Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1991-09-11 F1i.ED TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA DateQg /I/9 9/ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Clerk . � SEPTEMBER 11 , 1991 THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 11 , 1991 BY THE BOARD . APPEAL OF MICHELE CAFORIO , APPELLANT , JAMES HOVANEC , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH AN EXTERIOR BUILDING HEIGHT OF 36 FEET , PLUS OR MINUS , TO BE LOCATED AT 1524 SLATERVILLE ROAD , ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 56 - 3 - 6 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES BUILDINGS TO HAVE AN EXTERIOR HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF NO MORE THAN 30 ' . GRANTED APPEAL ( ADJOURNED FROM AUGUST 14 , 1991 ) OF FINGER LAKES MANAGEMENT CORP . , APPELLANT , R . JAMES MILLER , ESQ . , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V , SECTION 23 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE CREATION OF TWO PARCELS WITH A LOT WIDTH AT THE STREET LINE AND A WIDTH AT THE MAXIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 60 . 01 FEET ( PARCEL # 2 ) AND _ 68 . 95 FEET ( PARCEL # 3 ) , RESPECTIVELY . SAID PARCELS ARE PROPOSED FOR SUBDIVISION FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 33 - 3 - 1 . 2 , ® LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SEVEN MILE DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET SOUTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH BOSTWICK ROAD , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES A LOT WIDTH OF 100 FEET AT THE STREET LINE AND 150 FEET AT THE MAXIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS FILED Town of Ithaca TOWN OF ITHACA 1 Zoning Board of Appeals pate® •✓A / . / 91 / September 11 , 1991 Clem TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 11 , 1991 PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Robert Hines , Edward King , Joan Reuning , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John Barney , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Andrew Frost . OTHERS : Michelle Caforio , James Hovanec , Peter J . Walsh , Esq . , Harold and Elaine Sapp , Linda and Richard Tompkins , George Gesslein , David St . George , Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 03 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 to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF MICHELE CAFORIO , APPELLANT , JAMES HOVANEC , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH AN EXTERIOR BUILDING HEIGHT OF 36 FEET , PLUS OR MINUS , TO BE LOCATED AT 1524 SLATERVILLE ROAD , ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 56 - 3 . 6 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES BUILDINGS TO HAVE AN EXTERIOR HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF NO MORE THAN 30 ' . Mr . Hines recused himself from the appeal . Mr . James Hovanec , Agent , presented photos of the house to the Board showing elevations . He stated that the house is already constructed . What they are asking for is a variance to allow egress out of the basement area . He said that they are looking to being able to get into the garage and also get egress out of future living space . Mr . Hovanec explained that since the building has been built , the finished grade is a little different from what was on the plans . He said that they are going to be asking for 32 feet , 6 inches , maximum . He stated that there will be no change in appearance of the front of the house from the road . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mr . and Mrs . Harold Sapp , 1522 Slaterville Road , spoke to the Board in favor of the project . • Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals September 11 , 1991 Mr . Hovanec referred to Schedule " A " , dated 8 / 21 / 91 which was presented to Board members with the Agenda . He stated that if a variance is not granted and the garage space in the lower level is not able to be used , this would put an extreme hardship on Ms . Caforio because of the fact that she would have to construct a new garage at a cost of approximately $ 14 , 000 . Also , if she does not construct a garage it basically shuts off actual egress out of the basement for future living space . Also , because she is a single female , it will be a lot safer for her to have an attached garage . Schedule " A " is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . Chairman Austen read from Part III of the SEAF by Assistant Town Planner George Frantz dated September 12 , 1991 . The SEAF is attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . ® RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Michele Caforio requesting a variance from Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the construction of a single family home with an exterior building height of 36 feet , plus or minus , to be located at 1524 Slaterville Road , on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 56 - 3 - 6 , Residence District R - 15 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows . Ayes - Reuning , Scala , Austen , King . Nays - None . Recused - Hines . The Motion carried unanimously . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance to Ms . Michele Caforio for the construction of a single family home at 1524 Slaterville Road , with an exterior building height not to exceed 34 feet from ground • level , with the following findings : ® Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals September 11 , 1991 10 that because of the topography of the land , the extreme rise in the land behind , and the fact that the land across the street drops down considerably lower than this property , there would be no adverse effect to any neighbor . 