Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1992-02-26 FILED TOWN Of ITHACA Date TOWN OF ITHACA Cier ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS16>1 FEBRUARY 26 , 1992 THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE HEARD ON FEBRUARY 26 , 1992 BY THE BOARD : APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANT , PRISCILLA NOETZEL -WILSON , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 10 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIVERSITY TENNIS FACILITY WITH AN EXTERIOR BUILDING HEIGHT OF 53 FEET ( 30 FEET BEING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED ) . THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON PINE TREE ROAD , APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD , ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 60 - 1 - 8 . 2 , - 61 AND - 9 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . GRANTED ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM DECEMBER 11 , 1991 AND JANUARY 15 , 1992 ) OF FRANK PRUDENCE , APPELLANT , DIRK GALBRAITH , ESQUIRE , AGENT , SEEKING AN INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE XII , SECTION 52 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , AS IT RELATES TO THE USE OF A NON- CONFORMING COMMERCIAL - STYLE BUILDING , LOCATED AT 1395 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 28 - 1 -- 11 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THE PROPOSED BUILDING HAD BEEN USED FOR THE OPERATION OF F & T DISTRIBUTING CO . UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 1988 AND THEREAFTER HAS BEEN USED PRIMARILY FOR THE PURPOSES OF STORAGE . COMMERCIAL USES ARE NOT GENERALLY PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS . STORAGE AS A PRIMARY USE IS PERMITTED ONLY IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES . Z . B . A . INTERPRETATION : USE HAS BEEN ABANDONED . MR . PRUDENCE MAY COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A USE VARIANCE ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM FEBRUARY 12 , 1992 ) OF EDWARD SCHILLING , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM , THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V , SECTION 21 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME WITH A 40 ( + OR - ) FOOT REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK ( 50 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) , TO BE LOCATED ON A RECENTLY SUBDIVIDED PARCEL OF LAND , LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TRUMANSBURG ROAD , OPPOSITE WOOLF LANE , ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 1 - 14 . 2 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date Clerk - • APPEAL OF EARLAND MANCINI , DBA MANCINI REALTY , APPELLAN , MILLER ASSOCIATES , PC , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM HE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 44 , PARAGRAPH 2 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CREATI OF A BUILDING LOT , KNOWN AS LOT # 4 , THAT WILL RESULT IN AN EXISTING BUILDING HAVING A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 35 ( + OR - ) FEET ( 150 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) AND A SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 35 ( + OR - ) FEET ( 60 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) . A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 45 , PARAGRAPH 5 , IS ALSO REQUESTED FOR THE CREATION OF A BUILDING LOT , KNOWN AS LOT # 3 , WITH A PROPOSED BUILDING TO BE LOCATED 1 ( + OR - ) FOOT FROM A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE ( A 50 -FOOT BUFFER BEING REQUIRED BETWEEN A STRUCTURE IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE AND THE BOUNDARY LINE OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE ) . HOWEVER , THE REQUIRED 60 - FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FROM . A PROPERTY LINE WILL BE MAINTAINED . SAID BUILDING LOTS ARE A PART OF A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LAND LOCATED AT 608 ELMIRA ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT . GRANTED 3 VARIANCES WITH SEVERAL CONDITIONS . • • FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date . � �a3�9a Town of Ithaca Clerk - 1 Zoning Board of Appeals February 26 , 1992 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 26 , 1992 PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Robert Hines , Edward King , Joan Reuning , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer / Building Inspector Andrew Frost . OTHERS : Pat Brazo , Bill Brazo , Kim Jacobs , John Brazo , Priscilla Noetzel - Wilson , Dianne Prudence , Frank Prudence , Dirk Galbraith , Esq . , Richard J . Evans , John Gutenberger , G . J . and L . Vignaux , Bill and Athena Grover , Bill Szabo , Gerard Hawkes , Cecile Nash , Paul Tavelli , Esq . Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of the same were in order . The first Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF CORNELL " UNIVERSITY , APPELT,ANT , PRISCILLA NOETZEL- WILSON , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V , SECTION 1 $ , PARAGRAPH 10 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIVERSITY TENNIS FACILITY WITH AN EXTERIOR BUILDING HEIGHT OF 53 FEET ( 30 FEET BEING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED ) . THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON PINE TREE ROAD , APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD , ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 60 - 1 — $ . 2 , - 6 , AND - 9 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 30 , Ms . Priscilla Noetzel - Wilson presented a drawing of the proposed tennis facility as it would look from Pine Tree Road and explained the reasons for the height variance request . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment Chairman Austen referred to Parts II and III of the Long Environmental. Assessment Form as reviewed and recommended upon by Assistant Town Planner George Frantz on December 11 and 13 , 1991 , respectively . The referenced material is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals February 26 , 1992 MOTION . By Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Cornell University requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 , paragraph 10 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a University tennis facility with an exterior building height of 53 feet , proposed to be located on Pine Tree Road , approximately 400 feet south of Ellis Hollow Road , on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 8 . 2 , - 6 , and - 9 . 1 , Residence District R - 30 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance , based on the recommendation of Assistant Town Planner Frantz . A vote on the motion resulted as follows . Ayes - Reuning , Scala , King , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . 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 from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 , paragraph 10 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a University tennis facility with a maximum exterior building height of 53 . 5 feet , proposed to be located on Pine Tree Road , approximately 400 feet south of Ellis Hollow Road , on Town of Ithaca. Tax Parcels No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 8 . 2 , - 6 , and - 9 . 1 , Residence District R - 30 , with the following findings . 14 that the Board has previously approved a permit for this facility in this location . 2 * that the Board has reviewed the considerations for the construction of the building , being such that the height is required for proper ventilation . 3a that given the character of the neighborhood , there is no significant obstruction of the view by the proposed structure . 4e that , in general , it conforms to the neighborhood architecture . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals February 26 , 1992 58 that no one appeared to address the Board . 6 * that the building to be constructed is dedicated to be used as an indoor tennis facility and , as such , the building requires an inside height of at least 40 feet and hence the exterior has to be 53 . 5 feet . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Reuning , King , Austen , Scala . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM DECEMBER 11 , 1991 AND JANUARY 15 , 1992 ) OF FRANK PRUDENCE , APPELLANT , DIRK GALBRAITH , ESQUIRE , AGENT , SEEKING AN INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE XII , SECTION 52 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , AS IT RELATES TO THE USE OF A NON - CONFORMING COMMERCIAL - STYLE BUILDING , LOCATED AT 1395 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 28 - 1 - 11 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 30 . THE PROPOSED BUILDING HAD BEEN USED FOR THE OPERATION OF F & T DISTRIBUTING CO . UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 1988 AND THEREAFTER HAS BEEN USED PRIMARILY FOR THE PURPOSES OF STORAGE . COMMERCIAL USES ARE NOT GENERALLY PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS . STORAGE AS A PRIMARY USE IS PERMITTED ONLY IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES . Attorney Dirk Galbraith referred to a memo that he wrote to the Board on February 20 , 1992 . The referenced material is attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 . Attorney Galbraith referred to the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals of October 21 , 1981 , which are attached hereto as Exhibit # 3 . Discussion followed on the submitted minutes of the October 21 , 1981 ZBA meeting between Board members and Attorney Galbraith . