Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1992-09-09 FUD TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA Date ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 9 , 1992 Cler THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 9 , 1992 BY THE BOARD ; APPEAL OF LILIAN MATHER WHIFFEN , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 19 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ALLOW FOR THE USE OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING BY TWO NON-RESIDENT ARTISTS ON A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1478 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 27 - 1 - 24 . 1 , AGRICULTURAL ZONE ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR ACCESSORY USES ON RESIDENTIAL, PROPERTIES BY RESIDENT ARTISTS ONLY . ADDITIONALLY , APPELLANT REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 10 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ALLOW FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL BUILDING 33 FEET 6 INCHES IN HEIGHT ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED ) , INTO A RESIDENCE AND ARTIST STUDIO TO BE OCCUPIED BY THE APPELLANT . TWO VARIANCES ( USE AND AREA ) GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF PETER FORTUNATO , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE THE FOOTPRINT OF A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING LOCATED AT 172 PEARSALL PLACE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 54 - 1 - 3 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 . THE PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT IS THE ADDITION OF AN 8 X 10 FOOT PORCH ON THE EAST SIDE OF AN EXISTING SINGLE -FAMILY HOME . THE HOME IS NON- CONFORMING BECAUSE OF A 15 - FOOT FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK , WHEREAS 25 FEET IS REQUIRED , GRANTED , APPEAL OF G . P . LEPAGE , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF - THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 FEET ( 30 FEET 14AXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) , TO BE LOCATED AT 9 JOHN STREET , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 56 - 3- 13 . 25 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . GRANTED WITH CONDITION . APPEAL OF PAUL VELLEMAN , APPELLANT , ATTORNEY JUDITH ROSSITER , AGENT , REQUESTING AN INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 1 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THE USE OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY A STATISTICIAN FOR THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE FROM THE RESIDENCE IS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE . SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 15 LISA LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 71 - 1 - 9 . 8 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , SHOULD SUCH USE NOT BE PERMITTED , APPELLANT SEEKS A USE VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 1 . ADDITIONALLY , APPELLANT SEEKS A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 1 TO PERMIT THREE NON -RESIDENT EMPLOYEES , WHEREAS ONLY TWO NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYEES ARE PERMITTED . INTERPRETATION DISCUSSED AND VARIANCE GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . 4 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA �a q r Town of Ithaca Date c4 1 Zoning Board of Appeals Cle September 9 , 1992 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 9 , 1992 PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Robert Hines , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer / Building Inspector Andrew Frost . OTHERS : Deborah O ' Connor , Peter Lepage , Attorney Judith Rossiter , Paul Velleman , Lilian Mather Whiffen , Peter Fortunato , Dan Golemboski , Charles F . VonDreusche , Chairman Austen opened the meeting at 7 : 05 p . m . and stated that posting , publication and notification of the public hearings have been completed and the same are in order . The first Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF LILIAN MATHER WHIFFEN , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V , SECTION 19 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ALLOW FOR THE USE OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING BY TWO NON - RESIDENT ARTISTS ON A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1478 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 27 - 1 - 24 . 1 , AGRICULTURAL ZONE ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR ACCESSORY USES ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BY RESIDENT ARTISTS ONLY . ADDITIONALLY , APPELLANT REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 10 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ALLOW FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL BUILDING 33 FEET 6 INCHES IN HEIGHT ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED ) , INTO A RESIDENCE AND ARTIST STUDIO TO BE OCCUPIED BY THE APPELLANT . Ms . Whiffen spoke to the Board regarding the building . She stated that she occupies 1 , 000 square feet of the first and third floors of the concrete building at this time . She stated that she is a furniture maker and artist . Ms . Whiffen explained who the artists are occupying the other building . She said that when she purchased the property , the two artists who are on the premises said they would like to stay there and therefore , she is asking for a use variance so that she can continue renting these studios . Ms . Whiffen stated that she is trying to convert the concrete chicken barn into a studio , as well as trying to convert the third floor into a residence . She said that she is in need of the financial assistance from the rental of the two artists to offset O it . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . He referred to a letter from Sylvia Beneway , dated August 26 , 1992 , in support of the project . The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals September 9 , 1992 Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environ - mental significance in the Appeal of Lilian Mather Whiffen for a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 19 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to allow for the use of an accessory building by two non - resident artists on a residential property located at 1478 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27 - 1 - 24 . 1 , as recommended by Planner Richard A . Eiken on September 3 , 1992 . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Hines , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 . ] 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 to Lilian Mather Whif € en , Appellant , who has requested such variance to allow for the use of an accessory building by two non - resident artists on a residential property located at 1478 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27 - 1 - 24 . 1 , with the variance being granted on the following conditions and finding : 1 , that the variance be for a period of 5 years . 2s that the building be used only between the hours of 8 a . m . and 8 p . m . , as tar as creating any noise . This condition shall apply 7 days a week . 3 , that the variance be conditioned with a 1 - 1 / 2 year limitation on the variance , until June 30 , 1994 , for the Appellant to obtain a certificate of occupancy or to come Oback to the Board at that time . 4s that the rental may be to any two non - resident artists , but to no more than two . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals September 9 , 1992 5 * that this is really an unusual structure and the proposed work on it will certainly be an improvement to the neighborhood . Chairman Austen re - opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance as recommended by Planner Richard A . Eiken on September 3 , 1992 , regarding the request of Lilian Mather Whiffen requesting a variance from Article V . Section 18 , Paragraph 10 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to allow for the conversion of an existing agricultural building 33 feet 6 inches in height , into a residence and artist studio to be occupied by the appellant . Said residence is located at 1478 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27 - 1 - 24 9 1 o 7 - 1 - 24 . 1 . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Hines , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit # 3 . ] MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance from Article V , Section 18 , paragraph 10 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to allow for the conversion of an existing agricultural building 33 feet 6 inches in height , located at 1478 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27 - 1 - 24 . 1 , into a residence and artist studio to be occupied by the Appellant , Ms , Lilian Mather Whiffen , with the following findings and condition . 1b that the roof of the structure exceeds the limit of 30 feet by approximately 3 - 1 / 2 feet , most of which , if not all , is a result of the dormer on the roof . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals September 9 , 1992 2 , that the structure itself otherwise is not in violation . 3 . that the character of the building is of such a nature that it cannot be changed or altered easily . 4a that any use of the building as a residence by a tenant renovation would be a benefit to the neighborhood . 5m that there will be internal renovation only - nothing will be done to the roof , The existing height shall remain the same . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , King , Austen , Scala . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF PETER FORTUNATO , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE THE FOOTPRINT OF A NON - CONFORMING BUILDING LOCATED AT 172 PEARSALL PLACE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 54 - 1 - 3 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 9 . THE PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT IS THE ADDITION OF AN 8 X 10 FOOT PORCH ON THE EAST SIDE OF AN EXISTING SINGLE - FAMILY HOME . THE HOME IS NONCONFORMING BECAUSE OF A 15 - FOOT FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK , WHEREAS 25 FEET IS REQUIRED . Mr . Fortunato appeared before the Board and explained the proposed addition to the Board . He explained that basically what is being proposed is a two - level deck . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Chairman Austen referred to a list of 4 neighbors that was presented with the Appeal in support of Mr . Fortunato ' s proposal . The list is attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make O and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance , as recommended by Planner Richard A . Eiken , to enlarge the footprint of a non - conforming building located at 172 Pearsall Place , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54 - 1 - 3 . The Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals September 9 , 1992 proposed enlargement is the addition of an 8 x 10 foot porch on the east side of an existing single - family home , as requested by the Appellant , Mr . Peter Fortunato . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Scala , King , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit # 5 . ] MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant to the Appellant , Mr . Peter Fortunato , Special Approval for the construction of a porch and roof deck as described in his application , with the following findings : 1m that the addition is consistent with the architecture and character of the neighborhood . 2 * that the proposed addition will be an obvious benefit to the value of the house and does not decrease or otherwise change the non - conforming character of the front yard setback . 3 * that the benefit to the Appellant far outweighs any possible detriment to the neighborhood . 49 that there was a letter with 4 signatures of neighbors approving the application . 59 that the proposed construction is in conformance with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a - f of the Ordi - nance . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Scala , King , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . OThe next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals oSeptember 9 , 1992 APPEAL OF G . P . LEPAGE , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUC - TION OF A HOME WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 FEET ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) , TO BE LOCATED AT 9 JOHN STREET , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 56 - 3 - 13 . 25 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 . Mr . Lepage explained to the Board that the front of the proposed home is in compliance ; it is the rear of the house that is the problem due to it being constructed on a sloping lot . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance with respect to the request of Mr . G . P . Lepage for the construction of a home with a building height of 35 feet , to be located at 9 John Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 56 - 3 - 13 . 25 , as recommended by Planner Richard A . Eiken . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit # 6 . ] MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant to the Appellant , G . P . Lepage , a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the construction of a home with a building height of 35 feet , to be located at 9 John Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 0 56 - 3 - 13 . 25 , Residence District R - 15 , with the following findings and condition : 1s that the construction of the house be no greater than 36 feet in height at the rear ( south ) line of the construc - tion . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals September 9 , 1992 2 . that the slope of the property is such that the roof line at the street level is less than the maximum otherwise permitted , but the sloping property is such that the construction of a basement with an exit in the rear would be impossible without this variance . 39 that the construction as described in the plans and the diagrams submitted to the Board are in conformity with the character of the neighborhood . 4a that the difficulties and hardship sustained by the Appellant , and benefit to him by granting this variance , far outweigh any detriment to the neighbors . 56 that no one appeared before the Board in opposition to the proposed construction . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Hines , Austen , Scala . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . The last Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF PAUL VELLEMAN , APPELLANT , ATTORNEY JUDITH ROSSITER , AGENT , REQUESTING AN INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 1 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THE USE OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY A STATISTICIAN FOR THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE FROM THE RESIDENCE IS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE . SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 15 LISA LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 71 - 1 - 9 . 8 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 . SHOULD SUCH USE NOT BE PERMITTED , APPELLANT SEEKS A USE VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 1 . ADDITIONALLY , APPELLANT SEEKS A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 1 TO PERMIT THREE NON - RESIDENT EMPLOYEES , WHEREAS ONLY TWO NON - RESIDENT EMPLOYEES ARE PERMITTED . Mr . Paul Velleman and Attorney Judith Rossiter appeared before the Board . Mr . Hines requested that the seven - page document , dated July 20 , 1992 , prepared by Attorney Rossiter entitled , " In Re request of PAUL VELLEMAN , a Professional Statistician , for a declaration by the Town of Ithaca Board of Appeals that use of part of his residence at 15 Lisa Lane in the practice of his profession is a ® permitted accessory use in Residence District R - 15 " , be part of the Minutes of the meeting . The document is attached hereto as Exhibit # 7 . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals September 9 , 1992 The Board acknowledged the receipt and the reading of that document and that it be incorporated as part of the record in this proceeding , thus obviating the necessity of reading it aloud . Attorney Rossiter stated that there are also letters from neighbors and a document entitled " American Statistical Association Ethical Guidelines for Statistical Practice " . She requested that that document be attached as Exhibit # 8 . The letters , which are from neighbors in support of the proposal , are attached hereto as Exhibits # 9 - # 12 . Attorney Rossiter further stated that Mr . Charles F . Von - Dreusche had been present at the meeting but had to leave and he wished to have his statement as part of the record . The statement is attached hereto as Exhibit # 13 . Attorney Rossiter explained that they are prepared to ask for a use variance if the interpretation is not ruled in Mr . Velleman ' s favor . Attorney Rossiter stated , for the record , that she is with Mr . Velleman tonight because she knows Town Attorney Barney ' s Office has represented Mr . Velleman in the past and have decided that they cannot represent him before this Board because of a conflict of interest and she wished to state for the record that she thinks that conflict would extend to Attorney Barney with regard to Mr . Velleman ' s application here before the Board . She further stated that she feels that is a decision for Attorney Barney and the Board to make . Mr . Hines stated that he believes that an interpretation decision should be made first . Town Attorney Barney stated , for the record , that he under - stands Mr . Velleman called his office for possible representation and he believes he was advised that it would not be possible for his office to represent him on this application . Attorney Barney stated that he would leave this up to the Board as to whether there is a conflict but that if that is the decision , he would suggest that the matter would have to be adjourned to enable the Board to obtain counsel to represent them . There was discussion among Board members and Town Attorney Barney as to the need for him or any Attorney to be present for appeals before the Board . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . 0 MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals September 9 , 1992 RESOLVED , that according to Article IV , Section 12 of the Zoning Ordinance the conduct of statistical analysis by persons who devote their time to such analysis , and who have advanced degrees , academic and professional , with respect to the study of the intellectual aspects of such analysis of information and data , constitutes a profession within the meaning of Article IV , Section 12 , of the Zoning Ordinance . Chairman Austen read from the Zoning Ordinance , Article IV , Section 12 , Paragraph 1 . Mr . Hines stated that his resolution would , in summary , add to the list of professional categories that of a statistician , being a person with advanced academic degrees , who devotes his or her time to that study and practice and service to the public for remuneration . Discussion followed among the Board members regarding the title of statistician and whether or not it should be recognized as a profession . Amending Motion Mr . King requested that the Motion be amended by adding : " This is not to say that the particular operation which the Appellant is engaging in is being interpreted as the conduct of a profession which is a permitted accessory use , per se . " Mr . Hines stated that he had no problem with Mr . King ' s amendment . Mr . Scala indicated his agreement . Discussion followed on amending the resolution . Chairman Austen , for clarification , stated the Motion is only to decide whether a statistician is a profession , not whether the activity belongs under Section 12 , Paragraph 1 , of the Zoning Ordinance . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Austen , Scala , Hines . Abstention - King . Nays - None . The Motion carried . Mr . Velleman spoke to the Board regarding what he does in his ® business . Chairman Austen re - opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals September 9 , 1992 Extensive discussion followed regarding the business and the number of employees working out of Mr . Velleman ' s home . Attorney Rossiter explained that Mr . Velleman has applied for some grants and other monies in order to be able to expand his services , to provide new methods , to develop , and so forth , and if and when that money becomes available from the various granting agencies , he will be moving his business from his home . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance in the matter of the Appeal of Paul Velleman for a variance from Article IV , Section 12 , Paragraph 1 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit three non - resident employees at 15 Lisa Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 - 1 - 9 . 8 , as recommended by Planner Richard A . Eiken on July 30 , 1992 . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Hines , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit # 14 . ] MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that the Appellant , Paul Velleman , may be allowed only two non - resident employees in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance as per Article IV , Section 12 , Paragraph 1 . Further discussion followed and Mr . Scala and Mr . Austen withdrew their Motion . Attorney Rossiter explained to the Board that in approximately 12 months time , Mr . Velleman hopes to be in a position to be operating a professional practice out of professional offices , off - site of the residence . ® MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Pete Scala : Town of Ithaca it ® Zoning Board of Appeals September 9 , 1992 RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant to the Appellant , Mr . Paul Velleman , a use variance to the extent of permitting him to continue his operation at his home with three additional persons not residing on the premises as employees , this being a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 12 , Paragraph 1 , with the following conditions and findings : 16 that this variance be limited to a period expiring December 31 , 1993 , a period of approximately 15 months . 2e that the vehicles of persons residing and working on the premises are kept on the premises . 3 * that there is a financial hardship for the applicant to discontinue the present operation abruptly . 4a that the neighbors are generally in agreement with the operation , so long as the intensity of it does not increase . 59 that this residential property is situated in a rather remote area on a dead - end street and it is not intensely developed in that area , there being considerable open space around the property . 6 * that after December 31 , 1993 , the Appellant will either reduce the operation to the level permitted under Section 12 , Paragraph 1 , of the Ordinance , that is , having no more than two persons working on the premises besides himself , or that if he has more people working , he will move the operation to some other more commercial loca - tion . 79 that there will only be two full - time employees working on the premises and one employee who will not work full time . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Austen , King , Scala , Hines . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . Attorney Rossiter stated that she wished to draw the Board ' s attention to its decision that was made at the July S . 1992 meeting which specifically conditioned the Certificate of Occupancy being granted on this matter being resolved . Attorney Rossiter asked to state for the record that this does resolve the matter and Mr . Velleman can get a Certificate of Occupancy for the addition with respect to which he appeared before the Board previously . Town of Ithaca 12 ® Zoning Board of Appeals September 9 , 1992 The Board agreed . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 10 : 00 p . m . Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary APPROVED : Edward Austen , Chairman G� / q2 �o id &6t ko1wee, YLA.��ccti�� �LPit "4n ACA, '7 ,&ez. 0 Acuic 7Ze) 0,6 �Z�77 �- & O ? S . ' CTown Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 / 90 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART 1 - Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) I . Applicant /Sponsor : 2 . Project Name : L /l / Ag MATY! EE IN N1 FF614 R I FPCiN STUDIOS 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : 1478 M EUC LEN 13U e6 RbAl) (131 o k. Pau i Id I ng � 6zi me 6 rvc4um Tax Parcel Number : 4d . 4 . Is Proposed Action : NEW EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : G� RQ rt�Y AzA M>✓ s Tr� vG-ru e 6tvMY PI o Eg I RENTED Ta TWO AR' NSIS , I AM s�EK1 M & A USE Vk12IArNGE TO GON-rlN v .r= RE]' TI &. T14EsE 5TU DIDS . i i ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) i I 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (O-5 yrs) Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres W 0 yrs) Acres How is the Land Zoned Presently ? A&R IW _ , ` �fq 12 ^ L000tto 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES ❑ NO If no , describe conflict briefly &s7nIAV-- U�jE V� � INGG GU R R A VSE Is N oT A LLZ)W G D 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road ? YES NO ® Public Water ? YES E] NO Public Sewer ? YES NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? Residential Commercial r000l Industrial ® Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space 20ther f jdZj1, T1 E:5 Please describe : 11 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YESEl NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : 12 . Does anq aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval ? YES El NO to If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE licant /Sponsor N e (Pr ' or T pe) : LW AIT M41HEQ W HI FEISN Signature : in a Date : l-i It 1n �hr Ften`: USe `/gn9hc e PART 11 — ENYI RONMENTAL 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 r1f yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? YES O NO Z( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C4 . The Town 's existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED , • C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in Cl - C5 ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES F'] NO yes , explain briefly E . Comments of staff CAC Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART II 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 . Check this box if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS )0 4roa A . , r 1 am^e r Name of Lead Agency _ Preparer 's Signature If different from Responsible Officer) Edward ' N . Austen , Chairman Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date : Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency ® PART II - Environmental Assessment Lilian Mather Whiff en Use Variance Request for Operation of Commercial Artist Studio in Agriculture District 1478 Mecklenburg Road , Agricultural District Zoning Board of Appeals , September 3, 1992 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 . The proposal involves the continuation of operation of a commercial artist studio in an existing wood - frame building . Such a use is not permitted in the Agriculture District, therefore a variance is needed from the Board of Appeals . No exterior construction is proposed , and the continuation of the use will not create a significant increase in solid waste production or a reduction in air quality , or surface or groundwater quality or quantity . According to the artist there , the artwork produced at the site is transported about once a month by him in a U - Haul truck, therefore impacts from additional traffic are not anticipated . There will likely continue to be some noise generated by the operation of various metal- working tools, but there is not expected to be any increase in the current level of noise . To minimize possible noise effects to adjacent residences , it is recommended that the Board of Appeals consider limiting the hours of operation to daytime hours only . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural, archeological, historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? None anticipated . The building is already existing , therefore no new structures will be created . The area surrounding the site is characterized by agricultural uses and scattered residences , and the building to be used as an art studio is for the most part removed from adjacent neighbors . One residence exists approximately 150 - 200 feet to the north of the building . The building has been used as an art studio for a number of years with no apparent effects to the community or neighborhood character, therefore no significant impacts are anticipated from the continuation of the use as proposed . No adverse impacts to agricultural, archeological, historic, or natural resources have been identified . C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? 1 Lilian M . Whiff en Use Variance Request September 3, 1992 None anticipated , due to the fact that no new exterior construction is proposed . 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 . Although commercial art studios are not an explictly - permitted use in the Agriculture District, the building in question has been used as an art studio by the owner for a number of years . The only major change is that there is a new owner who wishes to rent the studios to two artists , which is considered to be a commercial use . A use variance is therefore required , and the applicant has petitioned the Board of Appeals for the necessary approval for this condition . 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 ? ® Unlike a traditional business operation , art studios generally do not have set hours of operation , and due to the occasional noise created by the metal- working tools, the possibility exists that neighbors could be affected if the artists work at night or even into the evenings . If the hours of operation are limited by the Board of Appeals ( 8 A . M . to 8 P . M . , for example ) then no significant impacts would be anticipated . C7 . Other impacts ( including_ changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? No significant impacts 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 is .anticipated . 2 PART III - Staff Recommendation , Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action , the scale of it, the characterof the area, and the information above , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action . However, due to possible effects to neighbors from the operation of machinery in the studio , planning staff strongly recommends that the Board of Appeals consider limiting the hours of operation to between 8 A . M . and 8 P . M . as a condition of the use variance . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: Richard A . Eiken , Planner Review Date : September 3, 1992 3 Z �1 ` Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 /90 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART 1 - Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) 1 . Applicant /Sponsor : 2 . Project Name : 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : 1476 WMEWBUM& il 0,41) CC BrU/ 1,01 N Tax Parcel Number : Z= .. 4 . Is Proposed Action : NEW EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : Th►5 ro �-f /s hz can ver ton cc, fh r s,� ej►x�ef .. � 1� CJV2A barn a rz55Jerce . hit la-�- 05:! 