Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1990-11-14 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk -TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 14 , 1990 THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MATTERS THAT WERE HEARD ON NOVEMBER 14 , 1990 BY THE BOARD : APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , OWNER/APPELLANT , ARTHUR G . STIERS , AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 30-FOOT BY 18 -FOOT " GAS CYLINDER STORAGE DOCK" , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 64 - 1-2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 , IN THE CORNELL ORCHARDS AREA ON PALM ROAD ADJACENT TO THE GENERAL STORES WAREHOUSE . GRANTED APPEAL OF VINAY AND SAGA AMBEGAOKAR , OWNERS/APPELLANTS , TED BRONSNICK , AGENT , REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF OR THE GRANT OF A BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE-STORY , TWO-CAR , DETACHED GARAGE , SET BACK FIVE ' FEET FROM THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY , AT 3 SUGARBUSH LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 61 - 1 - 14 . 51 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE AVERAGE NATURAL SLOPE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY EXCEEDS AN 8 PERCENT FALL AT THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY LINE RESULTING IN A BUILDING HEIGHT FOR SAID PROPOSED GARAGE OF 19 FEET 10 INCHES . ARTICLE IV , SECTION 13 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE LIMITS THE HEIGHT OF DETACHED GARAGES TO 15 FEET UNLESS THE NATURAL SLOPE OF A PROPERTY EXCEEDS AN 8 PERCENT FALL DIRECTLY FROM THE STREET LINE ( NOT ROAD RIGHT OF WAY ) , IN WHICH CASE SAID ORDINANCE LIMITS THE HEIGHT TO ONLY . ONE STORY , WHICH MAY BE PRESUMED TO BE GREATER THAN 15 FEET IN HEIGHT . GRANTED APPEAL OF GLENN F . HUBBELL , OWNER/APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTIONS 18 AND 191 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE OPERATION OF AN ANTIQUES AND SECOND HAND GOODS SHOP IN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT . AT 1308 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 27 - 1 - 14 . 1 , ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID ORDINANCE DOES NOT PERMIT ANTIQUE AND SECOND HAND BUSINESSES IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT . ADJOURNED TO DECEMBER 12 , 1990 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Data.tQB.�/.�. Clerk APPEAL OF CHASE FARM ASSOCIATES , OWNER/APPELLANT , HARRISON RUE , AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE USE OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY , LOCATED AT 108 RIDGECREST ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 AND —5 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ( ADJOURNED FROM OCTOBER 10 , 1990 ) , 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 " , AND FURTHER , TO DETERMINE WHAT SALES/USES MAY BE CUSTOMARILY ENCOMPASSED WITHIN A GASOLINE SALES STATION . ADJOURNED TO NOVEMBER 28 , 1990 • FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date 4 0 TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 14 , 1990 Present : Chairman Henry Aron , Joan Reuning , Edward Austen , Edward King , Robert Hines , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew Frost . Others Present : Arthur Stiers , Bea Stiers , Ted Bronsnick , Glenn Hubbell , Harrison Rue , Eva Hoffmann , D . F . Spencer , Carolyn Richter , Roger Sayre . 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 . Reappointment of Joan G Reuning to Zoning Board of Appeals - Recommendation to Town Board MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Edward W . King : WHEREAS : 1 . Mrs . Joan G . Reuning ' s current five -year term as a member• of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals expires on December 31 , 1990 . 2 . Mrs . Reuning has served the Town of Ithaca as a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals with expertise and due and proper diligence since January , 1978 . 3 . Mrs . Reuning has expressed both her willingness and desire to continue her service as a member of said Board of Appeals . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the reappointment of Mrs . Joan G . Reuning to said Board of Appeals for a five -year term commencing January 1 , 1991 and expiring December 31 , 1996 . Aye - Austen , Hines , King , Aron , Reuning . Nay - None Carried Unanimously . • ® Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 The first Appeal on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , OWNER/APPELLANT , ARTHUR G . STIERS , AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD - OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 30 -FOOT BY 18 - FOOT " GAS CYLINDER STORAGE DOCK" , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 64 - 1 -2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 , IN THE CORNELL ORCHARDS AREA ON PALM ROAD ADJACENT TO THE GENERAL STORES WAREHOUSE . Mr . Arthur Stiers explained the proposal to the Board . At the present time the bulk of the compressed gases are now stored at the Humphreys Service Building and small amounts are handled from the facility at Humphreys to the warehouse facility for distribution to the Campus at large . He stated that they are anxious to get the bulk storage to an outside facility at the Orchards where they can be distributed from that point . It will minimize handling of the cylinders and it will also facilitate access to the loading dock by the delivery truck , which now is a semi -vehicle and has to maneuver through a very congested area to unload and pick up return cylinders . Mr . Stiers stated that the dock itself is an elevated concrete platform with a super structure and a shed roof over the top , approximately 3 foot high by 18 feet by 30 feet . Mr . Stiers explained that they receive approximately 50 cylinders a week . They carry approximately , 225 total cylinders at any given time on the Campus . He said that what they would like to do is consolidate all the cylinders in one location where they can be controlled . They will not be changing the nature of the facility or the distribution point in any way other than going into an improved storage yard which is a gravel and cinder storage yard adjacent to the structure . They have not expanded the footprint or area of the existing loading area . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Chairman Aron referred to the Environmental Review Committee ' s comments on CU ' s gas cylinder storage shed , dated 10/ 30/ 90 , which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . He questioned on what authority the committee gives the Board . their recommendation when the Board has staff whose job and qualification it is to give us the correct information . Mr . . Frost explained that this was information that was received and he did not feel that he could not hand it out . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 Chairman Aron referred to and read Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form which was signed by the Assistant Town Planner , George Frantz , dated 10/ 30/ 90 . The form is attached as Exhibit # 2 . Chairman Aron read into the record the Adopted Resolution from the Planning Board of 11/ 6/ 90 , attached as Exhibit # 3 . Mr . King asked , in regard to the Environmental Review Committee ' s comments , if the Planning Board considered their comments . Mr . Frost stated that the Planning Board did consider the comments from the ERC as part of their review . Mrs . Reuning stated that she thinks there are some illegitimate points on that page and she would be interested in knowing what the Planning Board did say . She thinks it would be good for the Board , not necessarily for this project , if Cornell would give the Town a plan of what is going to happen at that location . Mr . Stiers stated that he believes the Town Engineer spoke to the fact that a meeting had occurred . The large scale plan is in progress and the Planning Board had been in attendance at those meetings and based on that , this building is one fairly insignificant structure and wouldn ' t impede any future work out there . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Stiers how much security would be provided for the area . Mr . Stiers responded that Life Safety has their building staffed 24 hours a day . In order to get into the Orchards area , you have to go by the Life Safety building ; the area is lit , and patrolled regularly . The cylinders would be chained together and in bulk on the loading dock . Mr . Frost presented a photo of the area and stated that one of the advantages in having the cylinders there is that it is not a densely populated area . Mr . Stiers stressed the danger of the trucks getting into and out of the Humphreys Service Building , which is a very congested area . ' Mr . King asked if the tanks are stored inside at Humphreys Service Building . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 Mr . Stiers said that at Humphreys they are stored in a semi - enclosed situation . The Fire Department prefers that they be stored in an open type situation . The new structure would be entirely open - sided . Environmental Assessment By Mr . Edward Austen ; Seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Cornell University requesting the special approval of the Board of Appeals for the proposed construction of a 30 - foot by 18 - foot " Gas Cylinder Storage Deck " , proposed to be located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 , in the Cornell Orchards on Palm Road adjacent to the General Stores Warehouse , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance based on the recommendations of the reviewer . Ayes - Austen , King , Reuning , Hines , Aron . ® Nays - None . 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 Special Approval for the construction of a - 30 - foot by 18 - foot Gas Cylinder Storage Dock , proposed to be located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 , in the Cornell Orchards area , with the following findings : 10 that the construction of this dock will allow for better control and a more accessible location for this facility .. 2e that the visibility is not a problem because there is no one but Cornell who will be looking at the facility . 3e that no one appeared in opposition to the proposal . 4 * that the construction meets the requirements of Section 77 . 7 of the Zoning Ordinance . Ayes - Reuning , Austen , Hines , King , Aron . Nays - - None . The motion was carried unanimously . • Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 0 The . second Appeal on the Agenda was the following : APPEAL OF VINAY AND SAGA AMBEGAOKAR , OWNERS/APPELLANTS , TED BRONSNICK , AGENT , REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF OR THE GRANT OF A BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE -STORY , TWO-CAR , DETACHED GARAGE , SET BACK FIVE FEET FROM THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY , AT 3 SUGARBUSH LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 61 - 1 - 14 . 5 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE AVERAGE NATURAL SLOPE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY EXCEEDS AN 8 PERCENT FALL AT THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY LINE RESULTING IN A BUILDING HEIGHT FOR SAID PROPOSED GARAGE OF 19 FEET 10 INCHES . ARTICLE IV , SECTION 13 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE LIMITS THE HEIGHT OF DETACHED GARAGES TO 15 FEET UNLESS THE NATURAL SLOPE OF A PROPERTY EXCEEDS AN 8 PERCENT FALL DIRECTLY FROM THE STREET LINE ( NOT ROAD RIGHT OF WAY ) , IN WHICH CASE SAID ORDINANCE LIMITS THE HEIGHT TO ONLY ONE STORY , WHICH MAY BE PRESUMED TO BE GREATER THAN 15 FEET IN HEIGHT . Mr . Frost explained that the Zoning Ordinance , Section 13 , states that you can have a one - story garage when you have an 8 % rise or fall slope directly from the street line . A detached garage is an accessory building and is typically limited to a 15 - foot height limitation . He said that in regard to this particular property , the slope of the land appears to start , in his opinion ; at the road right - of -way , not at the street line so in terms of interpretation , that being the case , if the Board determines that interpretation then they are really looking at a building height variance since the proposed structure is greater than the 15 - foot limitation . Mr . Ted Bronsnick appeared before the Board and presented a map showing the grades on the property in question . He explained that it is only at the back side of the proposed garage that it is 19 ' 10 " from the proposed finished grade to the ridge because of the grade of the lot , at the front it is 11 feet . Discussion followed regarding the topography of the land . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Mrs . Eva Hoffmann , the closet neighbor , spoke to the Board in favor of the proposed construction of the garage . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines ; seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance for the construction of a one - story ,' 2 - car , detached garage , as shown in plans submitted , at 3 Sugarbush Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 61 - 1 - 14 . 51 Residence District R- 15 , with the following findings . 1s that the photographs submitted by the Zoning Officer indicate that the garage will be hidden from Snyder Hill Road by the house . 2e that the applicant presented by photographic and schematic portrayals and testimony by Mr . Bronsnick that there would be practical difficulties and hardship in trying to comply with the height otherwise permitted by the Zoning Ordinance . 3 * that the plans are in conformance with the plans for ® development in the community . 4 * that the closest neighbor , Mrs . Hoffmann , spoke in favor of the construction of the garage . A vote on the motion resulted as follows . Ayes - Hines , Reuning , Aron , King , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The next Appeal on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF GLENN F . HUBBELL , OWNER/APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V , SECTIONS 18 AND 19 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE OPERATION OF AN ANTIQUES AND SECOND HAND GOODS SHOP IN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AT 1308 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 -27 - 1 - 14 . 1 , ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID ORDINANCE DOES NOT PERMIT ANTIQUE AND SECOND HAND BUSINESSES IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT . Mr . Glenn Hubbell appeared before the Board . Chairman Aron stated to Mr . Hubbell that according to the photo that was taken by Mr . Frost and from driving by the property in question , there is already outside storage at the location , which in his opinion looks very bad . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 Mr . Hubbell responded that what he has is relative to an antique shop and there are times when some people don ' t expect to see certain things around a shop of that nature . Mr . Hubbell stated that he was in front of the Board in 1976 and he felt he was operating within some guidelines of propriety and never received any reprimand or inquiry thereafter and he said that he guesses things got a little slip - shod . Chairman Aron referred to a , letter from Mr . Frost to Mr . Hubbell , dated 10/ 3 / 90 , which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 . He said that Mr . Hubbell has been operating without permission since 1978 . Mr . Hubbell said that he presumes he has been somewhat remiss as to whether it was his responsibility to monitor this situation . Chairman Aron read from the ZBA minutes of the 3 / 3 / 76 meeting at which Mr . Hubbell appeared . The minutes are attached hereto as Exhibit # 5 . Mr . Hubbell said , in defense of his operation , that somewhere along the line someone should have told him that he was over his one year permit . Mr . King stated that it was Mr . Hubbell ' s responsibility as stated in said minutes of 1976 , of which Mr . Hubbell had a copy . