which has horse ( s ) and carriage for hire , known as the " Ithaca Carriage Co . " proposed to be located at 294 Hayts Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 1 - 41 . 2 , 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 - King , Austen , Reuning , Aron , Hines . • Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Mr . Austen stated that he agrees with Mrs . Reuning and Mr . King in regard to whether there is a need for a Use Variance in this case . After further discussion , Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . MOTION By Mr . Edward King ; seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals interprets the activity being conducted by the Applicant within an Agricultural District as an off - premises activity and that Mrs . Marsit is permitted to maintain horses and carriages on the premises , and be it further RESOLVED , that in regard to the sign on the property which exceeds the 4 square feet which would be permitted for a customary home occupation , if the sign is to exceed 4 feet , Mrs . Marsit will have to apply to the Sign Review Board for approval of the larger sign . ® Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals October 24 , 1990 Town Attorney Barney stated that the understanding is that the activity that is being conducted is one carriage and three horses and the carriage and horse are being transported off the premises for use elsewhere other than on the premises for which Mrs . Marsit is receiving compensation . Discussion followed regarding Mr . Barney ' s statement . Mr . King said that he will adopt that except that the motion should be amended to state " up to three carriages and three horses , without employees , the owner being the sole driver of the carriage . " Mr . Austen concurred . The vote on the amended motion resulted as follows . Ayes - King , Austen , Aron , Hines , Reuning . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . ® The meeting adjourned at 9 : 25 p . m . Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary APPROVED • Henry Aron , Chairman R � w � 0♦ 00 000 / CON Ch Ooe 100e AD of S \mss � t Ell - \ Joer N W • 6 Aso p� ti EDN 0601 PO Ln JO I .ob oil rr yu. 7 M k M1 Z .� 40 in /w fall tic ED M N Y f • . �p s_ LO � z b r l ken PART 11 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ; Use attachments as necessary ) A . Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES NO If yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF , 8 . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? YES ❑ NO a ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED , C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED , C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED , C4 . The Town '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 SEE ATTACHED , C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED , C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 - C5 ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED , 7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED , D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES IR NO If yes , explain briefly : I� E . Comments of staff , CAC � , Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) i PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ( To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above , determine whether it is substantial , large , important or otherwise significant . Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (ie . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude . If necessary , add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . ❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . Then proceed directly to the full EAF and /or prepare a positive declaration . ❑ Check this box if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , C that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on at as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination . Name of Lead Agency Preparof s Signature UT6Merent from Responsible Officer) Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead A enc Date : PART 11 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT— Request by Willis S . Hllker for Variance from Art . III , Sects 7 & 9 of Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . PROJECT : Proposed Single Family Home on Tax Parcel No . 6-54-4- 16 . 1 & 16 . 2 REVIEWER : 6eorge Frantz , Asst . Town Planner DATE : October 19 , 1990 A . Does Action exceed any TYPE I threshold in 6 NYCRR . PART 617 . 12 ? yes No_X_ Action is UNLISTED_X— B . Will Action receive coordinated review as provided for UNLISTED Actions in 6 NYCRR, PART 617 .6 ? Yes No___X_ Involved Agency( ies ) : C . Could Action result In any adverse effects associated with the following : Cf . 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 : None anticipated . The proposed project is construction of a single family home on an existing building lot . No adverse impact with regard to existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , traffic patterns , solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion, or any drainage or flooding problems , is expected as a result of this action . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural resources ; or community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly : None anticipated , No aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historical , or other natural resources are known to exist on the site . Adjacent land use is predominantly developed and undeveloped residential lots and open space , No adverse impact to community or neighborhood character is expected as a result of this action C -3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or other natural resources ? Explain briefly , None anticipated . Proposed home is to be built on an existing lot covered by grass and brush . No significant or endangered vegetation or fauna are known to exist on the site , nor are there any known significant habitats , threatened, or other natural resources . C4 . A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? Explain briefly : None anticipated . The proposed home is permitted under the Residence District R-9 zoning in force in the area in which it Is proposed to be bullt , and is sited in a way that meets required setbacks for the R-9 District . No significant adverse impacts with regard to change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources Is anticipated . C5 . Growth, subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly : None expected . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C 1 -CS ? Explain briefly : None expected . i r C7 . Other Impacts ( Including changes In use of either quantity or type of energy )? Explain ' briefly : .e, None expected . 7r D . Is there . or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse 5L environmental Impacts ? 'Y Yes No_7(_ If Yes , explain briefly PART III — DETERMINATION OF S16NIFICANCE Based on the small scale of the proposed action , its location and the character of the site and site j surroundings , its conformance with all zoning requirements with regard to permitted uses in the R-9 District e :;cept for frontage on a public road , and the information provided above , a negative =a determination of environmental significance is recommended . �l George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner . ,1 s . 1 f i I� 4 i . I f l? PART 11 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be oom leted by the Town of Ithaca Use attachments as necess . ; ; ) A . Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES NO X It yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF . Be Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? YES NO X ( It no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , it any .) C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) Cl . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or =;1 neighborhood character ? Explain briefly : ~� SEE ATTACHED , C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED . C4 . The Town '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 SEE ATTACHED . CS . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - CS ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED , C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or � q y type of energy ) ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED , j D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES ® NO If yes , explain briefly : E . Comments of staff ❑X CAC ❑ Other ❑ attached . (Check applicable boxes) 1 PART 111 — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ( To be completed by he Town of Ithece ) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above , determine whether it is substantial , large , important or otherwise significant . Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (ie . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude . If necessary , add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . f� Check this box it you have ideii�eintified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . LJ Then proceed directly to the full EAF and /or prepare a positive declaration . ❑ Check this box if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination . Name of Lead Agency g : -• � ��> g y Prepanaf s Signature Ifo Brent fronVResponsible Officer) Name & Title of Responst le Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Signature of Res onsible Officer in Lead Agency Date : d h� PART li - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT : Request for Variance from Article V . Section 19 of Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance : 294 Hayts Road ,A • REVIEWER : George R . Frantz , Asst , Town Planner DATE : October 19 , 1989 r Y A . Does Action exceed any TYPE 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR, PART 617 . 127 :� Yes No Action is UNLISTED.X_ r� B . Will Action receive coordinated review as provided for UNLISTED Actions in 6 NYCRR, PART 617 .6 ? Yes No.(_ Involved Agencyiies ) : C . Could Action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : C 1 . 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 : ,f I No significant adverse impacts associated with existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion , or flooding or drainage problems are expected as a result of proposed action . Proposed action is the grant of a variance from Article V , Section 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning ordinance , to ® allow a carriage for hire business operated by a resident of 294 Hayts Road . There is no new { construction or change in existing character of site proposed as part of this action , i C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural resources ; or community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly : No significant adverse impacts anticipated . Proposed action will occur within an existing farm complex . No aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historical , or other natural resources are known to exist on the site . Adjacent land use is predominantly residential lots , agriculture , and open space . No adverse impact to community or neighborhood character is expected as a result of this action C3 . Vegetation or fauna . fish , shellfish or wildlife species . significant habitats , or threatened or other natural resources ? Explain briefly . No significant adverse impacts 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 : Grant of the variance as requested could be contrary to certain community goals and plans as officially adopted . The subject parcel is located In an Agricultural District , which allows , 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 operated solely by a resident of the dwelling and subject to restrictions outlined in Article V . Section 19 . The proposed use is not listed as a profession or quasi -profession , or customary home occupation . However , because it appears similar in scale and intensity , and in terms of potential adverse impacts on the community as the abovementioned permitted professional , quasi -professional , or customary home occupations , no significant adverse impacts to the community's existing goals as officially adopted are anticipated . Y 1 C5 . 6rowth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly : :4 y 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 ;i C1 —05 ? Explain briefly : Grant of the requested variance may set a precedent resulting in similar requests for relief from zoning restrictions elsewhere in the Town of Ithaca , ' C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy )? Explain briefly : j No significant adverse impacts anticipated . D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? Yes No.X_ If Yes , explain briefly i PART III — DETERMINATION OF S16NIFICANCE Based on the relatively small scale of the activity for which a variance is requested , its location and i character , and the information presented above , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for this action , George R , Frantz Asst . Town Planner • • AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WED. , OCT. 24, 1990, 7P. M. : i B direction of the Chairman„ of the Zoning Board of Ap peals NOTICE IS HEREBY;. THE � ACAJOURNAL GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, Oc- ' tober 24, 1990, in Town Hall, . ; 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST State of New York , Tompkins County , ss . : Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST. Side ), . Ithaca, N. Y. , COM Gail Sullins being dulysworn , deposes and MENCING AT 7:0o P.M. , on P the following matters. APPEAL of William Thayer, says , that she /he resides in Ithaca , county and state aforesaid and that Owner/Appellant, Pameld Williams, Agent, requesting . she/ he is Clerk variance of the requirements of Article V, Section 18, Par- * agropof The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper rinted and published in the To 16, and Section g of PP P the Town of Ithaca Zoning Or- dinance, for the proposed Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice , of which the annexed is a true construction of a residential dwelling with an exterior copy , was published in said paper building height of 33 feet and an accessory building with a i \ height of 18 feet 8 inches, to t ` C\� (S be located on Townline Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-35- 1 -6, Residence District R- 30. Said Ordinance permits a residential building height of 30 feet and an accessory building height of 15 feet. APPEAL of Willis S. Hiker, Ap- pellant, requesting variance. *and that the first publication of said notice was on the ' > of the requirements of Article III , Sections 7 and 9, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordi- day of 'i ) 19 90 nonce, for the proposed con- struction of a residential dwelling on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-54-4- 16. 1 and - 16. 2, known as 191- 193 Kendall Avenue, Residence District R-9. Said Parcels do not > have frontage on the com- Subs ibe and sworn to before me , this / da pleled and paved portion of y Kendall Avenue . Said Ordi- nonce requires a building lot o1 19 to front on a Town, County, or State highway and have a front yard at least 60 feet in width along a street line. APPEAL of Noreen Marsit, Ap- pellant, requesting variance ofthe requirements of Article Notary Public , v, Section 19, Paragraph 6, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Or- dinance, for the operation of JEAN FORD a business, which has horse(s) and carriage for hire, known Notary Public State of New York os the "Ithoco Carriage 294 r proposed to be Iccated att 294 No. 4654410 Hoyts Rood, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6-24- 141 . 20 Qualified in Tom !tins Coun Agricultural Zone (Residence p t District R-30 requirements ap- Commission expires May 31 196 . ply ). Said Ordinance does not permit horses for hire. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7:00 p. m . , and said place, hear of per- sons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person . Andrew S. Frost Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273- 1747 October 19, 1990