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Attorney Paul Tavelli , representing Mr . and Mrs . William Brazo , spoke to the Board expressing their opposition to this appeal . He stated that they believe there have been two abandonments of this property and the Prudences have changed the use of the property . He referred to a memo that he had written the Board on February 26 , 1992 , which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 . • Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals February 26 , 1992 Attorney Galbraith stated that approximately one - third of the space in the building has been , since 1988 , and still is used as a transfer station for Mr . Prudence ' s business , the same way that he had used it up to that point when his entire business was located there . He said further that since 1988 there is proof on the record that he has continuously used this building for F & T Distributing as he had been using it previous to that time . Attorney Galbraith stated that they agree that the building cannot be used for a local storage location and that use has been discontinued . Mr . Gerard Hawkes , 1401 Mecklenburg Road , spoke in opposition to any commercial business activity being allowed along that road . Mrs . Brazo remarked that since 1988 when Mr . and Mrs . Prudence moved out , she has not seen any F & T Distributing truck bringing anything into the building or removing anything from the building . She said she has seen Cornell University trucks , Anderson trucks , and so on , bringing in stuff and removing stuff . • Mrs . Brazo also spoke about the water supply for the property , which is a spring that is shared with three home owners . Mr . Dick Evans , 1045 Perry City Road , stated that he has been familiar with the property since the early 1950 ' s when the Tiltons owned it . He stated that the building has always been used for commercial activities . He does not believe that the water supply to the property is a problem at all . Mr . Frank Prudence addressed the Board . He stated that only his trucks are taking material to the building and only his trucks are removing material . He said that F & T Distributing is operating out on Dryden Road and only uses the building for over flow storage . He does not feel there is a problem with the water supply on the property . Mr . Prudence stated that he has had some people interested in buying the property and also in renting it for commercial use but he has not had a clear idea of what is allowed for commercial use on the property so he has not been able to do anything in that regard . Ms . Cecile Nash , 1397 Mecklenburg Road , stated that she has had no problem living next door to a business , nor with the water supply . However , she is concerned about opening up the area for • commercial businesses . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals February 26 , 1992 Attorney Galbraith presented an affidavit from Philip White , Sr . , dated February 20 , 1992 , stating that the property in question has always had a commercial activity on it . The referenced affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit # 5 . MOTION . By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals makes a finding that the applicant , Mr . Frank Prudence , obtained no rights as a result of the hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals in 1981 , except as were specifically granted to enlarge his specific building and that the findings with respect to non - conformance or otherwise are not binding on this Board because they were not actively litigated or pursued and should not be binding on person or party adversely affected , and be it further RESOLVED , that the applicant , Mr . Frank Prudence , has discontinued and abandoned the use of the property as a commercial business facility for a period in excess of one year and hence the status of the property today is that it must conform to the provisions of the Zoning Law as it relates to other properties in that zone , R - 30 , and be it further RESOLVED , that the applicant , Mr . Frank Prudence , may come back to the Board and ask for an appropriate variance for a specific use . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , King , Reuning , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . Chairman Austen explained that the next appeal , being the adjourned appeal ( from February 12 , 1992 ) of Edward Schilling has been withdrawn by the applicant , Mr . Edward Schilling . The letter stating the withdrawal , dated February 26 , 1992 , is attached hereto as Exhibit # 6 . • Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals February 26 , 1992 The last Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following . APPEAL OF EARLAND MANCINI , DBA MANCINI REALTY , APPELLANT , T . G . MILLER ASSOCIATES , PC , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 44 , PARAGRAPH 2 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CREATION OF A BUILDING LOT , KNOWN AS LOT # 4 , THAT WILL RESULT IN AN EXISTING BUILDING HAVING A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 35 ( + OR - ) FEET ( 150 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) AND A SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 35 ( + OR - ) FEET ( 60 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) . A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 45 , PARAGRAPH 51 IS ALSO REQUESTED FOR THE CREATION OF A BUILDING LOT , KNOWN AS LOT # 3 , WITH A PROPOSED BUILDING TO BE LOCATED 1 ( + OR - ) FOOT FROM A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE ( A 50 - FOOT BUFFER BEING REQUIRED BETWEEN A STRUCTURE IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE AND THE BOUNDARY LINE OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE ) . HOWEVER , THE REQUIRED 60 - FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FROM A PROPERTY LINE WILL BE MAINTAINED . SAID BUILDING LOTS ARE A PART OF A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LAND LOCATED AT 608 ELMIRA ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT . • Ms . Kim Jacobs , T . G . Miller Associates , explained to the Board the background of this project . Mr . Andy Frost presented photos of the area in question . Town Attorney Barney gave some background history of the Mancini properties in question . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Ms . Jacobs answered questions from Board members regarding the wetland in the area and the buffer zone . MOTION : By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance for the sideyard setback of the southernmost building on Lot # 4 , accepting the fact that it is 35 feet from the south lot line rather than 60 feet , and be it further RESOLVED , that a further variance is granted for the front 0 yard setback of the northerly building from the existing roadway , that setback being only 35 feet , whereas normally 150 feet is required in a Light Industrial Zone , and be it further • Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals February 26 , 1992 RESOLVED , that , as to Lot # 3 , the Board of Zoning Appeals permit the use and inclusion of the triangular portion at the southwest corner of the lot , part of which is in a residential zone , for the required buffer for Lot # 3 , for placing a building within this zone 60 feet away from the adjacent residential zone , and be it further RESOLVED , that these variances are granted contingent upon the petitioners complying with all the conditions set forth by the Planning Board and ultimately obtaining approval of this subdivision from the Planning Board . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Hines , Reuning , Austen , Scala . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . [ The Adopted Resolution of the Planning Board , dated September 31 1991 , is attached hereto as Exhibit # 7 . ] Adjournment Upon motion , the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 9 : 00 p . m . Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary APPROVED . Edward Austen , Chairman Part 2 — PROJECT IMPACTS .SND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information ( Read Carefully ) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question : Have my responses and determinations been.. reasonable ? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. OIdentifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2 ) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance . Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2 . The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3 . • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary . Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as giidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to ans •rier each question . • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question . • In identifying impacts, consider long term , short term and cumlative effects . Instructions ( Read carefully) a . Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2 . Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers . c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box ( column 1 or 2 ) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided , check column 2 . If impactwill occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1 . d . If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 . e . If a potentially large impact c ;. ecked in column 2 can be mitigated by change( s) in the project to a s „ all to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3 . A No response indicates that such a reduction is net possible . This must be explained in Part 3 . 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated Ey IMPACT ON LAND Impact Impact Project Change -i . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site ? rN0 I, YES Examples that would apply to column 2 So Any construction on slopes of 13 % or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ❑ ' Yes No foot of length ), or where the ger% eral slopes in the project area exceed • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1 , 000 or more vehicles . ❑ ❑ C:1 Yes C1 No • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 3 feet of existing ground sur," ace . • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ❑ ! Yes C1 NO than one phase or stage. •. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1 , 000 ❑ ❑ L.1 Yes ONO tons of natural material (i . e . , rock or soil ) per year. s Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N m Construction in a designated flecdway . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No • Other Jim/ pacts Cortyeesigy ^ o � 3 . 057t acres e774 MCAdV , � ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ NO h / .4 94IQ -1 D / Af)je / g 4 e l4 k / 1rIAed Ion f'J ♦oQ t, buil lot S Anq of.4 .. i ? a ✓ e 41 S " eTReCS 2. Will theCe be an effect v . .. . 