29 that the applicant would have a hardship if she could not have the garage underneath the house in a protective area nor the walk - out area for additional living quarters . The voting on the Motion resulted as follows . Ayes - King , Austen , Reuning , Scala . Nays - None . Recused - Hines . The Motion carried unanimously . The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following . APPEAL ( ADJOURNED FROM AUGUST 14 , 1991 ) OF FINGER LAKES ® MANAGEMENT CORP . , APPELLANT , R . JAMES MILLER , ESQ . , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V , SECTION 23 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE CREATION OF TWO PARCELS WITH A LOT WIDTH AT THE STREET LINE AND A WIDTH AT THE MAXIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 60 . 01 FEET ( PARCEL # 2 ) AND 68 . 95 FEET ( PARCEL # 3 ) , RESPECTIVELY . SAID PARCELS ARE PROPOSED FOR SUBDIVISION FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 33 - 3 - 1 . 2 , LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SEVEN MILE DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET SOUTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH BOSTWICK ROAD , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES A LOT WIDTH OF 100 FEET AT THE STREET LINE AND 150 FEET AT THE MAXIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE . Attorney Peter Walsh gave background information on the proposed project to the Board . He said that since the last meeting of this Board , there have been meetings between Mr . and Mrs . Tompkins and Mr . Gesslein , who was representing the owners of the property . He stated that the letter the Tompkins have to present to the Board tonight , the agreement that has been reached between the owner of the property and Mr . and Mrs . Tompkins , specifically with respect to parcel # 2 . It was agreed that there should be a minimum from the Tompkins ' rear yard of 75 feet . With respect to parcel # 3 , there should be a minimal set back for any dwelling constructed on it of 30 feet from the rear yard of property listed as Dubin and that they would stipulate that a one - family dwelling under the Town law could be erected on those two parcels , and Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals September 11 , 1991 finally , with respect to the driveways themselves , in the interest of disturbing the water courses there , that any driveways to be constructed would be constructed under the supervision of the Town , specifically . Town Attorney Barney asked Attorney Walsh if he were saying that the houses will be limited to occupancy by one family only and that will be done by deed restriction . Attorney Walsh said that what they had in mind was a single family unit under the Zoning Ordinance . The intent was that it would not be a duplex but that what would be permitted for what the Town terms as a single family residence would be permitted here . Mr . King asked if the Tompkins understand that . Mr . Tompkins responded that no ; they were under the assumption that there would be one dwelling unit , no apartment . Discussion followed regarding what the Town law means in regard to accessory apartments . Town Attorney Barney asked , if the Board granted the variance with the condition that the construction be limited to a genuine one family dwelling unit , would that pose a problem for the bank . Attorney Walsh responded that they both know what the problem is with housing and he thinks many people buying a house would prefer to buy a house with an accessory apartment in it capable of being built there . He said that they would take it as not being a great concession to allow the construction of what the law provides in that zone . He further stated that from their perspective they would prefer to preserve the flexibility in terms of building it to include an accessory apartment , if that is what is desired . He stressed that the variation that they are talking about is only on the question of frontage . Attorney Walsh referred to the setback and stated that he can see the Tompkins being concerned about a neighbor sitting on their back line . He thinks they have addressed that by coming to an agreement with the Tompkins on that . Therefore , he does not see the need nor the gain on the Town ' s part to restrict it beyond what the law permits in that zone . Town Attorney stated that what he sees is that they have the potential for six units on these three parcels . He said that it seems to him that there were some negotiations and there was what appears to be an agreement . Now , however , there seems to be some reneging on the one element of that agreement and that troubles him . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals September 11 , 1991 Attorney Walsh responded that he would not necessarily take the specification of what is considered to be a one family unit as being a special condition that was agreed on or imposed , but rather a statement . Mr . Gesslein informed the Board that parcel # 1 was sold in 1986 by the former owner , long before they got involved in the property . He said that it just fell through the crack and never got subdivision approval . He explained that the bank bought parcels # 2 and # 3 as part of the 80 acres across the street , which was the major purchase ( on the west side of Seven Mile Drive ) . Chairman Austen referred to a letter that was written to the Board from Mr . and Mrs . Richard Tompkins , dated August 12 , 1991 . The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit U . Chairman Austen referred to a letter that was written to the Board from Mr . and Mrs . Richard Tompkins , dated September 9 , 1991 . The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mr . David St . George , 204 Culver Road , read