016 btu 11dr rg ex M85 �fh& 1*V1Y%r)u m 30 s ?z ed by C-&6 . y ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) i 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres W0 yrs) Acres How is the Land Zoned Presently ? Aopcu resently ?Aopcu M � A 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or otherexistingland use restrictions ? YES NO If no , describe conflict briefly : EXIG� 1001 N19- P U, I top ► M F;X&E5D iD ++'� �.� M Get ► 5D ABY CD� I 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road ? YES NO Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? Residential Commercial M Industrial 8 Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space Other g 54&A Please describe : "�j 11 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES NO IN If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : 12 . Does anq aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES El NO 11 If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY - KNOWLEDGE *icant /Sponsor a int ype) : �IL. I N / Vff[ IriG � VVIT ( � N Signature : Date : I "'ART II — ENYiRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ; Use attachments as necessary ) Qe$OE: A . Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR ; Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES NO 2 If yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF . B . Will proposed a[Ono , Wye coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? YES NO a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly SEE ATTA= C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly SEE ATTTA= 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 ATTAC.TIID C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in Cl — 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 li ely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES ❑ NO If yes , explain briefly : E . Comments of staff 2prCAC Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART III — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ( To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above , determine whether it is substantial , large , important or otherwise significant . Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (ie . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude . If necessary , add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . Then proceed directly to the full EAF and /or prepare a positive declaration . eck 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 .4 i /9hnsr Name of Lead Agency ' Preparer 's SignatureIf different from Responsible Officer) Edward ' N . Austen , Chairman Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date : Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead A enc PART II - Environmental Assessment Lilian Mather Whiff en Area Variance Request for Conversion of Existing Non - conforming Building into a Residence 1478 Mecklenburg Road , Agricultural District Zoning Board of Appeals , September 3, 1992 A . Action is Unlisted Be 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 . The proposal involves an adaptive reuse of an existing non - conforming building ( building exceeds maximum height requirement of 30 feet by 316 " ) to a residence . The three - story building apparently was previously used as a chicken hatchery facility . The conversion of the structure to a residence will not result in any new exterior construction , nor will it create a significant increase in solid waste production or a reduction in air quality , surface or groundwater quality ® or quantity , or noise levels . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? None anticipated . The building is already existing , therefore no new structures will be created . The area surrounding the site is characterized by agricultural uses and scattered residences, therefore the use of the building for a residence will be consistent with adjacent land uses . The building, which has a dormer and elevator shaft above the roofline , exceeds the Town ' s maximum allowed height of 30 ' by 3 ' 6 " ; however, given the location of the building and the sparsely - settled character of the area, no significant visual impacts are anticipated . No adverse impacts to agricultural, archeological, historic , or natural resources have been identified . C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species ? None anticipated , due to the fact that no new exterior construction is proposed . 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 . One - family dwellings are allowed by right in the Agriculture 0 District, but as a result of the change of use to a building that exceeds the maximum height allowed in the Town, an area variance from the Board of Appeals is required . The applicant has petitioned the Zoning Board of Appeals for the necessary variance for this condition . i Lilian M . Whiffen Area Variance Request September 3, 1992 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 ? No significant impacts 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 is anticipated . PART III - Staff Recommendation , Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action , the proposed scale of it, the character of the area, and the information above , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: Richard A . Eiken , Planner . 12AL� Review Date : September 3, 1992 2 VIE . ;- -- ,F We the undersigned neighbors of Peter Fortunato and Mary Gilliland have been informed of their plans to alter the footprint of their home , We have no objections to the plans for a roofdeck and porch at 172 Pearsall Place , Ithaca , NY . Name � rn nt-- - ------ �---� -------_-------- Signature - Address i,4 PeKes 10----- C_v---------- Name_ _ L �_�� e�ry Signature 000 Address Name 1 -- — -------- ® Signatur _,i1-:- A111 Address -i �7 6— — -- — ------------- Name_ — 1 _`�, �� � v X L) k — -- Signature_ ---- ----- --- ---------------- Address ---- — —�'— r 1 �_--- a-c ` e ---- .S' Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 / 90 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review 0 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 ) [I . Applicant /Sponsor : 2 . Project Name :- o . er OPrecise Location (Street Address and Road intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map ) : N Tax Parcel Number : G + _ _ 3 4 . Is Proposed Action : NEW EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : � LCU a � hC) J��L 10 f ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project . ) rr 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) 1 Acres (6 - 10 yrs) Acres ( > 10 yrs) I Acres How is the Land Zoned Presently ? B . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YESE NO If no , describe conflict briefly : f 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new i Public Road ? YESEJ NO Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? 13 Residential F Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space Other Please describe : 1 1 . Does proposed action involve a permit , appy val , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : 12 . Does anu aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YE 5 NO a If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval wil require modifica # ion . zwo� r -e ►no vac., I CERTIFY THAT VHE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOYLEDGE plicant / Sponsor Name (Print or Type ) ; � -� .0 I Signature : � �- Date ZZ 2 { : �ti.. I I �-- � • PART II - ENYIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ; Use attachments as necessary ) v A . Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES NO © If yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF , B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? YES NO ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) 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 None anticipated , C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly None anticipated . W X /D ' w dao 4 o.. Ww 11 6e cor,s.s 41/ '14 nev"We �40o*/ e.G cern • C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly None anticipated . 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 None anticipated . /a1o�44;^ 4,611 n04 cGec .ea ". 4,., l Se /", xs cam /* ro.gqrw� e� A (is +Y- A&v4' vs- qsF/ . fetFwe:"/) . C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly None antipipated , C6 . Longterm , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C 1 - C5 ? Explain briefly : None anticipated , 07 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly : None anticipated , D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES F�j NO a 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 . FCheck this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . Then proceed directly to the full EAF and /or prepare a positive declaration . ® Check this box if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination . / - Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals /�d �• �a..,� � Name of Lead Agency Preparer 's Signature If different from Responsible Officer) Edward N . Austen , Chairman Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date : Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 / 90 . 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 ) I . Applicant /Sponsor : 2 . Project Name : Qsr . P . L E ? 96 & (E I k3 Ek) 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map ) : L o T cls Z'oHOJ Sr ToLja otr .L t+ ACA 1 Tax Parcel Number : s' c — o 3 4 . is Proposed Action : ANEW EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : Coo T- RL�.cT- 1 oK) a (::: U, C; i I I I ( Attach separate sheet( s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project . ) i 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) Acres (6 - 10 yrs) Acres ( > 10 yrs ) O • � � Acres I How is the Land Zone: Presently ? 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? I YES NO if no , describe conflict briefly oLkSE �t Too E4 � G h4 • I 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road ? YES NO Public Water ? YES NO u Public Sewer ? YES NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? DIResideniial Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space F 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 NO �� If yes , list agency name and permit / approval /funding : 12 . Does an4 aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval ? YES E] NO j If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . f I 1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE licant /Sponsor e ( int r Type) : � • P � � � � G- � i I Signature Date : ?5 Zejoaj& �� Arm- A "Rr ncp. PART 11 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ; Use attachments as necessary A . Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES [] NO ® If yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF . B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? YES NO �X ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) Cl . Existing air quality , surfacelor groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly None anticipated . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly None anticipated . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly None anticipated . 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 None anticipated . .C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly None antipipated . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - C5 ? Explain briefly : None anticipAted . 07 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly : None anticipated . D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES rl NO XX If yes , explain briefly E . Comments of staff ® , CAC F , Other 0 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 . FCheck this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . Then proceed directly to the full EAF and /or prepare a positive declaration . ® Check this box if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals '4 ' � -- , /��a.«.,Q.r Name of Lead Agency Preparer 's Signature If different from Responsible Officer) Edward N . Austen . Chairman Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency 7 i In Re request of PAUL VELLLMAN , a Professional Statistician , for a declaration by the Town of Ithaca Board of Appeals that use of part of his residence at 15 Lisa Lane in the practice of his profession is a permitted accessory use in Residence District R15 . Article IV § 12 ( 1 ) of the Town ; of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance provides in part ;i li that : " Permitted accessory uses in Residence District R15 shall include the following : Office of a resident doctor , dentist , musician , engineer , teacher , lawyer , k4 artist , architect or member of other recognized profession . , . ( emphasis added ) " • ' 3 : i . Z The ordinance on its face does not limit accessory uses to the professions actually Y examples of named therein . Rather , subsection 1 of the ordinance merel cites i , � ; p i 3 J the first of two categories of work that are regulated under § 12 that may be r l 7 performed in one ' s residence : the professions on the one hand , and the manual i and mechanical trades ( governed by § 12 , subsection 5 ) , on the other . A plain W olanguage reading of the statute , an analysis of the nature of the discipline of statistics , and a review of the case law on the issue dictate that a statistician can Z W only be classified within the former subset , that is , as a professional . Vi The American Statistical Association ( ASA ) was founded in 1839 . As an O Q organization , the ASA predates both the American Medical Association ( 1847 ) and the American Bar Association ( 1878 ) , the primary organizations for the medical and legal professions , practitioners of which are expressly named in the statute as I ones entitled to conduct a professional practice at home . The petitioner , Paul Velleman , M . S . , Ph . D ( Princeton University ) , has been a member of ASA for 20 years , and is an ASA Fellow , the highest honor awarded by the Association . Dr . Velleman serves as a Representative to the national Council of Sections of the ASA representing the Statistical Computing Section , and as a member of the ASA 1 i i 1 Committee on Publications , In addition , Dr . Velleman has served as Associate Editor of the Journal of The American Statistical Association , as Chair of the Statistical Computing Section , and as publications liaison of the Statistical Graphics Section . IIe has also been honored as a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for professional work in statistics and statistical computing . He publishes regularly in professional journals and is frequently invited to speak to professional groups about modern computer - based methods of data analysis and about the design of software for data analysis and graphics . Y Dr . Velleman purchased his home in 1982 , and has resided there since , He O Z maintains his professional office in what was formerly an accessory apartment of U the . premises at 15 Lisa Lane . As Dr . Velleman uses the residential portion of the a house and because the residential portion is larger than and dominant to the Z professional office , the office is accessory under any definition of that term JP r ( Matter of Schwartz v . Chave , 281 NYS2d 133 ) . In the case of Osborn v . Planning CC Bel of Town of Colonic ( 536 NYS2d 244 ( 3rd Dept , , 1989 ) , the Court held that a N O CC CO certified social worker could practice family therapy as an accessory use in an . Q W office maintained in her residence . In so holding , the appellate court stated that accessory use is judged by the nature of the dominant use or whether the a 0 applicant resides in the premises ( Matter of Schwartz v . Chave , 291 NYS2d 133 ) . The Court further stated that it is well recognized that a professional office can constitute an accessory use in a residence . Although the court referred to the applicant in Osborn as a certified social worker , it should be noted that a state license is not required for one to be any purpose , including Zoning . The New York State considered a professional for Education Law itself clearly does not limit " professions " to those specifically licensed in New York . Section 6500 of the Education Law reads in part , " This title provides for the regulation of the admission to and the practice of certain 2 r I professions " ( emphasis added ) . It is clear that inclusion of certain professions under the licensing requirements does not exclude all others inasmuch as most faculty members at Cornell University are in all likelihood not subject to state licensing . I It is not necessary to rely on conjecture or analogy to the above - referenced case in order to determine the issue as to whether Statistics is a profession . In the cases of Geiffert v . Mealey ( 293 NY 583 ) and City of New Rochelle v . Friedman r ( 78 NYS2d 681 ) , courts have addressed the very question of what constitutes a profession . In the Geiffert case , the New York Court of Appeals stated that : " a z profession includes any occupation or vocation in which a professed knowledge of Q U T some department of science or learning is used by its practical application to the affairs of others , whether advising , guiding or teaching them , and in serving their interests or welfare in the practice of an art founded on it . The word implies 0attainments in professional knowledge , as distinguished from rnere skill , and the Napplication of such knowledge to uses for others as a vocation " ( 293 NY at 586 ) . In this instance , Dr . Velleman has devoted more than 20 years of his life to N the study of the science of statistics and statistical analysis and is held in high W regard among his colleagues and peers as evidenced by his standing within the . Q professional organization . Dr . Velleman applies his science by providing consulting services to clients on data analysis , by developing computer programs to support data analysis , and by writing and publishing books on data analysis . These professional services are provided in accordance with the ethical guidelines adopted by the ASA , as set forth in Exhibit A , attached hereto . Under the definitions set forth by and relied upon by the Courts in New York , the applicant is a professional , in matters of both employment and zoning . By definition , an accessory use statute is one that is incidental to and does not change the residential character of the property , and therefore by implication 3 the residential character of the neighborhood . In this instance , clients do not frequently come to the professional office at 15 Lisa Lane . Dr . Velleman deals with his clients by telephone , electronic mail , fax , express service , or U . S . mail . The professional work conducted on the premises consists of writing books and statistical programs for use by others.. The professional use of a portion of the premises does not significantly increase traffic , does not create fumes , noise , or additional waste of any sort . Consequently , it is a professional use that is far more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood than those expressly set 0 forth in the statute . Furthermore , there are 3 to 4 spaces in the driveway to the Z premises in addition to a 2 - car garage . The driveway is in turn well screened Ice U i from the adjoining property by shrubbery . Therefore there is adequate off - street Velleman , his family , and his employees . No business sign marks parking for Dr . z the premises ( cf. People v . Daly , 28 NYS2d 602 ) . Owners of adjacent properties Ile are aware that Dr . Velleman conducts a professional practice from his home and W have no objection to that use , as evidenced by their letters submitted with this V) 0 Cca application ( Exhibit B ) . W In some cases , in contrast to the present instance , courts have allowed uses W Vi that had a potentially large impact on the adjoining premises . In Delpriore v . Ball 0 0 ( 118 NYS2d 53 ) , a dance instructor was granted permission to teach in her residence , with classes of 15 or more children . In Lisner v . Farrington ( 209 NYS2d 673 ) , a Veterinarian was granted permission not only to practice his profession in his residence , but also to construct an addition to the building for that purpose . Similarly , doctors and dentists have been and would be allowed to operate practices that would routinely serve patients and clients at the residential site . It would surely be anticipated that any of the practitioners referred to immediately above would have it far greater impact on a residential neighborhood than would a Statistician . 