1y unique or unusual land forms found on site ? ( i . e . , cliffs, dunes , geological formations , etc . ) XNO OYES,the pecific land forms : Cl Cl ❑ Yes C3 No 6 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be IMPACT ON WATER Moderate Large ?Mitigated Ey 3 . Will pre� ; esed action af ; ec : any water body designated as protected ? Impact Impact Project Change ( lander Articles 15 , 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law , ECL) ANO CYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Deve ! cpable area of site contains a protected water body . ❑ ❑ _ Yes ❑ No • Dredging more than 1W cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ _ Yes No protected stream . • Exte^ sign of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ L Yes [ No • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland . Cl ❑ ' Yes ENO • Other impacts : ❑ Cl ❑ Yes ❑ No 4 . Will precosed action affect any non- protected existing or new body of water ? ONO 19YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10 % increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water Cl ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease . • Consttuctlon of a body or water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ IN • Other impacts : F inail , o / 00 s �44 . o74 Yes ON wetlam� ) arca _ 5 . Will ? reposed Action avec : su ,. ace or groundwater quality or quantity ? B% NO CYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge perimit. ❑ ❑ ❑! Yes ❑ No • Prooesed Action requires use or a source of water that does not ❑ ❑! ' Yes ❑ IN Oprcocsee.4 ave approval to serve proposed ( project) action .Action requires wat .zr supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ n ' Yes ❑ No gallons per minute pumping capacity . • Constn . tion or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ _ Yes ❑ tip supciy system . • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. E. ❑ "_ Yes ❑ No • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No do not exist or have inadequate capacity . • Propc � ed Action would use water in excess of 20, 000 gallons per . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No day . • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑ No existing `rodv of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast :o natural conditions . • Proposec Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ Cl LJYes ❑ No producs greater than 1 , 100 gallons . • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑ No and/or sewer services . • Proposed Action locates commercial and /or industrial uses which may Cl ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities . • Other impacts : ❑ ❑ CYes ❑ No fll proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns , or surface water runoff ? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 7 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change ooposed ,4c ; ion may cause substantial erosion . ❑ ❑ _ Yes ❑ No roposee.1 Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns . Cl Cl ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway . ❑ 11 ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts : hicyrfayeg S 7"yi ✓ 4 'je f^ unLLe - /i /{�0 �+ C3 I_ Yes ❑ NO /stJVsi ✓/ yu3 fLArT4ees � o �7e. ton Tteo1je oAs. fe / ef'e .. }"+ poi 1MPA(OT ��N AIR 7 . Will proposed action affect air quality ? C91NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1 , CCd or more vehic ; e trips in any given ❑ ❑ L- Yes ❑ No hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ 71 Yes ❑ No refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs . per hour or a Cl ❑ Ell Yes ❑ No I eat source producing more than 10 million BTU ' s per hour. • Proposed action will allow an incre =ase in the amount of land committed ❑ Cl _ Yes ❑ No to industrial use. • Propose: action will allow an increase in the density of industrial Cl ❑ _ Yes CNo devefocrr. ent within existing industrial areas . • Ct :'% er imracts : i U ryes ❑ No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 Will Procosed Action area any threatened or endangered �pecies ? yXiIN EYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes E] No lis :. using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ ; Yes ❑ No • Application of pesticide or her :, icide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N than for agricultural purposes . • Other impacts : ❑ ❑ '` Yes ❑ No 9 . Will Proposed Action substantially affect non- threatened or non -endangered species ? 19NO I] YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or Cl ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species . • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No of mature forest ( over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation . IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 . Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources ? LINO RYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ E, Yes C1 No � d ( includes cropland , hayfields . pasture , vineyard , orchard , etc. ) 8 , 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ® ❑ ❑ Yes CNo agricultural land . • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ E! Yes E, No of agricultural land or, if Icca : ed in an Agricultutal District, more than 2 . 5 acres of agricultural land . • The proposed action would disruct or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No lard management systems ( e . g . , subsurface drain lines ; outlet ditches, strip cropoing); or create a need for such measures ( e . g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) ( Yes ❑ No • Other impacts : Cl ❑ IMPACT ON AE S T HETiC RESOURCES 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources ? ONO jXYES ( If necessary , use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617 . 21 , Appendix B . ) Examples that would appiy to column 2 r- • Procosed land uses , or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ — Yes ._1No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns , whether man -made or natural . • Proposed land uses , or project, components visible to users of ❑ Cl t_ Yes N aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic quaiities of that resource. - Ocreening oject componen1ts that wiii result in the elimination or significant ❑ Yes r� No of scenic views known to be important to the area . • Other impacts : ❑ Cl E, Yes CNa IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND AIRCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 . Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic , pre- historic or paleontological importance ? NO FjYE5 Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring welly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C1 No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places . • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ CYes El No project site . • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ 01 Yes C] No archaeological sites on the NY5 Site Inventory . • Other impacts : Cl ❑ E, Yes 0 N 15nPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 Will Proposed Action allot : the quantity or quality of existing or t' ut . re open spaces or recreational opportunities ? Examples that would apply to column 2 %, NO OYES tie permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C1 No mayor reduction of an open space important to the community . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts : ❑ Cl ❑ Yes C1 No 9 1 2 3 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact Be 1 t Wiil there be an effect to existing transportation systems ? Moderate Large Mitigated By GNO t% YE5 Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems . /I ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts : M adielalf infreate . ., fiafi<� con odlatrnf" � ❑ LJ! Yes ❑ NO 5T/' f�iT1S An ✓/Q1 < IMPACT ON ENERGY 15 . Will proposed action affect the community' s sources of fuel or energy supply ? ® NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5 % increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes F7 No any form of energy in the municipality . • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes E, No transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family reside ^ ces or to serve a major commercial or industrial use . • Other impacts : ❑ ❑ E, Yes 0N NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 . Will there be objectionable odors , noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action ? X, NO 1= YE5 Examples that would appiy to column 2 • blasting within 1 , 500 feet of a hospital , school or other sensitive ❑ Cl Yes ❑ N facility. . Odors will occur routinely ( more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes E, No • Prepcsed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures . • Prepcsed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No noise screen . • Other impacts : ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 . Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety ? 14NO OYES Examples that would appiy to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No substances (i . e. oil , pesticides , chemicals , radiation, etc . ) in the event of accident or upset conditions , or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission . • Proposed Action may result in the burial of " hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0N form ( i . e . toxic , poisonous , highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious , etc . ) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ 71 ❑ Yes ❑ No gas or other flammable liquids . • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO within 2 , 000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste . Other impacts : ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 10 0 # / 1 ' 2 3 IMPACT ON GRO 'vVTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact Be OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD ,Moderate Large il.titigated By 18 . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community ? Impact Impact Prefect Change CNO � '( ES examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N project is located is likely to grow by more than 5 '.c . • The municipal budget for cacital expenditures or operating serlices Cl C] E! Yes ❑ No will increase by more than 5 % per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed action will cause a change in the den , ity of land use. iii ❑ CYes ❑ No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities , structures ❑ ❑ E, Yes ❑ No or areas of historic importance to the community . • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ Cl ❑ Yes ❑ No ( e . g. schools , police and fire, etc. ) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts : 1111111141,_ Yes No 19 . Is there, or is there likely to be, public: controversy related to IC III potential adverse environmental impacts ? CN0 1 62) If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or • If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact , Proceed to Part 3 Part 3 — EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2 : 1 . Briefly describe the impact. 2 . Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3 . Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact . (Continue on attachments) • 11 14- 14. 11 (2187 --9c 617 . 