the following statement to the Board : " Public officials serve the will of the people expressed in the laws and ordinances of the County , State and Town and the will of the people is further expressed in a recent survey which the Town did . Based on the large number of survey responses received by the Town residents who wanted their opinions to be known and to influence the comprehensive planning effort , Town wide responses to questions indicate that a clear majority want the Town to remain rural in its nature and to restrict and manage the way in which the Town ' s future growth proceeds . Residents strongly expressed the desire for the Town Boards to preserve and protect natural , scenic and environmentally sensitive areas as well as to preserve and foster a significant agricultural component in the Ithaca area . The principal factors identified by the respondents as having the potential to erode the Town ' s current community identity are uncontrolled development and the volume of traffic . The area of Inlet Valley where this subdivision is proposed has always been water scarce . There is a cistern behind our house on Culver Road , up in Coy Glen , which was built at the turn of the century , which was designed to pipe water almost a mile down to where Tom Bell ' s Convenience Store is . There is no water in that area . With the advent of water and sewer service in this area , I think the Zoning Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals September 11 , 1991 Board and Planning Board should proceed cautiously and in a comprehensive manner to avoid unsightly piece - meal subdivisions , which detract from the rural , agricultural and planned look of the area . The property in question here which was purchased in March 1988 , 80 acres which used to belong to Millard Brink , was farmed for corn and the woodlot where these houses are proposed , was all agricultural of necessity because there was no water . Now these fellas have bought an 80 acre chunk and the Town in its wisdom has put water and sewer right around it and from the original price of $ 220 , 000 . that they bought it for , it is now on the market for $ 550 , 000 . , mostly increased due to the availability of water and sewer , I would assume . I think the Planning Board and Zoning Board have to look at this area very carefully for future growth . Mancini has proposed a subdivision of six lots , I believe , down on Route 13 , which is now at the Planning Board . Two new lots were recently approved on Five Mile Drive across from Ralph Bacon ' s house and I think there is another subdivision proposed on Five Mile Drive . Basically it is just a big plate of brownies and the smaller you cut it up , the more money people are going to make and I think what we have here is not a hardship but just people trying to make a little more money out of some land which probably should be agricultural , except for the availability of water . I would also advise the Board not to be mislead by the absence of a public turn out because all of Seven Mile Drive probably has twelve houses at the most . My emphasis is to say that the Board has a mandate to observe the wishes of the people as shown in the survey ; to look at this area carefully and to preserve what is like a low density residential neighborhood because here on the parcel as you look at the map , you have two frontages of sixty feet where they want to put houses behind three of the twelve houses that are on a road that is probably five miles long . Their property across the street on Seven Mile Drive , I understand , has in access of 4 , 000 feet on the road and 370 feet frontage on Route 13 so we are not talking about hardship here ; we are talking about trying to make the most of the land that they have acquired and want to make a profit on . I would urge the Board not to grant this subdivision as it is out of character with the neighborhood and if you look at the area where the hill is , where the streams come down , there is great potential for flooding , which is what the Tompkins are afraid of. I think that disturbing this wooded area , which has always been a wood lot , by putting in two houses would certainly increase their potential for flooding . " • Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals September 11 , 1991 Mrs . Linda Tompkins , 176 Seven Mile Drive , referred to Item # 1 of Exhibit # 4 , and said that she wanted to clarify that what they want to avoid is two - family homes being built on these two lots . She said that they are looking at potential cluster housing and what they are looking for right now is to have as much control as possible on the lot behind them as they can , and hopefully get these stipulations put into the variance . She said they would like to have something in writing for their house records . Mrs . Tompkins stressed that the way she understood the agreement , a one - family house would have only one family living there . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Chairman Austen referred to the Adopted Resolutions of the Planning Board minutes of August 6 , 1991 , attached hereto as Exhibit # 5 . He stated that they were the lead agency for the SEAR on this matter and they passed the motion unanimously . Town Attorney asked Attorney Walsh if he wanted to , in view of ® what Mrs . Tompkins said , reconsider paragraph # 1 of the agreement . Attorney Walsh responded that , in all honesty , from what the Chairman has read from the Planning Board resolutions , and from what the letter from the Tompkins suggests , the concerns that have been articulated by the way the Board views this , in fact , go to the question of water courses and things of that order and those points are indeed addressed by what has been discussed here . Town Attorney Barney asked Attorney Walsh if anybody ever agreed to limit to one single family residence per lot . Attorney Walsh stated that his understanding was that Attorney Miller and the Tompkins were discussing specifically the set backs and that it would allow what is conventionally termed a one family dwelling under the Town law . Town Attorney Barney stated that Attorney Walsh is not answering his question . He said , to put it very bluntly , is it the testimony that Attorney Walsh is offering on behalf of the bank , that there was never any agreement with these folks to limit dwellings to one dwelling per lot . Attorney Walsh said that he cannot swear that there was no discussion of limiting to one dwelling unit per lot . He is not certain that the discussion ever ran that way at all . • Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals September 11 , 1991 Town Attorney Barney stated that he believes there is an allegation here that there was an agreement and that agreement was that there would be no more than one dwelling unit on each lot . He asked Attorney Walsh if it is his contention that Finger Lakes Management Corp . never made that agreement . Attorney Walsh stated that he thinks that is correct . He thinks that the corporation ' s position had been that what would be allowed there was what the zoning permitted , but not a duplex . After a private conversation between Mr . & Mrs . Tompkins and Attorney Walsh , he stated that he regrets to inform the Board that the Tompkins and he cannot reach an agreement and the Board should proceed with the Appeal . Mr . King stated that he has done some calculations and he believes the square footage of parcel # 2 is clearly twice as large as the minimal requirement . He stated that parcel # 3 seems to be about one and a half times the usual requirement . • MOTION : By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does the Finger Lakes Management Corporation a variance to permit the creation of two parcels located on the west side of Seven Mile Drive approximately 660 feet south of its intersection with Bostwick Road , Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 1 . 2 , Residence District R - 30 , with the following findings and conditions . 1 . that there is significant practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship to the applicant , Finger Lakes Management Corporation , in the utilization of the northwesterly corner of its property , as shown on the subdivision map , in that there are approximately 3 acres in the northwest corner that can be accessed only by use of 60 foot wide strips of land extending northwesterly toward Seven Mile Drive . 2 . that the proposed subdivision of these two parcels , parcel # 2 would be roughly 68 , 000 square feet , excluding the 60 - foot access and parcel # 3 would be approximately 45 , 000 square feet of useable building area , whereas the R - 30 requirement is that there be a 30 , 000 square foot minimum lot . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals September 11 , 1991 3 . that the variance being requested is that the Board permit construction on parcels # 2 and # 3 , with frontages at the set back line of only 60 feet in width , whereas the ordinance requires 150 feet . 4 . that there is sufficient hardships shown but there are also circumstances pointed out by the Planning Board in its conditional approval of this subdivision . 5 . that the utilization of these two parcels should be restricted to prevent disturbance of the two small water sources which are located on the parcel and to avoid the diverting of seasonal water flow . 6 . that there have been concerns expressed by owners adjoining immediately on the southeast to the fact that this would produce an increased density and that it could be limited by restricting the use of each parcel to a single dwelling unit home which would alleviate some of their concerns . 7 . that both the applicant and the neighbors are agreed that it would be reasonable to require that a residential unit on parcel # 2 be set back northwesterly from the northwesterly line of the adjacent owners , the Tompkins , a distance of 75 feet and for parcel # 3 , that any dwelling be set back approximately at least 30 feet from the northwesterly line of the Dubin parcel . 8 . that roadways to be constructed on the northerly and southerly 60 - foot access ways be designed and constructed with the approval of the Town Engineer so as to accomplish the protection of the water sources . 9 . that all reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve the maximum amount of vegetation during the course of construction . 10 . that before the building permit is issued for either parcel # 2 or parcel # 3 , drainage plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Engineer for the lot involved , and the driveway related thereto , so as not to interfere with or impact on the adjacent properties to the southeast . 11 . that absent the variance , given the present configuration of the lots , no construction of any nature on parcels # 2 and # 3 would be permissible under the Town ' s current Zoning Ordinance . 