4 At present , there are two employees other than Dr . Velleman who work at the premises on a full time basis . In addition , there is a third employee who resides in the Hudson Valley Region of New York State who comes to Dr . Velleman ' s office to consult on certain statistical matters on a regular basis . The statute pertaining to accessory uses specifies that no more than two persons other than the resident may be employed . The only rational interpretation of the statute , however , must be that no more than two other persons could be employed " on the premises . " It is clear that employment on the premises is the Legislative intent because the wording of the other subsection on home U Z occupations states that no one other than the resident may be employed " therein . " a U Zoning laws are in derogation of common law property rights . As a result zoning ordinances must be strictly construed against the municipality and in a favor of the property owner ( see , e . g . , FGL & L Property Corp . v . City of Rye , 495 NYS2d 321 ; Freihofer v . Lake George Zoning Bd . of Appeals , 524 NYS2d 866 ) . The F total number of employees providing services to a professional should be of no FnU CcQ import , as that factor has no impact of the surrounding neighborhood . The only N issue to be addressed by the Board of Appeals is the number and neighborhood W s impact of full - time employees working at the prernises . Q 0 In this instance , Dr . Velleman ' s use of the residence with two full - time employees on site is lawful . Furthermore , the presence of additional people for meetings or consulting on the premises would not increase the impact of the accessory use of the premises to a point that it would violate the spirit and clear intent of the statute . At the present time , Dr . Velleman is applying for grants and negotiating contracts that . may result in an expansion of his professional services . In the event of an expansion or increase in his professional activities , he intends to and will set up a professional office at a new location . Now , however , should he 5 i be required to close down his professional office in his residence , there will be insufficient funds to continue the professional services rendered . Article XIV , § 77 ( 6 ) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance provides that : " Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of this ordinance , the Board of Appeals shall have the power , in passing upon appeals , to vary or modify the application of ani of the regulations or provisions of this ordinance so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and public safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done " ( emphasis added ) . Y Z It is clear frorn reviewing the use regulations under Article IV of the U ordinance , it is the intention of the statute to preserve the residential quality of the neighborhood . At the same time , several of the professional uses allowed by ' law would be ones that by their nature would generate a considerable amount of traffic to and from the premises re ardless of the number of employees engaged I g cc there . Doctors , dentists , teachers , lawyers would attract patients , students , and FnN O cc ad clients to a neighborhood for services , resulting in increased traffic , potential N parking difficulties , and probable inconvenience to adjoining owners . Such W problems are completely absent in the use by a professional such as Dr . Velleman . a 0 Professionals who can rely on electronic and telecommunication with their clients , rather than physical meetings with them in residential neighborhoods have far less impact on both the neighborhood and the natural environment . Zoning provisions allowing accessory use of a dwelling for a professional office were initially the result of the recognition by municipal authorities of the " age - old custom " of professional men to have offices in their homes ( 24 ALR3d 1128 ) . On the eve of the 21st century and a new technological communication age made possible by fiber optics and computers , it is time for municipal 6 authorities and their duly appointed regulatory bodies to reevaluate the relationship between home and work . Judith A . Rossiter , Esq , Adams , Theisen , May & Rossiter 103 West Seneca St , Suite 301 Ithaca , NY 14850 JULY 20 , 1992 Members of the Board of Appeals , Town of Ithaca Andy Frost , Zoning Officer Paul Velleman Y Q O } 3 LU Z Q U Q 2 F- 3 a J H Q f/7 } F- Q 2 W r Fn (n O ro } Z w N W F- Q O Q 7 Introduction History demonstrates that specific ethical positions develop in response to circumstances and the current mores of society . As the conditions change under which these guidelines were developed , the underlying principles and the intent should remain unaltered , but it may be necessary to refine further some of the statements . Our intention is , therefore , for the guidelines to be a document subject to modification . Specifically , it is a primary purpose of the guidelines to focus attention on ethical issues . Statistical principles emerge as common wisdom only after they . have withstood the test of time and usage . Ethical standards are treated here in a similar manner ; the guidelines are a beginning in so far as they propose , in general form , standards of acceptable behavior under present , practical conditions . The approval of the guidelines by the ASA Board is meant to encourage consideration of ethical issues and promote high ethical standards among the membership of the ASA . The intent is that of education , not regulation . Towards this end , the guidelines are positive in outlook , describing what should constitute ethical behavior in the statistical community . They support disclosure of statistical data and methodology and suggest a framework for interaction between statisticians and those in fields concerned with statistical issues . It is our particular intention that the value of the guidelines not be dependent upon the ability of either the ASA or the Committee on Professional Ethics to enforce them . The Committee , after due consideration , proposed neither sanctions for violations of the guidelines nor creation of an official forum for conflict resolution . The Committee . and the ASA Board have decided that open discussion and agreed-upon mediation would be of greater value . Thus , it is our hope that the guidelines will be received as, a positive affirmation of ethical principles for the purpose of providing a systematic description of the obligations of statisticians to ourselves and to our associates . At this time , the guidelines do not include specific rules purporting to govern behavior in statistical matters . It was concluded that a set of guidelines that would provide for detailed regulation would necessarily be of such complexity as to require a lengthy period of evolution and integration of the needs of the various areas of statistical endeavors which the ASA , and the Committee , have not deemed worthwhile . In conclusion , it is emphasized that the purpose of this set of Ethical Guidelines is instructional . This ASA- endorsed document has been designed to provide a sensitive and constructive approach to the ethical responsibilities of the statistical membership . It is the intent of the ASA and the Committee on Professional Ethics that any disputes that may arise with respect to ethical considerations shall be amicably resolved through discussion and not be subject to the dictates of any particular forum . Lee -Ann C . Hayek , Ph . D . , Chair Charles R . Mann , Ph . D . , Vice Chair Committee on Professional Ethics American Statistical Association Ethical Guidelines for Statistical Practice Preamble The American Statistical Association is a scientific , professional , and educational organization . As such it recognizes that the professional integrity of statisticians is dependent not only upon their skills and dedication but also upon their adherence to recognized principles of ethical behavior . Wherein statistics as a science strives toward truth , these guidelines are designed to provide a measure by which both individuals and organizations can avoid the compromise of truth and can be protected from the misuse of statistics and statistical data . The traditional ethical norms of seeking truth and avoiding error are of singular importance in the practice of statistics . Beyond these traditional ethical norms , statisticians have ethical concerns for the privacy of collected data , the open and complete description of statistical procedures , and the use and communication of the statistical method . Therefore , this document proposes ethical principles for the guidance of statisticians . It encourages statisticians to be constantly aware of ethical issues which could influence their professional work ® and to strive continually to increase their personal competence in the practice of their profession . Purpose and Scope The American Statistical Association hereby establishes these Ethical guidelines for Statistical Practice . These guidelines identify ethical relationships with the public , government , clients or employers , and other professionals . This document is open- ended : it establishes procedures for amending its contents and for broadening its scope . The main vehicle for such changes is the Committee on Professional Ethics . Additional requirements may be incorporated into the body of this document for any of the following specific purposes : 1 . to extend the general guidelines ; 2 . to identify further points of ethical contact between statisticians and the public , government , their clients or employers , and other professionals ; 3 . to establish ethical principles for the use of statistics in a specialized area -- medicine , law , or survey research , for examples ® 4 . to set ethical principles for publishing statistical reports ; - or 5 . to document procedures for resolving disputes on questions of professional ethics . a Guidelines 1 . Statisticians have a public duty to maintain integrity in their professional work , particularly in the application of statistical skills to problems where private interests may inappropriately affect the development or application of statistical knowledge . For these reasons , statisticians should : A . Present their findings and interpretations honestly and objectively ; B . Avoid untrue , deceptive , or undocumented statements ; and C . Disclose any financial or other interests that may affect , or appear to affect , their professional statements . ® 2 . Recognizing that collecting data for a statistical inquiry may impose a burden on respondents , that it may be viewed by some as an invasion of privacy , and that it often involves legitimate confidentiality considerations , statisticians should : A . Collect only the data needed for the purpose of their inquiry ; B . Inform each potential respondent about the general nature and sponsorship of the inquiry , and the intended uses of the data ; C . Establish their intentions , where pertinent , to protect the confidentiality of information collected from respondents ; ® strive to ensure that these intentions realistically reflect 0 B . . Emphasize that statistical analysis may be an essential component of an inquiry and should be acknowledged in the same manner as other essential components ; C . Be prepared to document : data sources used in an inquiry ; known inaccuracies in the data ; and steps taken to correct or to refine the data , statistical procedures applied to the data , and the assumptions required for their application ; D . Make the data available for analysis by other responsible parties with appropriate safeguards for privacy concerns ; E . Recognize that the selection of a statistical procedure may to some extent be a matter of judgment and that other statisticians may select alternative procedures ; and F . Direct any criticism of a statistical inquiry to the inquiry itself and not to the individuals conducting it . 