21 SEOR Appendix B State Environmental Quality Review Visual EAF Addendum • This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 of Part 2 of the Full EAF. (To be completed by Lead Agency) Distance Between Visibility Project and Resource (in Miles) 1 . Would the project be visible from : 0- 1/4 1/. - '/2 1/2 -3 3-5 5 + _ • A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ " to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation . of natural or man - made scenic qualities? • An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public ❑ Cl ® ❑ Cl observation, enjoyment and appreciation of. natural or man- made scenic qualities? • A site or structure listed on the National or State Cl ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Registers of Historic Places? _ • State Parks? Cl Cl ❑ ❑ • The State Forest Preserve? 0 Cl ClCl • National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding. . - " ❑ ❑ ❑ Cl . 0 natural features? _ • National Park Service lands? ❑ ❑ - ❑ ❑ . • Rivers designated as National or State Wild , Scenic - ❑ ❑ ❑ " ❑ ❑ or Recreational? • Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such ❑ ❑ ❑ -❑ ; : as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak? • A governmentally established or designated interstate ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or inter-county foot trail. or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? - • A site, area, lake , reservoir or highway designated as ❑ 11 . ❑ . ❑ scenic? • Municipal park , or designated open space? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Cl • County road? ® ❑ cl❑ • State? ❑ 0 . _ ❑ Cl • Local road? ® ❑ ❑ .,.�. �, : 2 . Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (I. e. , screened by summer foliage , but visible during other seasons) ' ❑ Yes No 3 . Are any of the resources checked in question 1 used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be visible? ® Yes ❑ No DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 4 . From each item checked in question 1 , check those which generally 'describe the surrounding environment. _ Within • • �A mile • 1 mile Essentially undeveloped ® ❑ Forested ®. ❑ Agricultural ® ❑ Suburban residential ❑ Industrial ❑ ❑ Commercial ❑ Urban ❑ River, Lake, Pond ❑ ❑ Cliffs, Overlooks ❑ ❑ Designated Open Space ❑ Flat ❑ Hilly Mountainous ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ NOTE: add attachments as needed 5 . Are there visually similar projects within: "/z mile ® Yes ❑ No ' I miles CzYes ❑ No _ ' 2 miles Yes ❑ No - • ' 3 mites ® Yes ❑ No ' Distance from project site are provided for assistance: Substitute other distances as appropriate. EXPOSURE 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project ` is NOTE: When user data is unavailable orunknown, use. best estimate. CONTEXT > 7 . The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is ! FREQUENCY - Holidays/ _ Activity Daily Weekly Weekends ' Seasonally Travel to and from work ® ❑ ❑ Involved in recreational activities Routine travel by residents ❑ ® ❑ At a residence ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ At worksite c : Cl ❑ ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ ❑ • • .711 . 1 ! . . . . w ; . . I - _ 1 Pg . 12 State Environmental Quality Review Long Environmental Assessment Form Pt . III Evaluation of Importance of Impacts Impact on Aesthetic Resources : Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources ? 1 . Description of Impact : The proposed project as designed will result in the significant screening of a scenic view known to be important to the area . The view in question is a southwesterly view from Pine Tree Road and to a lesser extent Ellis Hollow Road . The view extends across the Cayuga Inlet Valley , the southern portion of West Hill in the Town of Ithaca and Burdge Hill in the Town of Newfield to the Connecticut Hill ridgeline on the horizon between 12 and 15 miles away . The view also includes the northern tip of South Hill , including the Ithaca College campus . 2 . Potential Measures to Mitigate or Reduce Impact : • Given the type of facility proposed the impact cannot be completely mitigated . However a number of alternative site plan concepts which reduce the project ' s impact on the viewshed have been reviewed . ( See attached . ) They include shifting the location of the Tennis Center structure on the site , the orientation of the building on the site , and the location and orientation of parking and outdoor tennis courts on the site . Although two of the alternative site configurations would result in a substantial reduction in impact on the viewshed both would result in other potential large impacts . These potential large impacts include encroachment on the stream corridor and wetland area to the north , should the Tennis Center building be constructed north of its proposed location , or the potential impact from lighting for outdoor courts on motorists on Pine Tree Road should the location of the Tennis Center building and outdoor courts be reversed on the site . In addition to the identified potential environmental impacts both alternative site plans create practical difficulties to the applicant in terms of construction costs and meeting the program requirements of the facility . Shifting the Tennis Center building to the north would require substantial additional expense due to the need for additional filling and extensive retaining walls . Reduction of the overall height of the proposed • Tennis Center from the proposed 53 + / - feet to the maximum height of 30 feet from lowest exterior grade or 34 feet from lowest interior grade allowed under the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance #1 • was also considered as a mitigating measure . This reduction in height is not practical from a project program standpoint , given the necessary ceiling heights required for indoor tennis courts . Also the reduction in building height to 30 feet would not substantially mitigate the building ' s impact on the viewshed . 3 . Importance of the Impact : Probability of impact occurring ; duration of impact ; irreversibility of impact : The probability of the impact occurring is considered certain should the project be constructed . The duration of this impact is expected to be of long duration and irreversible . It would likely result in the permanent loss of much of the scenic view on the site . The impact of the loss of the viewshed however is one which could occur with any of the allowed uses under the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , including residential development on the site . Effective preservation of the viewshed would require removal of development rights from the subject parcel , and continuous maintenance of the existing meadow conditions to preclude reversion of the site to woodland . Neither of these actions are considered to be feasible alternatives to the project as proposed . • Regional consequences of the impact : Although the impact of loss of the viewshed has local consequences , there have been no regional consequences identified . The topography of Ithaca urban area and surrounding environs is such that views similar in nature to the one from the site in question are common . Thus the loss of this particular viewshed is not considered to be important in a regional context . Potential divergence from local needs or goals : No significant divergence from local needs or goals as a result of the impact or impacts of the proposed project is anticipated . Known objections to the project related to impact : There are known objections to loss of the scenic view . However there has also been support expressed for the proposed project by members of the public , who have argued that the benefits to the community of the project outweigh the negative impacts of the loss of the viewshed . Given the above assessment the impact on the viewshed of the proposed project , when weighed against the number of alternative scenarios for the site and the potential benefits to the community of the proposed project , is not considered to be important . • Date : December 11 , 1991 Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner Staff Recommendation State Environmental Quality Review Determination of Significance Action : Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval , pursuant to Article V . Section 18 , Paragraph 3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed Cornell University Tennis Center , . Cornell University , Owner ; Priscilla Noetzel - Wilson , Agent . Location : West side of Pine Tree Road approximately 400 ft . south of Ellis Hollow Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 8 . 2 , - 6 , - 9 . 1 , Residence District R - 30 . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Staff Recommendation : Based on review of the project as proposed , including the information supplied in Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form and other submissions and presentations of the applicant , and completion of Parts II and III of the Long Environmental Assessment Form ( attached ) , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the above referenced action . Date : December 13 , 1991 Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner • • MEMORANDUM TO : The Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals FROM : Dirk A . Galbraith , Esq . DATE : February 20 , 1992 RE : Appeal of Frank Prudence - 1395 Mecklenburg Road We are seeking an interpretation from this Board that the appellant ' s property may lawfully be used as a Business District " B " ( Zoning Ordinance § 33 ) use based upon the property ' s status as a pre - existing nonconforming use ( Zoning Ordinance § 52 ) . The property was owned by the Tilton family prior to the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance in 1954 and a business known as " Flower Field Greenhouse and Gardens " was operated there . This business is referred to in a mortgage dated September 18 , 1953 ( see attached Schedule " A " ) . The earliest Ithaca Directory which we could locate ( 1967 ) describes " Flowerfield Florists " as operating at the property address and being " complete florists and garden store " " specializing in lawn & garden equipment " ( see attached Schedule " B " ) . A " florist " or a " nursery " is a permitted use in a Business District " B " ( Zoning Ordinance § 33 ) . • Over the years the property has been . devoted to other business uses , such as a vending machine operator , an antique dealer , Egg - It , a bus garage and most recently F & T Distributing . On several occasions the Town of Ithaca Zoning Officer issued building permits for additions to the commercial building on the property ( August 12 , 1964 ; October 7 , 1981 , July 22 , 1985 ) . On October 7 , 1981 , this Board specifically found that the building was a legal nonconforming use when it granted a variance to expand the building . During the past two years F & T Distributing has moved a large part of its operation to another location but continues to use approximately one - third of the commercial building as a transfer station for the products which it distributes . We would propose to discontinue any commercial storage use since , based upon the advice of the Zoning Enforcement Officer , commercial storage is permitted only in an Industrial Zone . This interpretation is required in order to enable the property owner to know what category of use he may lawfully conduct on the property . We would request that the Board of Zoning Appeals make the following findings of fact in respect to this property : • - 2 - 16 The property was used as a " nursery " or " florist business prior to the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance in 1954 . 