12 . that the nature of the layout of these lots is such that construction on either parcel # 2 or # 3 will have a somewhat greater impact on the properties denominated Tompkins and Dubin and Mackey on the map because the construction would in essence be occurring in their back yard . • Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals September 11 , 1991 13 . that the set backs be as spelled out here and the housing occupancy be limited to minimize the impact that come with a greater volume of traffic and greater volumes of people and that is the basis for limiting the use of the lots to single family houses for parcels # 2 and # 3 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Reuning , Scala , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . The meeting adjourned at 8 : 50 p . m . ® Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary PPR D : Ad Q Edward Austen , Chairman • • I 100VA v L • BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS CORPORATION 1429 DANBY ROAD , ITHACA. NY 14850 ( 607 ) 213 - 304 ' August 21 , 1991 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Re : Schedule "All A zoning variance should be granted for the property at 1524 Slaterville Road on the grounds that 30 ' height limitation has and will continue to create a difficult and unnecessary hardship for the Owner of the property . We ask that the following facts be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals in granting this variance : 1 . An additional 6 ' in the overall height of this residential structure is needed to provide proper egress , light and ventilation for future living space in the front lower level of the basement area , also to provide access to the rear portion . of the basement for immediate use as garage space . 2 . If a variance is not granted the Owner must construct at great additional cost in site excavation and structure , a detached two car garage , adding over $ 14 , 000 to the cost of the project . Also , because of the slope of the lot a detached garage takes away the existing flat parking area . This would make it necessary for guests to park on a steep drive or on the street , causing a difficult and dangerous situation , especially during the winter months . 3 . If garage space can not be used in the basement area , the Owner will be forced to park outside and walkup exterior steps to gain entry to the house . This would pose unnecessary difficulty in the winter due to slippage and a year round security danger. ( the fact that the Owner is a single female should also be considered ) . 4 . The additional 6 ' in height from the proposed finish grade around the foundation will not increase the elevation of the house . Also it will not block views or solar access for existing or future housing in the immediate area . • We respectfully ask the Board to consider , because of added costs , inconvenience , and personal safety and security that a variance be granted . This would extend the overall height of the residential building from 30 ' to 36 ' as shown on the elevation plan attached ( Schedule " B " ) to allow proper egress for a garage and future living space in the basement area . Sin erel ames G . Hovanec President G / CO rA 4 ,^q 2 cc tu 4tC tNZ LQ3 � � UA u Lo IL O C ROD� p � �S C h 1. D )tic cc VN wo Lo tin ' � Obcb00 ilk •- ' t Ilk e IU 80 lkz- a1 Oe q 0 I � '. 09W - 141Vi Qi Zj Y.. h aVvZ 9> i Ail t4 OL? tu 5 -9S (�� 6ch7 ddr�t 3:1b411 o7ocYV17F J1N `� • �' Rev . 10 /90 Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review • SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART I - Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) 1 . Applicant /Sponsor : i �� 2 . Project Name : Iva 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : Tax Parcel Number : 's — 4 . Is Proposed Action : NEW 0 EXPANSION El MODIFICATION / ALTER AT ION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other , relevant items) : (JJz. Cl.'• C ..CLi(IMCI 0. l�� Q !�} U'(CJ�1 %" -._ •,, r ^ \ tvl.V c� ^ Q /� 0 � �R � Ate. kn t_v. "h::`'-r v4 _:,�.. - i_�-•� � t ... ='..n, l"1�,�. r"� V .�,+ ..yn 1r'r.;'•,:.. .. P`• `l•. •.(��.�`�lJ.. ,• ,ti, S j / V %1_Z. Lf ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) --__ Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres 010 yrs) Acres ow is the Land Zoned Presently ? _ SO 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? `i. ' /L v L �c�.� CL� t? '...`, p -��� �,`Q �. 0.•\G r 2 U i1�cLn YES � NO � If no , describe conflict briefly Jam- `r Q-e c w 2,x Cz� ? �� Jv�-� , 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road ? YES NO Public Water ? YES NO "71 Public Sewer ? YES NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? 12 Residential F'J Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space Other Please describe : 11 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES F1 NO EJ If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : 12 . Does anV aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval ? YES ® NO F ] If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . 1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF M'Y^ KNOWLEDGE '^ Olicant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : 1� ol; C'2\ etc H pRos. Y '/kGR., Signature : _ley Date : PART I I - ENYI RONMENTA L 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 . B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? Alk YES F�j NO ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) 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 1 . C6 . Longterm , 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 I I I — 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 . DCheck 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 , Name of Lead Agency Preparer ' ignature ( If differeorrom Responsible Officer) Ed ard'N Austen , Chairman Name T4tre of Respo sibl fficer in Lead Agency ignature of Contributing Preparer Date : S)malu're of Res onsibl Officer in Lead Agency ® PART II - Environmental Assessment - Variance from Art . IV , Sect . II of Zoning Ordinance for New Residence , 1524 Slaterville Road . A . Action is Unlisted . B . Action will not receive coordinated review . C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising from the following : C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? None anticipated . Proposed action is the granting of a variance from Article IV , Section II of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a new residence with a height from lowest interior grade of 36 + / - ft . The Maximum height allowed under zoning regulations is 34 ft . No significant adverse impacts with regard to existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems are expected as a result of the proposed action . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character ? None anticipated . No aesthetic , archeological , or other natural or cultural resources are known to exist on the site or expected to be otherwise affected by the proposed action . No significant adverse impact to neighborhood character is anticipated as a result of the proposed action . The property and surrounding area is zoned for residential use . The exterior height ( approximately 33 ft . ) for the proposed structure is still within the limits of typical residential construction found in the Ithaca area . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? None anticipated as a result of the proposed action . The • proposed residence is being constructed on a previously approved residential lot . No vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or 1 ® wildlife species , significant habitats or threatened or endangered species are known to exist on the site or expected to be otherwise affected by the proposed action . 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 ? None anticipated . C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? None anticipated . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - 05 ? None anticipated . C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? None anticipated . D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action is anticipated . PART III Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action , its character , location and scale , and the information above , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for this action . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals ' Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner Review Date : September 12 , 1991 • 2 Mr . & Mrs . Richard Tompkins 176 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 PHONE : 273 - 8482 AUGUST 12 , 1991 ATTN : Andrew S . Frost and members of Zoning Board of Appeals We are writing in regard to a request by R . James Miller for a zoning variance on land on the west side of Seven Mile Drive , Ithaca Tax Parcel 6 - 33 - 3 - 1 . 2 . The two parcels Mr . Miller would like the variance for do not have the required road frontage for building one or two family residences as required by R30 zoning . The parcel adjacent to ours has road frontage of approximately 60 feet . To build an access driveway , a creek on that section would have to be crossed twice . There is also a significant bank within that 60 feet that would have to be altered for a driveway . Our concern is that in altering the terrain near and over a creek could create a potential flooding problem . The land , as it is now , has a natural , rolling terrain from Bostwick Road through Jim Ridall ' s section ( 2 . 66 ac ) of the wooded area . Building a driveway , disturbing the creek , and removing a major amount of trees which changes natural drainage patterns , seems to us to be something . the . zoning board should physically look into very closely , not only for the possibility of a flooding problem to our property , but also for possible flooding in the roadway near a very hazardous corner on Seven Mile Drive . We also feel that in considering granting zoning variances , the zoning board should take into consideration the concerns of residents in the neighborhood . With the expansion of the water and sewer district to the Inlet Valley area , which we definitely need , we are also more vulnerable to development pressure . We are concerned that with the parcel in back of us being considered for development , we are looking at possibly having neighbors on every side of us in the future . We feel that piecemeal decisions granting zoning variances without an overall plan for the future use of the Inlet Valley area could result in costly errors for both the Town of Ithaca and residents of the area . SLr► perel , kvo;�v fichard L . Tompkins Linda D . . Tompkins xc : Floyd Furman , Town Planner d Mr . & Mrs . Richard Tompkins 176 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 PHONE : 273 - 8482 SEPTEMBER 9 , 1991 ATTN : Andrew S . Frost and members of Zoning Board of Appeals This letter is a follow - up to our letter dated August 12 , 1991 regarding a zoning variance request by the Finger Lakes Management Corporation on Ithaca Tax Parcel 6 - 33 - 3 - 1 . 2 on the West side of Seven Mile Drive . We still feel strongly about our concerns raised in that letter . Since the postponement of the August 14 , 1991 meeting , we have met with R . James Miller , agent for Finger Lakes Management Corp . and George Gesslein , who Mr . Miller recommended we talk to , to discuss our concerns and possible solutions , which resulted in the following verbal agreements . 1 ) Homes built on both Parcels 2 and 3 should be restricted to single family homes to minimize the impact on the existing three homes in front of the two parcels . 2 ) Mr . Gesslein came out to the property in question and we took some measurements on Parcel 2 to determine a setback for building a home behind our existing lot . We agreed that 75 ' from our back property line would be a reasonable as well as a logical set - back on Parcel 2 . This would ensure our privacy as well as the terrain of the land makes this the most logical spot to build . 