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared before the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Chairman Aron referred to the SEAF and read into the record Part III , that was signed by Asst . Town Planner George Frantz . on 10/ 15/ 90 , which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 6 . Chairman Aron stated that when he sees the property in the state that it is in , he has to take exception to Mr . Frantz ' recommendation of a negative determination of environmental significance because one of pollutions is eye pollution and this property is definitely an eye pollution . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Hubbell what he would recommend to rectify this problem with the storage that is outside those buildings . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 Mr . Hubbell responded that he would endeavor to meet whatever regulations were required . He said that he has painted the house , fixed the windows and improved the property . He said the letter from Mr . Frost was only received a few weeks ago and that did not leave him time to clean up 14 years of negligence . Mr . Hubbell stated that he purchased another 6 . 6 acres below the original which gives him a 400 or 500 foot buffer zone to the east toward the City so there are virtually no neighbors who look into the front , side or back yards of his property . Mrs . Reuning stated that she agreed with Chairman Aron regarding the negative declaration on the environmental assessment form . She suggested that the Board give Mr . Hubbell a couple of weeks to clean up the outside of the buildings and then come back to the Board for further consideration of his request . Further discussion followed regarding what alternatives the Board has . MOTION By Mrs . Joan Reuning ; seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Appeal of Mr . Glenn Hubbell be adjourned until the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on December 12 , 1990 to give Mr . Hubbell a chance to comply with the previous order of the - Board to clean up the outside storage on his property . The voting on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Reuning , King , Aron , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The motion to adjourn the matter was carried unanimously . The last Appeal on the Agenda was the following : APPEAL OF CHASE FARM ASSOCIATES , OWNER/APPELLANT , HARRISON RUE , AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE USE OF A RESIDENTIAL . PROPERTY , LOCATED AT 108 RIDGECREST ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 AND - 5 . 2 , • RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 Mr . Harrison Rue passed out information to the Board entitled " Proposed Moving Costs " and 11108 Improvements to Office " , copies of which are attached here as Exhibits # 7 and # 8 , respectively . He stated that the business has undergone some reorganization and as part of the function of that the organization and the number of employees and the impact on the neighborhood is considerably smaller than it was when Mr . Frost first notified them that there had been a complaint . Mr . Rue stated that it would be very difficult to undergo a move right now . It would be a substantial economic injury to the organization to have to move now and then to move again . He said they have every intention next Spring or Summer of moving the offices . As he stated in his letter he has asked permission to maintain the office at the present location until August 1991 . He said that their intention is certainly to move before that but that would give them some flexibility . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Mr . Roger Sayre , 110 Ridgecrest Road , stated that he and his ® wife have no animosity toward Mr . Auble and his associates . However , this particular property ( # 108 ) which is next to his property is a real thorn in the side of the community due to the nature , its division , and the construction of the second work structure which was originally intended to be a workshop and became a residence and is now an office . Mr . Sayre said that he would admit that the property has improved for the better , it has been spruced up since Mr . Auble took it over . He would like to maintain that this is a residential neighborhood and he thinks in keeping with the spirit of Zoning Laws we should maintain that residential character in the neighborhood and such a business should not be operating out of the neighborhood . Mr . Sayre stated that there are alternative locations that this business could be headquartered in . There is a model on King Road which is equally as large as this residence that is currently being used . He stated that he thinks this property should be maintained as a single family residence property and perhaps even raze the structure in the back if that is what it is going to take to prevent the dual nature of the property . In answer to Chairman Aron ' s question , Mr . Sayre stated that he is opposed to the applicant being given a variance for his request . Mr . Sayre said that he understands that the request is for a limited period of time , to August 1991 , but he believes that is only a postponement of a bad problem . He stated that it is a personal affront to him to look out his window and see cars parked in a parking lot and business activities going on . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 . Mr . Rue explained that the rear building has been shut down . There are only five people working in the front unit . The kitchen has been totally removed from the rear building and at the moment it is only being used for storage . The front building was three apartments . It has now been converted to one unit which is used for office space . Two of the three kitchens in the front unit were also permanently removed at the same time as the- kitchen in the rear unit . Mr . King asked Mr . Rue if the use were permitted to continue until next August , would he continue to use that rear building . Mr . Rue stated that at the moment they are using the rear building and he sees no reason to use it for other than storage . Mr . Frost interjected that there is a long history on this property . He said that essentially there was a restriction that prohibited the use of that back building for anything other than an accessory building . Mr . Frost stated that from the standpoint of the Ordinance , a property is entitled for at least up to one year to have buildings used as part of a development . If and ® when this ultimately turns back to a residence , the back building will not be issued a certificate from his office for anything other than an accessory building , absent of any residential dwelling unit . Mrs . Carolyn Richter , 110 Ridgecrest Road , spoke on the history of the property and stated her opposition to the proposal . Discussion followed on the floor . Mr . Rue stated that Mr . Auble is not connected with the project any longer . He wanted to give Mr . Auble credit for assessing the fact that this was an eyesore when he bought this house and their intention at the time of the purchase was to clean them up , use them temporarily as an office and then revert them to single family ownership . Mr . Rue spoke on the economic hardship issues . Mr . King asked Mr . Rue what their eventual proposed use of these buildings are . IMr . Rue said that they propose at the moment to sell the building . Numbers 104 and 106 Ridgecrest Road are advertised for sale as of today . Number 108 will also be eventually sold as a residential dwelling . Further discussion followed regarding the reasons the company does not want to move their office facilities at this time . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 Mr . Rue stressed that the economic hardship to the organization would be significant given the current state of the general economy . Mr . Hines asked for assurance that Mr . Rue ' s organization . will not .be back in front of the Board in the future asking for another extension of time for this building . Mr . Rue stated that he can guarantee that he , personally , will not be back in here before the Board asking for another extension . Town Attorney Barney spoke of the history of the house back in the late 160 ' s and early 1701s . Further discussion followed regarding the number of persons utilizing the office space in the building in question . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing and asked the Board for a motion on the matter . ® MOTION By Mr . Edward . King ; seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant Special Approval to Chase Farm Associates for the continuation of the use of a, residential property located at 108 Ridgecrest Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 and - 5 . 2 , for business purposes with respect to the development of a residential area , with the following findings and conditions : 16 that there is a significant investment involved in the business . 2e that there will be no more than . 5 people employed to work in or out of that building or on the property . 3 * that the building be returned to residential use on or before July 31 , 1991 and in the meantime the rear building , 108A , will be used only as an accessory building for storage and like uses , without any personnel using it for an office or other such uses . 49 that the impact would not be unreasonable on the neighborhood , being apparently less than it has been in the past year . 59 that the economic situation is so bad that it would be • a particular hardship for the company to have to move twice . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 6 . that when the building is restored . to residential purposes , the gravel area behind the first building shall be re - converted to lawn . Chairman Aron called for a voice vote which resulted as follows : Aye - Mr . King Aye - Mrs . Reuning Aye - Mr . Hines Aye - Mr . Austen Aye - Mr . Aron The motion was carried unanimously . ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ( ADJOURNED FROM OCTOBER 10 , 1990 ) , 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 " , AND FURTHER , TO ® DETERMINE WHAT SALES/USES MAY BE CUSTOMARILY ENCOMPASSED WITHIN A GASOLINE SALES STATION . Chairman Aron referred to written statements by Mr . King and Mr . Hines , attached hereto as Exhibits # 9 and # 10 , and extensive discussion followed on the floor . It was the consensus of the Board that Mr . King and Mr . Hines will draft a resolution to submit to the Board . The draft resolution will come back to the Board .on November 28 , 1990 for consideration and review . The meeting adjourned at 10 : 05 p . m . Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary Henry Aron , Chairman • x [ 90 10/ 30/ 90 ER Comm . ' s comments on CU ' s gas sylinder storage shed We note that some EAF Qs were ans ' d . incorrectly . # 8 yes should be no # 11 yes should be no We note that we were not supplied with topographic information , so that we could not properly analyze impacts . We note that the additional information that would have been provided by the new EAFs was not supplied We note that this project is an additional incremental industrial use in an R- 30 zone Our recommendation : Is there some urgency for this project ? I . e . , Is the present storage system for these gas sylinders a dangerous situation ? If yes - - then applicant must come back with a statement of how this project will address that danger . Project review could then move ahead , but not until after applicant provides a security design ( so that , e . g . , the open shed will not be accesible to vandals ) and provides analysis of any potential impacts on ( 1 ) Cascadilla creek and ( 2 ) BTI experiments . If no - - then do not act on this project at all until CU has supplied a DEIS on its entire plans for this part of town , to include among other things details on where all of the University ' s industrial - type support facilities are to be located . And for this particular project , in proximity to Casca - dilla , we assume the EIS will address -general protection for that stream and gorge . 14. 1!3.4 (2/87)— Text 12 PROJECT I. D. NUMBER 617.21 SEAR Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1 . APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2 . PROJECT NAME Cornell University , Ithaca , NY General Stores Warehouse Gas Cylinder Dock 3 . PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality Town of Ithaca County Tompkins County New York 4 , PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) See Attached Location Plan See Attached Site Plan 5 . IS PROPOSED ACTION: ❑ New ® Expansion ❑ Modificationlalteratlon 8 . DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Covered Storage Dock For Storage and Handling of Compressed Gas Cylinders , 7 , AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: S Ft . Initially 652 . 5 Ultimately acres 8 . WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ® Yes ❑ No If No, describe briefly • 9 . WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ❑ Residential ® Industrial ❑ Commercial ® Agriculture ® Park/ForeaVOpen space ❑ Other Describe: 10 , DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAU?rrvpt1 ❑ Yes 13 No If yea, list agency(s) and permlVapprovals 11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ® Yes ❑ No If yea, list agenay name and permlVapproval Special Approval For Existing Materials Control Facility , 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ® Yoe ❑ No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE 18 TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applbarltleponsor nameArphu,r G tiers 9 / 27 / 90 Date: Signature: It the action Is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the • Coastal Assessment Form Moro proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 �f' PART 11 — ENYI RONMENTA L ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of ithaoa • 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 user the Full EAF . B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? YES ® NO ( 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) 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 neighborhood character ? Explain briefly : SEE ATPACHED 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 ATTTACHED C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in CI - C5 ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES F NO.® If yes , explain briefly : E . Comments of staff © , CAC Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART 111 — 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 (it . -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 , 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 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS zaatz zzu L Name of Lead Agency Prepar*+ s Signature If 3MWent from Responsible Officer) HENRY ARON , CHAIRMAN Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date : Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead A enc PART II — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Proposed Gas Cylinder Storaae Dock . Cornell University General Stores Warehouse , A . Does Action exceed any TYPE I threshold in 6 NYCRR , PART 617 . 12 ? Yes No Action is UNLISTED.C_ B . Will Action receive coordinated review as provided for UNLISTED Actions in 6 NYCRR, PART 617 .6 ? Yeses No Involved Agency(fes) : Town of Ithaca Planning Board , Zoning Board of Appeals C . Could Action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : Cl 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 . Proposed action is the construction of a 30' x 18' raised platform with roof for the storage of 20 Ib and 1001b size gas cylinders used in ongoing University operations , Gas��vhich are proposed to be stored on the dock are : oxygen , nitrogen , carbon dioxide , helium , argon , acetylene , and compressed air , Proposed structure will be constructed within existing storage yard and adjacent to the General Stores warehouse . No significant adverse Impacts with regard to the above environmental concerns 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 . No known archaeological or historic resources , or agricultural or other natural resources , exist on the site , or are expected to otherwise be affected . No significant adverse effects on neighborhood character expected as a result of the proposed action , Site is screened from the east (Game Farm Road direction ) by an existing earth berm directly adjacent to site , and by a natural rise in land further east; from the north (NYS Route 366 ) by existing buildings ; from the west by topography ; and from the south by topography and vegetation . The Town of Ithaca East Ithaca Recreation Way is approximately 500 feet south of the proposed storage dock , It is screened from the storage yard area and proposed dock however by a band of trees and brush , and the + / - 30 foot high ravine side . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or other natural resources ? Explain briefly . No significant adverse impacts anticipated . No significant habitats or endangered or otherwise significant vegetation or wildlife species , or other natural resources are known to exist on the site , . A m C4 community's's exlstfn lens or pals as officially adopted , or a change in use r intensity f Y 9 p 9 Y D g o s y o use of land or other natural resources ? Explain briefly : None expected . The site is zoned Residence District R-30 . The proposed action is in support of ongoing education-related university operations , and as such Is considered a permitted use under the Residence District R-30 regulations . The changes in use or intensityof use of the land as a result of the proposed action are limited In nature and not expected to have any significant adverse impacts . &,/ {0 .Z. � N C5 . Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly : None anticipated . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C I -05 ? Explain briefly : None anticipated . C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly : None anticipated , D . Is there , or is there likely to be . controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? Yes NoJL If Yes , explain briefly PART III - DETERMINATION OF S16NIFICANCE Given the small scale of the proposed action , Its conformance with Town of Ithaca Zoning , its similarity with the character of the surrounding land uses , and reasons given above , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the above referenced project . LEAD AGENCY : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals REVIEWER : George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner DATE : 10/30/90 Cornell University - - Gas Cylinder Storage Dock - 1 - East of Orchards area , south of Route 366 , and west of Game Farm Road Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Cornell University - - Gas Cylinder Storage Dock East of Orchards area , south of Route 366 , and west of Game Farm Road Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 MOTION by Mr . Robert Ken erson , seconded by Dr . William Lesser : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval for a proposed 30 - foot by 18 - foot " Gas Cylinder Storage Dock " , proposed to be located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 . 2 . The proposed project is located within the existing Cornell University General Stores warehouse storage yard , east of the Cornell Orchards area approximately 2 , 100 feet south of NYS Route 366 and 2 , 500 feet west of Game Farm Road , in a Residence District R - 30 zone . 3 . This is an Unlisted 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 November 6 , 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 . ® b . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected . Cornell University - - Gas Cylinder Storage Dock - 2 - East of Orchards area , south of Route 366 , and west of Game Farm Road Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 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 of Cornell University for Special Approval for a proposed 30 - foot by 18 - foot " Gas Cylinder Storage Dock " , proposed to be located in the storage yard area of the existing General Stores warehouse on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , be approved . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . � • t7 Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . November 13 , 1990 . 7Co®I W of irrHACA 126 East SINE" STRUF ® rtw►cq, NEW YORK 14860 October 3 , 1 1990 Mr . Glen Hubbell 1308 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca , New York 14850 RE : Hubs Antiques & Furniture Dear Mr . Hubbell : This letter serves as a follow up to our telephone conversation on October 2 , 1990 , in reference to the operation of your antique and furni - ture business at 1308 Mecklenburg Road . You maintain your own residential building on the property , along with several accessory buildings that are used as part of your business operation . On March 3 , 1976 , you appeared before the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals and obtained a " special permit " " for one year , to operate an antique and second hand goods shop " . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance would not otherwise permit any commercial operation in a residential zone . ( Your property is located in a Residential District R - 30 zone . I am enclosing a copy of the " minutes " for your 1976 Zoning Board of Appeals appearance . There is no record of your ever receiving any extension beyond 1976 for the continued operation of your business on Mecklenburg Road . Your property is in violation of Article V , Section 18 and 19 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance as a result of the business use in a residential zone As we discussed I am enclosing an application for an appearance before the Zoning Board of Appeals in which you will be seeking a " use variance " . I anticipate a hearing date of November 14 , 1990 . Please complete all the enclosed papers and return it to this office at your earliest convenience , along with a check for $ 80 . 00 payable to the Town of Ithaca . Should you have any questions please feel free to call me at 273 - 1783 . Sincerely , Andrew Frost Building Inspector / ® Zoning Enforcement Officer AF / dlw Enclosures cce Shirley Raffensperger Henry Aron John Barney Zoning Board of Appeals - 8 - March 3 , 1976 4 . Mr . Hubbell further proposes that only members of .. hi iate family would be employed in the antique operation . 5 . The sale of antiques will be maintained at a low level as Indic d above compatible wit a of neighbo ood that this is -- ---- -- THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that said Board grant and hereby does grant a special permit to Mr . Glenn L . Hubbell for one year to operate an antique and secondhand goods shop , to use the buildings for temporary storage of materials for compensation with the pro- vision that any signs connected with these operations must conform with the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance , Local Law # 1 - 1972 , and BE I'T FURmHER RESOLVED , that these uses are restricted to the existing buildings north of the house on this property k:iown as 1308 Mecklenburg Road , being a portion of TC:,m of Ithaca Tax Parcel 6 - 27 - 1 - 14 . rvcL&� & - 27- / - / 4 - / There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . \ Aye - Francese , Hewett , King , Austen . \ Nay - Uone . The Chairman declared the 110TIO11 carried unanimously . Chaprman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the Hub ell tem a;,ly closed at 8 : 55 p. . m . RESOLUTION R ZONING BOARD OF API ?:?Ar.S 9F .S . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , sace;3ed by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that e ;: (, h member of tale Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca reelaive $ 25 . 00 pc; r meeting attended . Aye - Francese , �.ewett , King , Austen . Nay - None . The Chairman dec ? ar d the MOTION carried unanimously . ADJOURN14,'�:?^ Upon Motion , the Chairman declared the Meeting of the Zoning Foard of iippeals drily adjourned at 9 : 15 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Peter K . F a;icese , Chairman Zoning Board of appeals 14. 