2 . The property has been used for other business uses such as a vending machine business , an antique store , Egg - It , a bus garage and F & T Distributing since the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance . 3 . The commercial building on the premises has previously been enlarged as a result of building permits issued by the Town of Ithaca . 4 . On October 71 1981 , the Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals determined that the property was a legal non - conforming use . 5 . The business use of the property has been continuous since 1954 . and has not been abandoned . 7� oZ un •.••�6 - 1 •1 ! in 11 P Made the' .18th day of September - ' , Nineteen Hundred and Fifty three ,. .:fi;i;t: •. i I ? �qx: � mt' . CHARLES AVEM TILTON of 1395 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York {s> 1 c= Is } }. - hereinafterr referred toeathe maltgag0l,. and f ^' > : TOARMS COUNTY TRUST COMPANY' of. 110 N.. Top. St. Ithaca, N:. Y.,. ,,,��•�' ,.' AS. TRiISTEE . tT/A LADIES. j1NI0N SENEVO SOCIETY, . ! the mortgagee,. I a IOlt=s V*&L that to. secure the: payment of' an: indebtednessin. the num of r :T ;. r FORTY-FIVE HUNDRED and no/100 - - - - - - Dollsra ($ 4,1500 .00 ), "T , 12'j lawful money- of the United. States, secured to be paid by, the mortgagors certain. ' " bond or 'obligation, bearing even date herewith, conditioned for theapayment of the �I ' IV said am, of: 4, 500 .00, j 1 ' and interest thereon; according to the terns and conditions mentioned and: set fortli y":: in said bond; 4 �s 1 r , I i :a` .. The mortgagor hereby mortgages to the mortgagee AU that Mad Or Itarerl of funb . 4, t situate in' the Town. of• Ithaca. i { -" County of Tompkins, and State of New York; being; a part of Military Lot :►' :: :: 57, and ' bounded. and' described as. follows Beginning in' the center. I line of : the Ithaea-Meaklenburg- Highway ( being the! north . line of ! Military Lot. .57 ) . 'at- a northwest corner of lands- of Walter E . Tilton . and Anna . M. Tilton', husband and wife, ( See: Liber 188 of• Deeds at pag . i 9" . 233 ).Sr such point of beginning- being about; 140 feet. west along the ' center . line of the, Mecklenburg Road.froin the northwest corner of ;the ' I t parcel , conveyed by said Walter ; E . and Anna M.. Tilton- to Frederick W. � and Blanche 9 Tilton by deed: dated •March. 7 ' , 41941 �gtreoorded in, a • Liber 25$' . of Deeds at. pegs 4555 l and about-"290: feet/a ong said. line ! ^ + from the northwest corner of lands of Ralph S . and. Hazel Be Baker ( see Liber. 212 'of Deeds at page= 253 ) am shown on the "MapI of Lots ! Sold by Forrest J. Baker on: Mecklenburg Road - Lot. 57. Town- of , . Ithaca ' made: by. Carl Crandall , Co. E. dated July 5a 1947 and filed ! in. the Tompkins County Clerk� s. ,Office. August 27 , 1947 in Map Book F2 Page.. 42 ; running thence, west. along. the center line: of the Meck- `;t =`, lenburg Road 150 feet to the northeast, corner- of the pareel . by said Walter E., and Anna M: Tilton, to Theodore- J. and Pearl. E . i ; _= Tiltonby' deed dated August 30 , 1939 and recorded.. in• Liber 255 of. Deeds at: page 381; running thenoe. south. along the east 11rie of said i Theodore: J. and4 Pearl. Be, * Tilton parcel, crossing- a pipe near the south side of the, highway , a total - distance of 150' feet. to an iron piper running thence east parallel. to the center line of said high way 150 feet to a pipe; thence north, crossing a_ pipe near the side of said. highway, a total distance of, 150 feet: to the point or place -f. of. beginning. . BeIngL the same premises conveyed to the mortgagor herein. by Walter S. and Anna , M. , Tilton, husband and. wife , by warrant ° deed dated September. 3; 1946 , and recorded October 16's 1946 in Liber i .. . . 293 of Deeds at Page 215.. I . "; ThA above described premises are known' as 1395 Mecklenburg Road,d . 1 Town of, Ithacas and are. in part occupied by si "Flower. Field . Greenhouse and Gardens " . ' The above described parcel is about 3/4ths mile easterly: from Kennedys Corners at the west line of Military Lot .57' i MgrtOr with the appurtenances and all fixtures and articles of personal'property, :. . . now or hereafter attached to, or usedin connection with, the premises; and all the i estate and rights of the said mortgagor in and to said premises. i #grid the mortgagor (jointly and severally) covenants with the mortgagee as follows: Slrst, That the mortgagor will pay the indebtedness as hereinbefore provided. t i `` Orrnna.: That the mortgagor will keep the buildings on the premises insured against loss by fire and against such other hazards as the mortgagee may require, for the ' benefit of the mortgagees that he will nasi , . , assign and deliver the policies to the L and that he will reimburse the mortgagee for any premiums paid for in- surance made by the mortgagee on the mortgagor's default in so insuring the buildings or in so assigning and delivering ' tho policies. 4740. That no building, timber or cordwood on the premises I r fixtures or per sonal property covered-by this mortgage shall be removed, demolished or substantially i altered without the prior written consent of the mortgagee. That the mortgagor will maintain the premises in a rentable andtenantable condition and in good' repair; will not suffer or permit any waste; andwill promptly comply with all the, require- j < ' Lents of the Federal, State. and municipal governments, or of any departments or bureaus thereof havingjurisdiction. Yourtll. That the thole of. said principal sum and interest shall become due forthwith at the option of the mortgagee: aftter default in the payment of any install- went of principal or of interest for 30 days; or after default in the payment of any tai:, water rate or assessment for 30 days after notice and demand ; or after default I after notice and demand either in assigning and delivering the policies insuring the buildings against loss by fire or against such' other hazards as may be required or in j reimbursing the mortgagee for premiums paid on such insurance, las hereinbefore Provided; or after default upon request in furnishing a statement of the -amoumt due on the mortgage and whether anyoffsets or defenses exist against thelmortgage debt, as hereinafter provided; or if sai& buildings are not kept in good repair, or upon the breach of any other covenant or provision contained in this mortgage or accompanying bond. - ; glftli. That the holder of this mortgage, in any action to foreclose it, shall be entitled to the appointment of a receiver. i317114. That the mortgagor dill pay all tares, assessments, insurance premiums or eater rates, and in default thereof, the mortgagee may pay the same and add the amount so paid to the unpaid balance of the mortgage debt. 90111th. That the mortgagor within 8 days upon request in person or within . : 10days upon request by mail will furnish a. written statement duly acknowledged of - the amount dueon this mortgage and whether any offsets or defenses exist against the mortgage debt. That the mortgagor will give immediate notice by mail to'l the � mortgagee of any fire damage or other casualty to the premises or of any conveyance, transfer or change of ownership of the premises. 004th. That notice and demand or request may be in writing and may.. be served in person or by mail. Ninth* That the mortgagor twill receive the advances secured hereby and will hold the- right to receive such advances as a trust fund to be applied first for the pur- ;: . . pose of paying the cost of any improvement that has been commenced upon the premises and has not been completed at least four months before the recording of this mortgage, and that the mortgagor will appIy the same first to the payment of the cost of im- provement before using any part of the total of .the same for any other purpose. Mitt . That the mortgagor•� '+� : . . ll gager warrants the title to the premises; that the mortgagor 38 the owner is fee simple of the premises hereby mortgaged, and that the same are 1 free and clear of all liens and encumbrances whatsoever, and that this mortgage is and {7 ` , will be maintained as, a valid fust lien on the premises. I i ..' . .. , •' ,' , 1 ' .. : .etc 4 x :'. .. 21 L• Tit M� �adllx Srr�.iIIk6vtl:Iii' 131J... ' .� . .. . . Y• 1 1 I , I ' ! ` FINANCIAL - BROKERS - FLORISTS CREDIT - FI FLORI ITHY 78 1967—H. A. MANNING COMPANY'S ; .• .. :o ,. 1924 — Coln 43rd 44"&ec qa — 1967 McGE o J • S . BARR & CO . , INC . O i ; : Member New York Stock Exchange • GARDEN SUPPLIE American Stock Exchange — ( Assoc. ) • NURSERY STO f I ; STOCKS MUTUAL FUNDS BONDS • FL. 501 Savings Bank Building Phone 607 — AR 3 • G565 ITHACA m Securities in Any Market Bought — Sold — Quoted 635 ELMIRA ROAD ter:: �enr�i7r,6or � I t1led% InterLakes LL 1 trl/da o EARN j; ' L6° - % FINANCE INTEREST MONEY AT • ►AID EIENNIAI CORPORATION YOUR OUAR1fRlY BONUS SERVING FINGER LAKES FAMILIES SINCE 1933 sfavlcE .� vEAN / •127 W. STATE ST. • AR J• 1000 ITHACA, N. Y. { MEMBER N .C. F.A. T MICK and G>d•n Shr• •:' ` � ' AR 7-9070 !, I % TOP • ': (, 0 OPEN Specializing in Lawn fi Garden equipment 435 N. CAYUGA Ad HUNTINGTON GARDENS U $ H JOE HUNTINGTON R T031 QUICKMIRE Flowers and Gifts Q �\RORARh a Specialized Designs 1do Large and Small WEDDINGS—FUNERALS—RECEPTIONS E DECORATIONS A • etioo oil IT7iA 1715 SLATERVILLE RD . Tel . AR 34613 2 Miles from Ithaca i �, EXHIBIT " B " '!;d. ;'n' - - Z.Qning Board of Appeals - 13 - October 21 , 1981 APPEAL OF FRANK L . AND TONI D . PRUDENCE , APPELLANTS , I ' 1tO111 THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PTRMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE ( LEGAL NON - CONFORMING USE , F & T DISTRIBU'T' ING CO . ) AT 1395 MECKLEN - • BURG ROAD , TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 28 - 1. - 11 . 