4 . Recognizing that a client or employer may be unfamiliar with statistical practice and be dependent upon the statistician for expert advice , statisticians should : A . Make clear their qualifications to undertake the statistical inquiry at hand ; B . Inform a client or employer of all factors that may affect or conflict with their impartiality ; C . Accept no contingency fee arrangements ; D . Fulfill all commitments in any inquiry undertaken ; E . Apply statistical procedures without concern for a favorable outcome ; 3 1 I their ability to do so ; and clearly state pledges of confidentiality and their limitations to the respondents ; D . Ensure that .. the means are adequate to protect confidentiality to the extent pledged or intended ; that I processing and use of data conform with the pledges made ; that appropriate care is taken with directly identifying information ( using such steps as destroying this type of information or removing it from the file when it is no longer needed for the inquiry ) ; that appropriate techniques are applied to control statistical disclosure ; and E . Ensure that , whenever data are transferred to other persons or organizations , this transfer conforms with the established confidentiality pledges ; and require written assurance from the recipients of the data that the measures employed to protect confidentiality will be at least equal to those originally pledged . 3 . Recognizing that statistical work must be visible and open to assessment with respect to quality and appropriateness in order to advance knowledge , and that such assessment may involve an explanation of the assumptions , methodology and data processing used , statisticians should : A . Delineate the boundaries of the inquiry as well as the boundaries of the statistical inferences which can be derived from it ; i 2 F . State clearly , accurately , and completely to a client the t i characteristics of alternate statistical procedures along ® i with the recommended methodology and the usefulness and implications of all possible approaches ; and G . Disclose no private information about or belonging to any present or former client without the client ' s approval . i r i i i 4 4 COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS The Committee on Professional Ethics for the American Statistical Association shall consist of nine members selected by the President of the Association . The term of service is 3 years ( except for the initial members , one- third of whom serve 1 year ; one- third , 2 years ; and one- third , 3 years ) . The Committee officers shall consist of a Chair and a Vice Chair . To keep the importance of ethical principles before the Membership of the Association , the Committee on Professional Ethics will use appropriate publication channels to provide information about the ethical issues raised in statistical practice . Materials prepared for this purpose may discuss actual disputes or respond to questions raised by statisticians or by others concerning ethical principles . The Committee may develop a series of case studies of ethical issues in practical settings . The Committee may recommend actions to the Board of Directors that modify the general guidelines to meet changing conditions or that add sections that specify . principles of ethical behavior for the collection , preparation , reporting , and use of statistics in specialized subject matter areas . The Committee shall establish liaison with groups in other organizations that are concerned with ethical behavior . The Committee shall also serve as a focal point for ethical questions that are raised in statistical research and practice . The Committee may consult , in strictest confidence , with the involved individuals and organizations in order to ' work out an understanding . 5 4 Mon, Jul 6, 1992 Board of Zoning Appeals Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Attn: Mr. Andrew Frost, CEO Board of Zoning Appeals Ref: Professional office at 15 Lisa Lane Dear Board members: Paul Velleman, a neighbor who resides at 15 Lisa Lane in the Town of Ithaca, has asked me to comment on his continuing use of the apartment at the back of his residence for his professional office as a statistician. I understand that the activities in that office consist primarily of the design and development of computer software and telephone-based support of clients who use the software. It is Dr. Velleman' s understanding that a question has been raised as to whether the profession of statistician, which was not mentioned in the original zoning ordinance, qualifies as a profession similar to doctor, lawyer, teacher, musician, artist, or architect, which are mentioned 0 in the ordinance. I have been aware for some time of Dr. Velleman's professional use of the apartment in his home for this purpose . The business currently does not, and Dr. Velleman assures me that it will not in the future � generate any regular traffic due to clients visiting the office. Deliveries are limited to a single daily visit by mail and courier services during ordinary business hours . Nor does the business generate a parking problem because off-street parking is provided in the driveway of the home. At no time has there been a sign advertising the business or commercial vehicles on the site. The business generates no noise, waste, or lights beyond what is ordinary for a residence, and has no adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood . I have not found this use of the property to affect the character of the neighborhood or my quiet enjoyment of my property, and do not object to his continued use of the apartment for this purpose. Sincerely, ,�� 41 S i Mon, Jul 6, 1992 Board of Zoning Appeals Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Attn: Mr. Andrew Frost, CEO Board of Zoning Appeals Ref: Professional office at 15 Lisa Lane Dear Board members: Paul Velleman, a neighbor who resides at 15 Lisa Lane in the Town of Ithaca, has asked me to comment on his continuing use of the apartment at the back of his residence for his professional office as a statistician. I understand that the activities in that office consist primarily of the design and development of computer software and telephone-based support of clients who use the software. It is Dr. Velleman' s understanding that a question has been raised as to whether the profession of statistician, which was not mentioned in the original zoning ordinance, qualifies as a profession similar to doctor, lawyer, teacher, musician, artist, or architect, which are mentioned 0 in the ordinance. I have been aware for some time of Dr. Velleman's professional use of the apartment in his home for this purpose. The business currently does not, and Dr. Velleman assures me that it will not in the future generate any regular traffic due to clients visiting the office. Deliveries are limited to a single daily visit by mail and courier services during ordinary business hours . Nor does the business generate a parking problem because off-street parking is provided in the driveway of the home. At no time has there been a sign advertising the business or commercial vehicles on the site. The business generates no noise, waste, or lights beyond what is ordinary, for a residence, and has no adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood . I have not found this use of the property to affect the character of the neighborhood or my quiet enjoyment of my property, and do not object to his continued use of the apartment for this purpose. Sincere Mon, Jul 6, 1992 Board of Zoning Appeals Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Attn: Mr. Andrew Frost, CEO Board of Zoning Appeals Ref: Professional office at 15 Lisa Lane Dear Board members: Paul Velleman, a neighbor who resides at 15 Lisa Lane in the Town of Ithaca, has asked me to comment on his continuing use of the apartment at the back of his residence for his professional office as a statistician. I understand that the activities in that office consist primarily of the design and development of computer software and telephone-based support of clients who use the software. It is Dr. Velleman's understanding that a question has been raised as to whether the profession of statistician, which was not mentioned in the original zoning ordinance, qualifies as a profession similar to doctor, lawyer, teacher, musician, artist, or architect, which are mentioned 0 in the ordinance. I have been aware for some time of Dr. Velleman's professional use of the apartment in his home for this purpose. The business currently does not, and Dr. Velleman assures me that it will not in the future generate any regular traffic due to clients visiting the office. Deliveries are limited to a single daily visit by mail and courier services during ordinary business hours . Nor does the business generate a parking problem because off-street parking is provided in the driveway of the home. At no time has there been a sign advertising the business or commercial vehicles on the site. The business generates no noise, waste, . or lights beyond what is ordinary for a residence, and has no adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood . I have not found this use of the property to affect the character of the neighborhood or my quiet enjoyment of my property, and do not object to his continued use of the apartment for this purpose. Sincerely, ��h Tue, Sep 8, 1992 Board of Zoning Appeals Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Attn: Mr. Andrew Frost, CEO Board of Zoning Appeals Ref: Professional office at 15 Lisa Lane Dear Board members: Paul Velleman, a neighbor who resides at 15 Lisa Lane in the Town of Ithaca, has asked me to comment on his continuing use of the apartment at the back of his residence for his professional office as a statistician. I understand that the activities in that office consist primarily of the design and development of computer software and telephone-based support of clients who use the software. It is Dr. Vellemari s understanding that a question has been raised as to whether the profession of statistician, which