16.1 2/87)—Text 12 PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 61711 SEAR Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1 . APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2 . PROJECT NAME C L L N /1/ r; c`L L v 13 :S PA& i9c G 191v i'/ 4;ve S 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality "W County B Am l N 4 . PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) / 3 o !' h4 ZF Gk o R 0o 4Afi- /:? -re y9 W' )4K ►¢ IL1LGl� � �N3u (ZG Rof� O L.Jm;sr IVLF * f2. L,were, r NAUc`N _ M2p, JA: 7' /2SccTial� 5 . IS PROPOSED ACTION: �. tJSC - U30 ) 09n/C4 ❑ New ED Expansion ❑ Modification/alteration C 0 ;v TI r✓ V .4 313176 6 , DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Cd1L7'/NYeD,C p .4 4` A1- 16r✓ o r� I4- N7111 QaO� use 0 Fri;? w � 'T✓ �� / n/' J4Fx15 .7-/ r✓ C s .7-P L) C;' 'ru 012 I-F S P �2 S , ' r. cl ,9 <- P % IC' rti / r 7"Ow ,v . ..rHleO 7 . AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially acres Ultimately acres S . WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ® Yes EgNo If No, describe briefly Nv PE a zO w I N' co v 2 0 r NA A✓ c Is A R'.•• ✓ � � , 14 4 r2 S P,=c i tqti AP' M 1 'r 7'd L. j N oI= .F'THAca "— ZcAPPFAkS •3!•'3lY (go 9 . WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ❑ Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ® Agriculture ❑ Park/Forest/Open space ❑ Other Describe: Auld 117-14- 2 wt to D ; Iv 7 s , ✓ .:-� v 5' ou 'TN if 4F19S67 ' l Ds. L /}GI � /✓ T ff� Rt /tG� 95 �7a2ttr5 74 ' c :rd Nr 10 , DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING. - NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, list agency(s) and permlVapprovals S P e-- I R ,L PCR m i T r� TH fes!} Tia iv , fv v 190. 9 P P t Al- : ' 713174&; t) Gi- I /2 / tn /} PPI- icw13T� c :v ;=c IQ j �f/ S - i/i921r9rvCc " 11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VAUD PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, list agency name and permlVapproval $ 10 (} ti PZRwtIr" 7& w ,v 7t1 & & 4:r01v1rv6 �3d�. l } PPc /� C y 3/ 3 / 76 MiJjT � L l2 ,tiq L4V H s4) 5C - ✓(� RIr3rVGC 12 . AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑ Yes No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS. TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name: nJ Date: , l Signature: If the action Is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER / r PART II — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be oom leted 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 . B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? YES NO ® ( 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) 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 ATTACH® 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 Y . C6 .. Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - C5 ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES ❑ NO ® If yes , explain briefly : E . Comments of staff ® , CAC Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) 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 . F] 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 . ZONING HOARD OF APPEALS Name of Lead Agency Preparer Signature If diffe from Responsible Officer) HENRY ARON , . CHAIRMAN Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Si nature of Res onsible Officer in Lead A enc Date : V PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT : Request for Variance from Article V . Sections 18 and 19 of Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance : 1308 Mecklenberg Road REVIEWER : George R . Frantz , Asst . Town Planner DATE : November 7 , 1990 A . Does Action exceed any TYPE I threshold In 6 NYCRR, PART 617 . 12 ? Yes No Action is UNLISTED(_ Be Will Action receive coordinated review as provided for UNLISTED Actions in 6 NYCRR , PART 617 .6 ? Yes No.(_ Involved Agency( ies ) : C . Could Action result In any adverse effects associated with the following : C I . 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 V , Sections 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning ordinance to allow an existing nonconforming use within an existing structure to continue . No new construction or change in existing character of site is proposed under this action . ® C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural resources ; or community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly : No significant adverse impacts anticipated . No archaeological or historic resources are known to exist on the site , No agricultural , aesthetic , or other natural resources are expected to be affected by the proposed action . No significant adverse impacts to community or neighborhood character are anticipated as a result of the proposed 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 would 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 occupatigns operated solely by a resident of the dwelling and subject to restrictions outlined in Article V , Section 19 . The surrounding land use is generally rural residential and open fields , brush , and woodland , and no commercial development in the portion of the town where the subject parcel is located is proposed or anticipated in any community plans and goals officially adopted by the Town of Ithaca . It must be noted however that there is an existing nonconforming commercial use in the vicinity of the subject parcel in the form of another antique retail business across the road . 60 400,014 # 6/ C5 . 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 -05 ? Explain briefly : None anticipated , C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy )? Explain briefly : No significant adverse impacts 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 S16NIFICANCE Because of the relatively small scale of the activity for which a variance is requested , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended . George R . Frantz Asst . Town Planner • PROPOSED MOVING COSTS TRUCK RENTAL 275 LABOR 1500 COMPUTER NETWORK SETUP 400 COST OF PHONE LINES 400 DEPOSIT INSTALLATION 400 TELEPHONE LINES INTO OFFICE 275 OFFICE EQUIPMENT SETUP 250 DECOR 300 COST OF NEW ADDRESS ON STATIONERY , ENVELOPES , ADS 500 TOTAL COSTS 4300 • • • 108 Improvements to Office Total Labor : 250 / hrs . @ 20 per hr . 5000 . Electrical : 4 ' 2 bulb flourcent fixtures ( 25 ) 30 / piece 750 . 4 ' 4 bulb It to ( 4 ) 50 / piece 200 . 4 dedicated computer lines / phones 1000 . 2 Nine light entry doors 200 . / ea . 400 . Underground computer lines 400 . Painting : C . J . Morris - exterior 2000 . C . J . Morris - interior 300 . Remodeling : Remove old bath south end front building 500 . Sand / reburbish wood floors 600 . Carpet : Site Work : Parking lot fill 2000 . ' TOTAL 121200 . r T• _ : . • ...yIIA 3Z 7M- 7MOF ITHACA INTPERPI=ATION OF ZONING ORDI�JANCF. 335 ( Permitted Uses in business " D" 'Zones : gasoline sales stations & repair garages ) [ hambLing Thoughts & Notes of E . W . King 11 /8/90] [ Paragraph Numbers are only for ease of references to this DRAFT] 1 . Section 35 of the Tann of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance specifies as the only permitted uses in the Business "D" %renes to be created thereunder , the joperation of Gasoline Service Stations and Automotive Repair Garages , while Section 31 , restricts the location of such Districts to prevent them in R-15 Residence Zones . 2 . Section 35 itself also provides that these Districts are subject to the further restrictions of Section 71 , which establishes special separation minim= — applicable only to gas stations and auWnotive repair garages , to keep building and facilities back from street lines and residence districts , and to limit the intrusion of these facilities into the side yards and front yards of the Lot . And Section 35 issues the further warning that Business D facilities and uses are also subject_ to the provisions of Section 54 of the Ordinance -- which permits the extension of a non-conforming building or use only upon authorization of the ZBA , 3 . Accessory uses pennitted in the Business Zones by Section 36 are limited to accessory stor-r,ae ouil_0.rigs , p.irkincl , crud signs -- as far as they would seen to be applicable to a Business D zone . No provision for the Special Approval of the ZBA ( with or without Planning Board approval of a site plan ) appears to be provided in Article VII [ § " 31-39 ] ; but Sections 39 and 46-a of the Ordinance do call for site plan approval by the Planning Board for any 1 building or structure to be erected within any business District . r ;'. 