3 ) In regard to the set - back on parcel 3 , we agreed that 30 ' would be reasonable . Referring to the Environmental Assessment completed by the Town Planning Board , item C1 states that there should be minimal disturbance to the watercourse to ensure seasonal water flows ( which is a significant amount in the Spring ) not be diverted . We would like it stipulated that the Town Engineer oversee the building of the driveway with the privacy of adjacent landowners considered as well as ensuring that the culverts are of proper size and placement . If , after careful consideration , the Zoning Board of Appeals decides in favor of a variance for Parcels 2 and 3 , we would like to have , in writing , a copy of any stipulations placed on the SII zoning variance . i S ' erel Richard L . TompkinsNl4�' Linda D . Tompkins xc : Floyd Furman , Town Planner Finger Lakes Management Corporation - 1 - ( Former Millard Brink Property ) Four - Lot Subdivision West Side , Seven Mile Drives 660 feet South of Intersection with Bostwick Road Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board , August 6 , 1991 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Finger Lakes Management Corporation ( Former Millard Brink Property ) Four - Lot Subdivision West Side , Seven Mile Drive ; 660 feet South of Intersection with Bostwick Road Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board , August 6 , 1991 MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . William Lesser : WHEREAS: 1 . Tnis action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of three parcels from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 1 . 2 , 5 . 68 ± acres total area , located on the west side of Seven Mile Drive approximately 660 feet south of its intersection with Bostwick Road , Residence District R - 30 . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning ® Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on August 6 , 1991 , has reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form prepared by the applicant , an environmental assessment of the proposed action prepared by Planning staff , comments by the Environmental Review Committee of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council , a survey map entitled " Survey for Millard A . and Lucille Brink , Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins , State of New York " , prepared by George C . Schlecht , P . E . , L . S . , dated August 26 , 1986 , and �d other application materials . 4 . Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for this action as proposed . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Langhans , Lesser , Smith , Hoffmann , Aronson . Nay - None . • CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Finger Lakes Management Corporation - 2 - ( Former Millard Brink Property ) Four - Lot Subdivision West Side , Seven Mile Drive ; 660 feet ® South of Intersection with Bostwick Road Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board , August 6 , 1991 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Finger Lakes Management Corporation ( Former Millard Brink Property ) Four - Lot Subdivision West Side , Seven Mile Drive ; 660 feet South of Intersection with Bostwick Road Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board , August 6 , 1991 MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . Tnis action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of three parcels from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 1 . 2 , 5 . 68 ± acres total area , located on the west side of Seven Mile Drive approximately 660 feet south of its intersection with Bostwick Road , Residence District R - 30 . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in environmental review , has , on ® August 6 , 1991 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on August 6 , 1991 , has reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form prepared by the applicant , an environmental assessment of the proposed action prepared by Planning staff , comments by the Environmental Review Committee of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council , a survey map entitled " Survey for Millard A . and Lucille Brink , Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins , State of New York " , prepared by George C . Schlecht , P . E . , L . S . , dated August 26 , 1986 , and other application materials . »Y THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval , having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board . 2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed subdivision as shown on the plat entitled " Survey for Millard A . and Lucille Brink , Town of • Ithaca , County of Tompkins , State of New York " , prepared by George C . Schlecht , P . E . , L . S . , dated August 26 , 1986 , subject to the following conditions : Finger Lakes Management Corporation - 3 - ' ( Former Millard Brink Property ) Four - Lot Subdivision West Side , Seven Mile Drive ; 660 feet South of Intersection with Bostwick Road Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board , August 6 , 1991 a . Approval of any required variances by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . b . That there be minimal disturbance of the two small watercourses located on these parcels and that seasonal water flows not be diverted . . c . That the area of the three lots hereby approved , 5. 68 ± acres , be included in the calculation of park and open space dedication for any further subdivision of tax parcel no . 6 - 33 - 3 - 1 . 2 . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Langhans , Lesser , Smith , Hoffmann , Aronson . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Nancy M : Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . August 8 , 1991 . -=y •