2 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE " XII , SECTION 54 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Vice - Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 33 p . m . Mr . Frank Prudence appeared before the Board .and referred to his Appeal , which the members had received prior to this meeting , and which reads as follows : " . Havingbeen denied � . - permission to extend a non conforming use by the addition of 112 sq . ft , garage to house route trucks at 1395 Mecklenburg Road , . . . PRACTICAL DIFFICULTUES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : We are requesting an additional 4 feet to the east or our original proposal . The original plans were my own and I wanted the east wall of the addition to run in line with the existing wall . After being granted the first variance , we contracted Mr . Norm Jordan to construct our addition . He felt that if we went 4 feet more to the east and then come back into the existing wall , then we would have a much sounder structure . Dated : 10 / 9 / 81 ( Sad . ) Frank L . Prudence " It was noted that at its September 23 , 1981 , meeting the Board had granted a variance for an addition to Mr . Prudence ' s warehouse , as follows : " RESOLVED , that , pursuant to the authorityranted to it b g y Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , as amended , the - Zoning Board of Appeals of said Town grant and hereby does grant approval , of the , .proposed 756 sq . ft , addition to the existing warehouse , being a legal non - conforming use by F & T Distributing Co . , . at 1395 Mecklenburg Road , Town of - Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 11 . 2 , as requested by Frank L . and Toni D . Prudence , Appellants . " Mr , Prudence stated that the presently requested " addition " is 4 ' x 28 ' 112 sq . ft . and is needed to make the addition to the existing warehouse sounder . Mr . Aron asked several technical questions of Mr . Prudence , including if the existing building is metal to which the addition , being cinder blocks , is to be attached , Mr . Prudence stated that that was the case . Mr . Aron stated that Mr . Jordan ' s proposal is quite correct and that a pilaster would be needed to attach a metal building to a cinder block building . Vice - Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to . this matter . No one spoke . Mr . Aron stated that he thought that Mr . Prudence needed this additional 4 ' and he could see no reason not to grant it . The Board - members concurred and noted that the building would still not be any closer to the road . • MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca grant and hereby does grant , pursuant to Section 54 of the Ordinance , approval of an addition of 4 ' x 28 ' to that addition of 27 ' x 28 ' heretofore approved on September 23 , 1981 , to the existing warehouse , being a legal non - conforming ���� 3 Zdni. iiy Board of Appeals - 14 - October 21 , 19 ,$ 1 \ F T Distributing Co . , at 1395 Meckle use by nburg Read , Town of Ithaca Taxi Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 11 . 2 , as requested by Frank L . and Toni D . Prudence , Appellants , such further addition being needed for soundness of the structure • By way of discussion , it was noted for the record that the following letter was received from Mr . Frank R . Liguori , Commissioner of Planning , Tompkins County Department of Planning , dated October 20 ; 1981 . " . . . RE : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and - in of the New York State General Municipal Law , CASE : Appeal for permit to expand a nonconPormi. ng facility by Frank L . and Toni D . Prudence at 1395 Mecklenburg Road ( State highway ) . . . . This will acknowledge the receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239 - m . The proposal , as sumbitted , will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity , county , or state interests . Therefore , no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and . you are free to act without prejudice . " There being no further discussion , the Vice - Chairman called for a vote . Ave - Austen , Reuning , Aron . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . • Vice - Chairman Austen declared the . matter of "the Appeal of Frank L . and Toni D . Prudence duly closed at 8 : 40 p . m . PEAL OF DAVID WEXLER , APPELLANT , FR0M THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING IN R CTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITH A E YARD DEF CI T IN SIZE AT 209 ROAT STREET , TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 71 - 5 - 11 HACA , N . Y . PERMISSI IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , AND ARTICL XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE WN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Vice - Chairma Austen declared the Public Hearing the above - noted matter duly opened 8 : 40 p . m . Mr . Wexler appeared fore the Board and not that the Board members had each received a copy of is appeal with at chments , as follows : " . . ! Having been denied permission o ere c a garage at west side yard of property with side yard of less than feet in width at 209 _ Road Street . . . PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNEC SA HARDSHIP as follows : I was issued a building permit on August 14 , 81 , to e ct the garage as per plot plan ( attached ) . The building ins ctor issued th permit by mistake because of not taking into account th oad right of way . ter the foundation was started , I was notified the inspector to submit his - appeal to obtain permission for the g age . Dated : Septembe 6 , 1981 • ( Sgd . ) David Wexler " Mrrtee stated that a building permit for the constructs n of this 20 ' x 2 garage by Mr . Wexler was issued • erroneously by his offic since the ructure is located 13 ' from the edge of the blacktop . Mr . Car ee no d that Blackstone Avenue , the road alongside the garage , is a dea - end reet to the south . Mr . Cartee stated that there are two neighbors , o e # 3 TAVELLI & SELDIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW • 405 NORTH TIOGA STREET P. 0. BOX 695 PAUL N. TAVELLI ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE WILLIAM S. SELDIN (607) 273-8410 (607) 273 -3900 February 26 , 1992 To : Zoning Board of Town of Ithaca Re .: Prudence Appeal - 1395 Mecklenburg Road At the last hearing , the Board asked for further information as to the use of the subject property since 1954 . The Brazos ' as owners of a home adjacent to the subject parcel submit the following in opposition to the application to designate the premises as either a legal non -conforming use commercial and /or industrial . An examination of the Abstract of Title reveals four parcels ( 28 - 1 - 12 . 1 & 11 . 2 & 9 . 1 & 10 . 2 ) were in the Tilton name since 1906 . Charles A . Tilton bought his parcel in 1962 . He ' s the predecessor in title to Prudence . Frederick and Blanche Tilton predecessors in title to Brazo purchased in 1941 . The infamous water agreement is attached . Water for household purposes only . The Brazos ' purchased their home in March 22 , 1974 and have personal knowledge of the use of the premises since that date . An examination of the City Directory for the years 1954 , 1955 and 1956 indicate that the directory does not contain information in that area in the 1300 block of the Mecklenburg Road . I: owever , commencing in 1957 , Flowerfield Florist is listed as the resident occupant of the property and furthermore Flowerfield Florist is advertised in the yellow pages of the City Directory through 1967 . That use is apparently consistent with the records of the Town of Ithaca and the application for a building permit to build a greenhouse in 1955 . In 1964 , Town records also show a permit was issued for a replacement store . The City Directory shows no further advertising for Flowerfield Florist after the year 1967 and no other florists or nursery shops are advertised for that premises aft-eT—i-967. In point of fact , the property is shown as vacant in the City Directory for the years 1968 , 1969 and 1970 . A further examination of the Directory indicates that the • property was briefly used as an egg products distributorship and a furniture stripping business in the years 1972 to 1976 . Mrs . Brazo has previously stated that she complained concerning these uses and the uses were shortly discontinued . lee #T • Mr . Prudence apparently purchased the property for use of his business , F & T Distributing in approximately 1978 . Records indicate that the F & T Distributing business left the Mecklenburg Road premises sometime in 1988 and relocated to the Town of Dryden . Apparently , Mr . Prudence has been using the premises by his own admission as some sort of a warehouse for hire since that date . The Brazos ' must insist that the Prudences ' not be allowed to use the property as a commercial building for storage . They would be irreparably harmed by said use . At the prior hearing they introduced evidence of their deed showing a common water supply to the premises and a commercial use would cause them unnecessary hardship . I n addition , any possible non - conforming use in 1954 was abandoned by 1968 . See Section 53 of the Zoning Ordinance . Furthermore , Section 55 of the Zoning . Ordinance states that a non -conforming use may be changed to another non -conforming use of the same or more restrictive classification , but shall not be changed to a less restrictive use . Any use of the premises as a nursery and/ or florist was changed to a less restrictive use as a • warehouse facility and is improper because it ' s a change to a less restrictive use . In summary , the Brazos ' wish findings to be made as follows : ( A ) The legal non -conforming use as it existed in 1954 ( florist / nursery ) was discontinued for longer than a period of one year . ( B ) Prudence changed the non - conforming use to a less restrictive use classification ( commercial building for storage ) . Therefore , the application to use the property as a commercial storage facility should be denied . RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED , PAUL N . TAVELLI , ESQ . ATTORNEY FOR WILLIAM & EDNABELLE BRAZO P . S . Any new owners are certainly free to apply for a variance and the prospective use could be debated at that time . • • l Cll d1lLb Vr •- • • � --• - - - - - . of the Second Part and Frederick W . Tilton and Blanche E . Tilton , husband and wife as tenants by the entirety Parties of the Third Part and Charles Albert Tilton Party of the Fourth Part "WITNESSETH WHEREAS , the parties of the first part are the owners of premises in the Town of Ithaca . . . described in deed recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s office in Liber 188 of Deeds at page 233 ; the parties of the second part are the owners of prem- ises in said Town described in deed so recorded in Liber 255 of Deeds at page 381 ; the parties of the third part are the owners ' of premises in said Town described in deed so recorded in Liber 258 of Deeds at page 455 ; and the party of the fourth part is the owner of the premises in said Town described in deed so re - corded in Liber 293 of Deeds at page 215 which were enlarged by additional premises described in deed so recorded in Liber 441 of Deeds at page . 