4 • Some 55 specified types of Business operations are specified as permitted + uses or operations in one or the other of the other 3 Business Districts , in their delineation in Sections 32 - 34 of the Ordinance . Only Business " D" districts are limited to but 2 specified uses . 5 . It thus seems clear from the Ordinance itself that businesses providing autanotive gasoline , oil , care and relxair , were to be specially sited and j imitations . The inherent d,miger in the storage and specially controlled by l t+ dispensing of volatile , flammable and explosive fuels , and the high volume of y traffic into them and out of them onto streets or highways abutting , undoubtedly account in large measure for the concern of the drafters in singling out these businesses for special attention and restriction . 6 . The suggestion is made that perhaps any ( or at .least some ) of the other retail sales which are specified or permitted in the business Zones of less concern [ A, B, or C -- and perhaps E] be autcmati.cally permitted in these Business "D" Zones , and note is made of the fact that meuiy Gasoline Service Stations ( and perhaps some automotive repair garages ) are operated in conjunction with a "Oonvenience store" in which all nanner of groceries , kitchen supplies and utensils , candy , cigarettes , snacks ( delicatessen items [ i ] and sandwiches [ 7 ] are sold . 7 . Note is also made of the fact that many or most service stations in the area sell other automotive utilities and supplies ( tires ; batteries ; wiper blades ; snow- brushes and ice scrapers ; mud flaps ; anti- freeze ; windshield wash ; etc , etc . ) , as well as soda , cigarettes , candy , gum and snacks . p p A . One particular applicant could .like to be allowed to sell not only the 0automotive items mentioned in the above paragraph , but also items for use or ® concmcption by the motorist himself : cigarettes , soda , juice , coffee , cookies , chips , peanuts , ice , etc . -- which he characterizes as items " to be conscme.d immediately after purchase " ; but he specifically excludes "deli and ?_. beer" . 1 F e He would also like to sell newspapers at his service station . 9 . One argument advanced for the specific enlargement of retail sale opportunities at Business D facilities is that economic necessity requires that a supplier of these essential items for automobile fuels and repairs supplement the sales generated at such a location by the sale of other products . Ifithat is tnre as a general_ '��`t•" '• g proposition for all service stations , ! f it would seem that it should be established to the satisfaction of the Town Board as a reason for expanding the statement of permitted uses in Business D ` . 'hones in Section 35 • If in a Particular situation only , the Planning Board , t '. in recommending or opposing a Variance , should carefully scrutinize whether • the Station ought to be sited there at all , and what limiting parameters might y be essential or wise for the operation . 10 . I suspect that the pointed reference , in Section 35 , to the Section governing the extension of non-conforming uses ( Section 54 ) was inserted at :;' . ,• . least partly because gasoline pumps had first appeared at many rural grocery and q)ther retail stores , and the intent was to curtail the expansion or extension of such diverse types of retail operations . ESSENTIALS OF A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION • , • '•M1 .t , ' Iit 11 . The essential purpose of a gasoline service station ( with or without repair facilities ) being to enable the motorist to fuel his vehicle and resume his highway travel . A station should be able to provide most things of immediate necessity or aid to that end , without Special Permission or I � Variance . And that autanztic inclusiion ought to include some fueling and refreshing of driver and passengers , as well as of the vehicle itself . • The limitations suggested by bir . Barney, to "snack food items , coffee , soda , t rookies , cigarettes , and various type convenience items generally used for ¢ immediate consumption by the patron who has. purchased gasoline products" might G• well be sufficient to the task of deterring the use of the station as a f substitute grocery or drug store , newspaper and magazine vending establishment , etc , -- thus limiting_ station traffic in volume and duration . kBut consider also : `[ ( a ) Items essential or merely helpful to enable the vehicle to proceed on its n journey would seem to include the following : wiper blades , fuses , above] [ See ( b ) AND custom dictates that it is now reasonable to expect to be able to purchase items to aid the individual , such as : candy, gum, cigarettes , ,. kleenex , and colas and other soft drinks , coffee could also be included as helpful to restore alertness , aspirin and alka-seltzer would also be helpful . 4 Cookies , ice cream, crackers and other munchies might also add to the 1` enjoyment of the trip and even contribute to an avoidance of drowsiness . PLANNING IAGATION OF 11M STATION AND CURTAIEbMT OF TRAFFIC 'r 12 . Of primary importance to Planners and Zoners , it would seem, is/are the u' goal ( s ) 'of minimizing dangerous Congestion and traffic flow into and out of I' service stations . The amoung of vehicular and pedestrian traffic expected at r Cue site and another may vary widely, depending upon the location of the station . Expanding the n znber of goods for sale will surely expand the frequency and intensity of traffic on the site , the time spent there , and the h, liklihood of extensive harm and danrige if a fire or explosion should take Place there . : 13 . To expand a station operation to inc:lrx3e the sale of daily newspapers , A' 9 bread , canned goods , household items and other staples and items oamionly MJ •✓ 440I/ found in a convenience stor , , grocery store , drug store , magazine stand , video store , and other types of retail sales stores ruires the exercise of a great deal of caution -- for vehicle and Pedestrian traffic , congestion, and potential danger is thereby invited . Hewspat xrs invite dailystops , as does the offering of other item K I 4 1 IT c .�"{{phi• 1 14 . In the case of a rural 93ls station on a well travelled through highway jwhere retail stores are scarce , it might be deemed essential to provide not only a gasoline service station , but also to permit retail sales therein of immediate consumable provisions for the travelling vehicle and motorist , but ; .; also to provide groceries :and other provisions for home consumption by the :, • , local residents , campers , and RV owners , Having an ICE vending machine on % r I site could be+ ii.te reasonable and helpful to area 11 n P campers ; but it might seen misplaced at another location . PLANNING AND S'PIMIAL PEPJ4ITS I 15 . Minimizing retail sales activities at most service station sites appears to be the general goal and thrust of our Zoning Ordinance . 16 . Yet there are undoubtedly some situations , places , facilities , where an expansion of such sales might be desirable and safely implemented , but the burden of establishing need , desirability and safety ought to be placed upon the proponent and subjected to careful scrutiny via public hearings and board determinations -- site plans and traffic impact studies being essential elements to be considered in every determination . 