was not mentioned in the original zoning ordinance, qualifies as a profession similar to doctor, lawyer, teacher, musician, artist, or architect, which are mentioned in the ordinance . I have been aware for some time of Dr. Velleman's professional use of the apartment in his home for this purpose . The business currently does not, and Dr. Velleman assures me that it will not in the future generate any regular traffic due to clients visiting the office. Deliveries are limited to a single daily visit by mail and courier services during ordinary business hours . Nor does the business generate a parking problem because off-street parking is provided in the driveway of the home. At no time has there been a sign advertising the business or commercial vehicles on the site. The business generates no noise, waste, or lights beyond what is ordinary for a residence, and has no adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood . I have not found this use of the property to affect the character of the neighborhood or my quiet enjoyment of my property, and do not object to his continued use of the apartment for this purpose . Sincerely, f i'd2 �C0)4j Z � � � � + L � l000e 007C;0�3 o wr�� E� � � Z5- '000� 2 �r,�v'.D cc/ Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 / 90 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 : 2 . Project Name : PAUL VELLEMEN 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map ) : 15 Lisa Lane , Ithaca , New York . Tax Parcel Number : 4 . Is Proposed Action : NEW E EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose , present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : 1 ) Construction of addition to residence . 2 ) Use of former accessory apartment as accessory professional office with request for employment of three employees at site . I i ( Attach separate sheet( s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project . ) i es, th I Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs )l § `�re� ( 6 - 10 yrs) ( > 10 Acres yrs ) Acres I How is the Land Zoned Presently ? R- 15 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES 0 NO XD ' If no , describe conflict briefly : Required area variance . Pre-existing residence did not \ ly with height limit I 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road ? YES NO FL] Public Water ? YES NO ® Public Sewer ? YES NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? 'KX Residential F ] Commercial 7 Industrial F Agriculture F Park / Forest /Open Space F Other Please describe : Residential with accessory uses , as being proposed by applicant 11 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local ) ? YES ❑ NO ® If yes , list agency name and permit / approval /funding : 12 . Does anti aspect of the proposed action have . a currently valid permit or approval ? YES F NO If yes , list agency name and permit / approval . Also , state whether that permit / approval will require modification . None other than Town of Ithaca building permit I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE � I Applicant / Sponsor Na ( Print or Type ) : PAUL VIELLEMEN Signature* : / Q[� ' hc�� Date : July ,231992 i PART II - Environmental Assessment Paul Velleman " Professional .Office " in Residence with More than Three Employees 15 Lisa Lane , Residence District R - 15 Zoning Board of Appeals : Use Variance Request July 30 , 1992 A . Action is Unlisted Be Action will not receive coordinated review Co 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 . Currently the owner is operating a professional office - type business involving computer software sales and service from his residence . There are three persons employed by the owner to assist him with his business , which is in violation of Article IV , Section 12 of the Town Zoning Ordinance which allows no more than two ( 2 ) additional employees per accessory professional office . There is also some question as to whether the existing business qualifies as an accessory professional office , as defined by the Zoning Ordinance . The existing use , if allowed to continue , will not result in air pollution , reduction in surface or groundwater quality or quantity , increased noise levels , increased solid waste production or disposal, or potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems. The request for a third employee on the premises similarly will not have any significant effects upon the above- noted environmental features . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural, archeological, historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? None anticipated . The existing accessory use appears not to have created any significant adverse effects to the character of the surrounding area, which is characterized by medium- density residential uses ( see attached aerial photo ) , and none are anticipated if the use is allowed to continue . The addition of a third employee at this location could result in as many as four cars being parked in the driveway or street solely for the accessory office use ; however, a visit to the site indicated that adequate space exists for parking adjacent to the residence and that there is not much traffic on either street. No impacts to agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources have been identified . C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant ® habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? None anticipated . Proposed project is located in a residential area without significant areas of wildlife habitat, therefore no impacts to the above areas are anticipated . EAF Part II ( cont. ) Paul Velleman : Use Variance Request Board of Appeals , July 30 , 1992 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 . Currently Article IV, Section 12 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for " office of a resident doctor, dentist, musician , engineer, teacher, lawyer, artist, architect or member of other recognized profession where such office is part of the residence building provided that not more than two ( 2 ) additional persons not residing on the premises may be employed . " The owner is requesting that the Board of Appeals allow the continuation of an existing computer software business located in a residence as a " professional office , " and that the Board allow a third employee to work in the office . The- Board must first of all determine if such a use would be allowed in the R - 15 District as an professional office , and if not, a use variance will be needed . Secondly , the Board must determine if a third person at the existing accessory office is acceptable , and if so, grant a special approval. In any event, no significant impacts to existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources are 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 Cl - C 5 ? 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 ? None anticipated . PART III - Staff Recommendation , Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action , the proposed scale of it, the character of the existing neighborhood , and the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed . ® Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : Richard A . Eiken , Planner (lA� Review Date : July 30 , 1992 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , SEPTEMBER 9 , 1992 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , September 9 , 1992 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters : APPEAL OF LILIAN MATHER IATHIFFEN , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 19 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ALLOW FOR THE USE OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING BY TWO NON-RESIDENT ARTISTS ON A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1478 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 27 - 1 - 24 . 1 , AGRICULTURAL ZONE Q) ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR ACCESSORY USES - 1" ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BY RESIDENT ARTISTS ONLY . ADDITIONALLY , APPELLANT REQUESTS A C' VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 10 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING LC3 ORDINANCE , TO ALLOW FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL BUILDING 33 . FEET 6 U INCHES IN HEIGHT ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED ) , INTO A RESIDENCE AND ARTIST STUDIO TO BE OCCUPIED BY THE APPELLANT . APPEAL OF PETER FORTUNATO , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE THE FOOTPRINT OF A NON- CONFORMING BUILDING LOCATED AT 172 PEARSALL PLACE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 54 - 1 - 3 , RESIDENCE_ DISTRICT R- 9 . THE PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT IS THE ADDITION OF AN 8 X 10 FOOT PORCH ON THE EAST SIDE OF AN EXISTING SINGLE -FAMILY HOME . THE HOME IS • C� NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE OF, A 15 -FOOT FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK , WHEREAS 25 FEET IS REQUIRED . APPEAL OF G . P . LEPAGE , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , �v SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOPE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 FEET ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT C ALLOWED ) , TO BE LOCATED AT 9 JOHN STREET , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 56 - 3- 13 . 25 , ^LQ RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . APPEAL OF PAUL VELLEMAN , APPELLANT , ATTORNEY JUDITH ROSSITER , AGENT , REQUESTING AN INTERPRETA- TION OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 1 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THE USE OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY A STATISTICIAN FOR THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE FROM THE RESIDENCE IS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY �j USE . SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 15 LISA LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 71 - 1 - 9 . 81 -�-� RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SHOULD SUCH USE NOT BE PERMITTED , APPELLANT SEEKS A USE C C VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 1 . ADDITIONALLY , APPELLANT SEEKS A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 1 TO PERMIT THREE NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYEES , ( U WHEREAS ONLY T1•70 NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYEES ARE PERMITTED . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by. agent or in person . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer 273- 1747 Dated : September , 1 1992 Publish : September 4 , 1992