113 , constituting one unit of property together ; and WHEREAS , a certain spring located on said premises of the parties of the first part has been developed for the use of and piped to said respective premises of the partes of the second , 11 , and fourth parts , to draw and use the water from said spring for reasonable household purposes 9h such respective premises of the parties'of--the -second third and fourth parts , together with a ght of way for existing water pipe lines from the spring to such respective premises and for any replacements thereof , with the ght to enter upon said premises of the pgrties of the first part for the purpose of the construction , maintenance and repair of said spring and water pipelines and any replacements thereof ; with the right to do any act reasonably necessary to accomplish the forgoing and preserve the water supply of the spring and the flow thereof to the respective premises of the parties of the sec - ond , third and fourth parts . The parties of the first part covenant and agree with the other parties and the other parties covenant and agree with each other that they will do no act which shall lessen or diminish the supply of water from said spring and render the same inadequate to furnish water for xcasonable household purposes on an of the premises now owned by the parties of the second , third and fourth parts . The parties hereto further covenant and agree that the ust of the water from said spring is solely for the benefit of the above described premises of the parties of the second , third and fourth parts , and for no divisions thereof and for no other premises . . .. . • It is further agreed by and among the parties of the second , hird and fourth parts that the owners of their said respective premises shall equally bear the cost and expense of maintaining , repairing and preserving said spring and water pipe lines so commonly used . The covenants and agreements herein shall enure to and bind the representatives , heirs , distributees , devisees and • assigns of the respective parties . " • UP • r i m .'. u 1 . .. aM ' � , i11 v + h � ..Mtil 1 Itl ih{ f.l ,�; . � . i . " �• y lf�� ' S' �: A . • - ! it ! .`. .t 1 4 r \•.) t • .i Y t I t i h !ry. `.( qt i.� `• 1. 1 Y \I \., '. 9 \ i , `d r . . 1 4 if! Y \ II\ ! ` ; • ! yrt A\ � . LI [ \ y'l xtl 4 v . .�` . ivi1 AJI t ' MY LT4 1 ! t' qt 1 g: '• a r) �' O � 4 li�� . 1^ J a Y•r Ik i L. aF,i • 4ff^1w < � iL h , , I q) 11 � 1 > > I f ' a 8 y a � k [ 1ti 5 • x f .: . 4Mn 114/ r I ., h•' wl ! t{Zig r Yf 1 x ! wa t. l , � i r`l 1 6 . . [[ +, n 1f .•�{ \ >.n !t ` ', Ti1 ° , i. [ 4> ' .• ]i _ y.: rl-0 Y. 1,' ? \ !' n.,, � p.w ^ [!t, xl �, pa y.TW :.. VI ` r•J (. %r.r i.� ! �'t l J �{Z .I 1 '�li' �f i�� � ?.' .t �"7r ! � a: Y r � a f � h ,`' t y � •�„Y1 . 1a4, rl .S: •� � i ' �. L , < Y ; ,Li3d" � � t! l ti ni t > Y s t n � u4 '• y"� 1 t? yaY4 T �,l "d .y . x J,j'K'l�- � 9 � 1'i:'S�•4\ � � .���; • ti."i'1, . . .• �•� �i ( • 11 • l• r 1 • • is • • • • • f: C. ;T I . iS • s, . .. r • � . r 1 - f^ • v 1 { 1 {, . . iTr . Ifl , \Y �' . " ' { t ,� ...IV � { f 1 rf. ft x.T i - - N 1 Y 1 r > .� .r • � t i. (. 1 J �. � •, t t x .,tk St r ! : ,` x" }i p \Ilt . . jk , t . r u• u - r' x t ,.. ll Y� ' ...,1 F! Vol f 1 1 r e� 51• t l - l 3 1 4r i , 1 'r ! ti • t I x x, `frt? 1 4 ct it r } r i e L n 4 t } 1 f T V �i f • t < r V, . f Z {• ` 1 F r !\y r x X42 \ t ! '�'✓ , xlv Ta 4 a d ) ' If 1. rr .i . 1 7 ' b 1 x t , }i r. •� I;tr . t a •Ir t�x } f} iI I rr r r l�° fw `, f/ rf ii f ' P'' ' lk 1 14.11 x t t f \ t a hx v t 3 h x d6. ! tz { L tl •+.. 1 i -, • 1 t .• x� .. u . ' rri \ +,� yiit r � a ,. P ,( 1 ( .� 1 < { i � ! t> tr iS.:S;.� VV •:. + - i ,. .. h ; K x •• >.d X rs.l ?��' 7 . !'✓a h t P T ¢ t. - 4rL { n.� ra9it. t4 Ix .. i x ., A � r .9 It -' klo I • 1, 4 — . 1• � L Oxy . AI' s .". e h . >.. n 7 itA ^1 � x - x 1 I + t iT t 11 -ru t 1 y. :? 3i2{ xfi �F -!;� +\ trw lr ±�1 x 'tr t .•1 S :5x :•,' ,�x1 (�,y�x L e 4 � he r !i. ++, 4 y. to � 5,. ! rT x .• \ G' y ,y.�l rY :.l}•JY rf F;+r�r�+ �.{�ai� A� f�+f 1Ji{z'./r41'f Y•��� Jr{_S lM� �� �,,4���,�1(.�r � - y�'�Y�., ��� , .i. • rlx�il • r11 � at X•� > a• C �''A IT � l •j�' • rd�� - j'• • (1 i • • • • • l Lky : c c: is yl • ,L L, {I .r ,,r, s�tl , y{ • _ • • i • • . %, • • • i • • • • .r p tf i4 �Y • ;rl •t ti { I. a, of �h kk r , ( f' r r,•l F`. "' .� nlii'.'i^•`�x , .igAl \ ItiZ'F'v � at �•^I - �;' *j f�i ��'!; � . ; 'z"F' =1fi wi��,tE 'y'L+�4, i'r c ,.; • : -_ . AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS : SS . CITY OF ITHACA PHILIP WHITE , SR . , being duly sworn , deposes and says . That I am 82 years of age and live in Mecklenburg , New York . My wife , Nenetzin White , and I have operated White Nurseries for many years and between 1949 and 1970 we maintained a shop in Ithaca , New York . We would often drive by the property now owned by Frank Prudence at 1395 Mecklenburg Road and I recall that as early as 1949 when that property was owned by the Tilton family they conducted their business , known as Flowerfield Greenhouse & Gardens , at that location . Flowerfield Greenhouse & Gardens was a florist and nursery . business and the Tiltons grew and sold plants and flowers at the premises and also sold lawn and garden equipment there . On a number of occasions during the late 1940 ' s or early 1950 ' s , my wife and I purchased flowers and plants from Flowerfield Greenhouse & Gardens . PHIL P WHITE , SR . Sworn to before me this 20th day of February , 1992 NOTARY PUBLIC DIRK A. GALBRAITH Notary Public. State of New York No . 55-644432 County Qualified in To es May 31 , 1 q� Commission EXP • �� �� �"� � �, � �� ��� �� ���� . .����� G •Z G -z__ � Mancini Realty Five - Parcel Subdivision - 1 - Backlot , Elmira Road ( NYS Rte . 13 ) TOWN RHA and Five Mile Drive ( NYS Rte . 13A ) Doteaq3 Preliminary Subdivision Approval • Planning Board , September 3 , 1991 Ger * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Mancini Realty Five - Parcel Subdivision Backlot , Elmira Road ( NYS Rte . 13 ) and Five Mile Drive ( NYS Rte . 13A ) Preliminary Subdivision Approval Planning Board , September 3 , 1991 MOTION by Mr . Stephen Smith , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , 85 . 52 ± acres total area , into five parcels 3 . 1 ± , 3 . 58 ± , 2 . 0 ± , 76 . 72 ± , and 0 . 12 ± acres in size , with the 0 . 12 ± acre parcel proposed to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 4 , located backlot of Elmira Road ( NYS Rte . 13 ) and Five Mile Drive ( NYS Rte . 13A ) , Light Industrial District , 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 reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form consisting of Part I as prepared by the applicant , dated May 17 , 1991 , signed by Earland Mancini , Partner , and Parts II and III as completed by the Town Planning and Engineering staff and signed by George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , on July 31 , 1991 and July 30 , 1991 , respectively , the comments of the Environmental Review Committee of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council , a proposed plat entitled " Preliminary Plat for Lands of Mancini Within Town of Ithaca Light Industrial District " , dated May 17 , 1991 , prepared by T . G . Miller Associates , P . C . , and other application materials for this submission . 4 . Certain modifications that address issues raised at said August 6 , 1991 Planning Board Public Hearing have been made to the proposed plat , including modifications to lot lines and sizes and proposed public roads . 5 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on September 3 , 1991 , reviewed a revised Long Environmental Assessment Form , Part I , and a revised Parts II and III , signed by George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , on August 29 , 1991 , a proposed plat entitled " Preliminary Plat for Lands of Mancini Within Town of Ithaca Light Industrial District " , dated May 17 , 1991 , revised • August 30 , 1991 and September 3 , 1991 , prepared by T . G . Miller Associates , P . C . , and other application materials for this submission . 7 Mancini Realty Five - Parcel Subdivision - 2 - Backlot , Elmira Road ( NYS Rte . 13 ) and Five Mile Drive ( NYS Rte . 13A ) Preliminary Subdivision Approval • Planning Board , September 3 , 1991 6 . The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action , as revised . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for this action as revised . Aye - Kenerson , Baker , Smith , Hoffmann , Aronson . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Mancini Realty Five - Parcel Subdivision Backlot , Elmira Road ( NYS Rte . 13 ) and Five Mile Drive ( NYS Rte . 13A ) Preliminary Subdivision Approval Planning Board , September 3 , 1991 • MOTION by Mrs . Judith Aronson , seconded by Mrs . Eva Hoffmann : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , 85 . 52 ± acres total area , into five parcels 3 . 1 ± , 3 . 58 ± , 2 . 0 ± , 76 . 72 ± , and 0 . 12 ± acres in size , with the 0 . 12 ± acre parcel proposed to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 4 , located backlot of Elmira Road ( NYS Rte . 13 ) and Five Mile Drive ( NYS Rte . 13A ) , Light Industrial District . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in environmental review , has , at Public Hearing on September 31 1991 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on August 6 , 1991 reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form consisting of Part I as prepared by the applicant , dated May 17 , 1991 , signed by Earland Mancini , Partner , and Parts II and III as completed by the Town Planning and Engineering staff and signed by George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , on July 31 , 1991 and July 30 , 1991 , respectively , the comments of the Environmental Review Committee • of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council , a proposed plat entitled " Preliminary Plat for Lands of Mancini Within Town of Ithaca Light Industrial District " , dated May 17 , 1991 , 1/ Mancini Realty Five - Parcel Subdivision - 3 - Backlot , Elmira Road ( NYS Rte . 