17 . Our Ordinance at present offers simple mechanism for presentation of such matters , and the use of variance procedures se^Jns undesirable . Special permissions developed upon Site Plan review and consideration , seems mist desirable . IN`rERPR ;TATICkI OF § 35 of 1HE ORDINANCE 18 . In the interests of promoting safety by minimizing or optimizing vehicular = 4 I traffic in and out of service stations , while yet not defeating the purpose of :•. ' � such stations , narrow circumscription of the items that may be unquestionably sold at gasoline service stations and repair garages , seems in order in interpreting Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance , ECXYJnMICS 19 . If it can be established the economics of operating any gasoline service station mandates the expansion of that operation into other retail sales areas , then it would seen that the way to go is to amemi Seciton 35 of the Ordinance to specify tliat other particular retail sales may be permitted therein , and to specify the mechanism ( if one is to be required ) for obtaining reviews and approval of such expandead operation . CONCLUSION 20 • We should go with the if ll interpretation suggested by John Barney, but either expanded a bit to assuredly include the automotive items and a few over the counter remedies [ the aspirin , etc . ] ( at least for for a station located out on through highways , away from other retail stores ) ; eliminating daily newspapers , at least ; and expressing the intent that the offerings there are i to be generally so limitrxl and focused on the travelling motorist that people are discouraged from daily shopping there . How raid when roan is made for the COWINIENCE SMRF with pumps , and how EXPANSIONS of the offering lines are to be accomplished ( Planning Board recommendation as a first step? Variances? Special Permits? Further interpretations by the 'lfl,1 with CLASSIFICATONS of STAM4S by location , other I proximate retail stores , and other criteria? Beats mr . [ Special Permits on rear mendaton of the Planning B(Ard wquld be the best solution , I think : but where in rhe Ordinance do we qet the authority for such permits or 1 , authorizations? IIID 3 a f ---L- --------�=---� -- --� - --_ _ - -- - - - -_- -,-fid ��s-- • # �o Reappointment of Joan G . Reuning - 1 - Zoning Board of Appeals Recommendation to Town Board Zoning Board of Appeals , November 14 , 1990 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Reappointment of Joan G . Reuning Zoning Board of Appeals Recommendation to Town Board Zoning Board of Appeals , November 14 , 1990 MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Edward W . King : WHEREAS : i . Mrs . Joan G . Reuning ' s current five - year term as a member of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals expires on December 31 , 1990 . 2 . Mrs . Reuning has served the Town of Ithaca as a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals with expertise and due and proper diligence since January , 1978 . 3 . Mrs . Reuning has expressed both her willingness and desire to continue her service as a member of said Board of Appeals . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : • That the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the reappointment of Mrs . Joan G . Reuning to said Board of Appeals for a five - year term commencing January 1 , 1991 and expiring December 31 , 1996 . Aye - Austen , Hines , King , Aron , Reuning . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nan y M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . November 19 , 1990 . Henry Aron , Chairman , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . November 20 , 1990 . residential ; property, . located I at los , Ridgecrest ;Road, TownJ� ® A / TION of . 1 on Tax Parcels No. d 4.5 i AFFIDAVIT (�FP�IBL � I `ATIIJ! if 1 -5, 1 and -5. 2, ' Residence' Dis= t Itrict `_ R- 15;. fort'` busineI " pur poses with respect to,,thede ,velopment of a iestdentidl area- i1: 1,', : I �5 :,�•n ljJlF�t: 1. ADMINISTRATIVE ' ;HEARING (adjourned from '`Octobe?'10, { "1990), .under Article ' XIV, -Sec- 1 ,tion 77,iof the' Town of,• ItHa�6` P�f Zoning Ordinance,, for, on 'in- T�� IT` ACA JOURNAL TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING 025 6ftation di nce #tocleterd rf BOARD OF APPEALS Appeals of Article VII, Section 35, of slid Ordinance to deter- iiaNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS -'mine;tf• any uses , permijted in WED. , NOV. 14, 1990, 7P. M. A usine`ss . Districti: .':A "B" By Direction of the Chairman and oo - 1mayy . . -- muted in of the Zoning Boor d of Ap-`a_a ` Business : Di'st[ict +D", "and State of New York , Tompkins County , ss . ; peals NOTICE IS HEREBY* ` further,' to ; determine '.: whot . GIVEN that Public Hearings "sales uses ma , be customori v will be held by the Zoning ly`encompossed within' a; gas-- Gail Sullins being duly sworn , deposes and Board of Appeals of the Town; 'aline sales station .:. >? •`•?f'': "� of Ithaca on Wednesday, No- , ;Said Zoning Board of Appeals • says . that she/he resides in Ithaca , county and state aforesaid and that ember 14, 1990; in Town '.will 'at said time,. 7:00 PP. m. ; Hall , 126 East Seneca Street, and sold place; hear aIr.m.per., (FIRST . Floor, REAR Entrance, and in support'of such matters ' she/he is Clerk WEST Side , Ithaca, N. Y. ; or objections thereto' Persons COMMENCING AT 7:00 P. M. , may appear by .,agent"or-zin of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in on the following matters.APPEAL of Cornell University, person. _ Owner/Appellant, Arthur G. Andrew S. Frost. Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice, of which the annexed is a true Stiers, Agent, requesting the ,- ' Building Inspector/Zoning special approval of the Board : Enforcement Officer of Appeals, pursuant to Article '. Town of Ithaca co was published in said paper V, Section 18, Paragraph 4, of November 9, 1990 PY P P ' P 273- 1747 . S G the Town of Ithaca Zoning Or- `' q _ \ - - Vr, r ) tr q 6 dinance, for the proposed --`— construction of a 30-foot by i; 18-foot "Gas Cylinder Storage j` Dock", proposed to be located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-64. 1 -2, Residence Dis- trict R-30, in the Cornell Or- chords area on Palm Rood ad- jacent to the General Stores Od that the first publication of said notice was on the Warehouse. I . APPEAL Of Vinay and Saga Ambegookar, Owners/Appel- day of �D C 19 (3 ? lonts, Ted Bronsnick, Agent, requesting the approval of or the grant of a building height > variance with respect to the construction of a one-story, two-car, detached garage, set back five feet from the road right of way, at 3 Sugarbush Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- ; Subscribed and sworn to before me , this day cel No. 6-61 - 1 - 14. 5, Residence District The average not- 19 o f' ural slopepe o of the subject prop- I erty exceeds an 8 per cent fall I n J(/ the road right way line resulting J ' resulting in o building ng height � for said proposed garage of 19 feet 10 inches. Article IV, Sec- 07 ;: tion 13, of the Town of Ithaca NotaryPublic . Zoning Ordinance limits the I ��tt FORD height of detached garages to j ,�N FORD l feet unless the natural j slope of a property exceeds an 8 per cent fall directly from \j ,lOtary Public/ State of New Yoc� the street line (not road right of way ), in which case said No. 4654410 Ordinance limits the height to County only one story, which may be Qualified In Tompkins ? presumed to be greater than 31 19 . 15 feet in height. Commission expires May APPEAL of Glenn F. Hubbell, Owner/Appellant, requesting variance of the requirements of Article V, Sections 18 and 19, of the Town of Ithaca Zon- ing Ordinance, for the opera- tion of an antiques and sec- ond hand goods shop in an Agricultural District at 1308 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-27- 1 - 1 (Residence District ` regulations apply). Said Ordi- nance does not permit antique and second hand businesses in a residential district. APPEAL of Chase Farm Asso- ciates , Owner /Appellant. . Harrison Rue, Agent, request- ing the special approval of the Board of Appeals, pursuant to Article IV, Section 12, Par- ograph 3, of the Town of Itha- ca Zoning Ordinance, for the continuation of the use of a