13 ) and Five Mile Drive ( NYS Rte . 13A ) Preliminary Subdivision Approval • Planning Board , September 3 , 1991 prepared by T . G . Miller Associates , P . C . , and other application materials for this submission . 4 . Certain modifications that address issues raised at said August 6 , 1991 Planning Board Public Hearing have been made to the proposed plat , including modifications to lot lines and sizes and proposed public roads . 5 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on September 3 , 1991 , reviewed a revised Long Environmental Assessment Form , Part I , and a revised Parts II and III , signed by George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , on August 29 , 1991 , a proposed plat entitled " Preliminary Plat for Lands of Mancini Within Town of Ithaca Light Industrial District " , dated May 17 , 1991 , revised August 30 , 1991 and September 3 , 1991 , prepared by T . G . Miller Associates , P . C . , and other application materials for this submission . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary • Subdivision Approval to the proposed Subdivision by Earland Mancini , d / b / a Mancini Realty , of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , located backlot of Elmira Road ( NYS Rte . 13 ) and Five Mile Drive ( NYS Rte . 13A ) , as shown on the plat entitled " Preliminary Plat for Lands of Mancini Within Town of Ithaca Light Industrial District " , dated May 17 , 1991 , revised August 30 , 1991 and September 3 , 1991 , prepared by T . G . Miller Associates , P . C . , subject to the following conditions : 1 . Granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of a variance for the following matters : a . The front yard of the Mancini lot is less than permitted by the Zoning Ordinance . b . Authorization to include a portion of the residential area as part of the buffer area for Lot 3 . c . Such other matters as may be necessary to permit the site plan to become legally effective . 2 . Exchange of strips of land between Mancini and Stevenson so that the road can be constructed adjacent to the former north line of the Mancini parcel between Route 13A and the Man cini /Anderson east lines . 3 . Before the earlier of ( a ) the sale of either Lot 2 or Lot 3 , or • ( b ) the issuance of a building permit for construction on either Lot 2 or Lot 3 , the entire roadway from Route 13A westerly to the end of the cul de sac at Lots 2 and 3 be constructed in Mancini Realty Five - Parcel Subdivision - 4 - Backlot , Elmira Road ( NYS Rte . 13 ) and Five Mile Drive ( NYS Rte . 13A ) Preliminary Subdivision Approval • Planning Board , September 3 , 1991 accordance with Town specifications and deeded to the Town , or security ( cash , bond , or letter of credit ) in an amount determined by the Town Board , after recommendation of the Town Engineer , and in a form approved by the Attorney for the Town , be provided to the Town . 4 . Provision be made for access from the proposed road to the rear of Lot 1 and the Axenfeld lot by deed restriction or declaration approved by the Town Attorney , which access may , at the Planning Board ' s discretion , be mandated or terminated when an actual site plan for Lot 1 is approved by the Planning Board . 5 . Restrictive covenants , satisfactory to the Town Planner and Town Attorney , be provided and recorded prior to the earlier of ( a ) the sale of either Lot 2 or Lot 3 , or ( b ) the issuance of a building permit for either Lot 2 or Lot 3 , restricting the filling of any wetland to no more than . 09 acres for purpose of driveway access to Lot 2 and building on Lot 2 , and no more than v. iO vol: acres for a rear access to Lot 1 , such covenant to continue in perpetuity until the State or Federal government ( whichever has jurisdiction ) authorizes more fill , and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board consents to additional fill , such consent to be • solely in the discretion of the Planning Board , 6 . Prior to final site plan approval , approval by the Town Attorney of an agreement pursuant to which the Developer agrees that in exchange for not requiring any dedicated open space for the present subdivision , the acreage in the present subdivision may be added to the remaining undeveloped acreage of Mancini ( approximately 75 acres ) making an approximate total of 85 acres , for purpose of determining the required set - aside for open space in connection with the development of the remaining 75 ± acres ( i . e . , if the total acreage were 85 acres , 8 . 5 acres , or 10 % of the total acreage may be required to be set aside for park purposes rather than 7 . 5 acres - - 10 % of the acreage then being developed ) . 7 . Any final use of Lot 1 shall be of such character that no significant additional traffic be created on Route 13 and any final site plan submitted for approval shall be for a proposed use that , in the opinion of the Planning Board , does not create traffic hazards on Route 13 due to significant increased traffic or traffic turning movements . 8 . Upon completion of the road all the way in from Route 13A , the existing road in from Route 13 shall be brought up to Town specifications , deeded to the Town , and made into a one -way road • for ingress only . 9 . The area denominated " fill " on Lot 2 be restored to a wetland Mancini Realty Five - Parcel Subdivision - 5 - Backlot , Elmira Road ( NYS Rte . 13 ) and Five Mile Drive ( NYS Rte . 13A ) Preliminary Subdivision Approval • Planning Board , September 3 , 1991 status by removal of the fill and allowing the wetland plants to revegetate . 10 . The location of the proposed roads be approved by the Town Board prior to any final site plan approval . AND , IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED : That it is the understanding of this Board that there will be no variances granted for construction on Lot 1 . Aye - Kenerson , Baker , Smith , Hoffmann , Aronson . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , • Town of Ithaca Planning Board . September 23 , 1991 . FINAL :AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TOWN OF ITHACA ZON ' ING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR INGS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY ; 26 1992 7:60 P.M. ITHACAJOURNAL By direction of the Chairman' of the Zoning Board of A 1HE V NOTICE IS HEREBP GIVEN that Public Hearings' will be heldby the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town State of New York , Tompkins County , ss . : of Ithaca an Wednesday, Februarryy 26, 1992, in Town Hall 126 East Seneca Street, l Gail Sullins being duly sworn , deposes oses and (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST MMEN�Ia CONG Af 7;Od says , that she/he resides in Ithaca . county and state: aforesaid and that P.M. , on the following mat- ' I ren: 1 she/ he is Clerk APPEAL of Cornell University Ap " ant, Priscilla Noetze� ' of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in `^a o Agent, requestingg variance from the requirements of Article .V Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice . of which the annexed is a true Section 18, Paragraph 10at the Town of Ithaca Zoning copy , was published in said paper Ordinance to permit the con- struction of a university tennis facility with an exterior � C1 building height of 53 feet (30 ` t feet be ang the maximum al- lowed) . The building is pro- posed to be located on Pine Tree Road, approximately ' 400 feet south of Ellis Hollow Road, on Town of Ithaca Tax ' Parcels No. 6.60. 1 .8 . 2, -b, ' and 9. 1 , Residence District . *and that the first publication of said notice was on the . Z i ADJOURNED APPEAL (from day ofL� 1 December 11 , 1991 andJan- 1 9 nary 15, 1992) of Frank Pru- dente, Aprellont, Dirk Gal- s .Agent seeking an interpretation of G cep Article XII, Section 52, of the ' `-ieSulf in"an�ezisfing building Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordi having a front . yor d setback ' nonce, as it relates to the use '' of 35±feet ( 150 feet being of a non - conforming ' , required) and a south side ; Subsc/ibed apd sworn to before me , this dacommercial-s le building to ' yard setback of 35t 60 feet y sated at 1345 Mecklenburg < being required) .. A variance Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Par. from the requirements of Arts'• I Ot 19 cel No. 6-28- 1 - 11 .2, Resi- i -cls . VIII, .` Section . 45, ' Para dente District R•30. The pro-' ' graph 5, is also requested for : posed building had been I the creation of a building lot ! used for the operation of F $ ' known as Lot #3, with a pro- ' T Distributing Co. until ap posed building to be Icoated proximately 1988 and I l ±foot from a. residential dis•' thereafter has been used pri• j trict boundary line (A 50-foot' Notary Public . marily for the purposes of ! buffer . being liequired be- storage . Commercial uses ! tween a structure in a light are not generally permitted in ' industrial `zone and the' residential districts. Storage boundary line of a residential as a primaryuse is permitted : zone). However, the required only in industrial zones. 60•foot building setback from JEAN FORD ADJOURNED APPEAL (From ' a property line will be main Feburary 12, 19921 of Ed- :. toined. Said building lots are ward Schilling, Appellant, re- o part of a proposed subdivi• . �1Cid1 p ��IIC, Sid1� CT NSW Y � f . " questing a variance from the Sion of land located at 608 SIO. 4' J7requirements of Article V Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca, ' /� Section 21 , of the Town of I Tax Parcel No. .6.33.3.2 .2, Cdlii . Cd l l TGC1 � �t1 lS CGUfIt� Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to i Light Industrial District. .' s 0 permit the construction of a I Said Zoning Board of A' �xpt,es ,�nzy 31. � home with a 40±foot rear peals will at said time, 7:00 , yard building setback (50 p.m. , and said place, hear feet being required), to be all persons in support of such located on a recently sub. ' matters or objections thereto.l divided parcel of land, Io- : Persons may appear by ; cated on the west side of : agent or in person. Trumansburg Road, opposite ' Andrew S. Frost Woolf Lane on a potion of Building Inspecla Zoning Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Enforcement O icer No. 6.24. 1 . 14 . 2 , Agricul• 273. 1747 tural District (Residence Dis• February21 , 1992 . I trict R-30 Regulations apply). ' APPEAL Of Earnland Man- ' tins', DBA Mancini Realty, Ap- pellant T.G. Miller Associ- aces, ffC, Agentrequesting variances { rom the t requirements of Article VIII Section 44, Paragraph 2, of the Town of Ithaca Zonin Ordinance for the creation 01 a building Lot #4 that will