Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1992-10-14 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date —44� • Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 14 , 1992 THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE HEARD ON OCTOBER 14 , 1992 BY THE BOARD : APPEAL OF JON AND CHRISTINA HILTON , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORI - ZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLING ON A NON - CONFORMING LOT LOCATED AT 128 WEST HAVEN ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 29 - 5 - 6 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE ADDITION OF A SECOND - STORY OUTSIDE WOOD DECK ALONG THE FRONT OF THE HOME , THE PROPERTY IS NON - CONFORMING DUE TO A FRONT YARD WIDTH OF 97 FEET , WHEREAS 100 FEET IS REQUIRED . GRANTED . APPEAL OF NANCY H . GOODY , APPELLANT , GREGORY BELL , AGENT , REQUEST - ING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF AN • EXISTING SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLING FROM 30 FEET ( + OR - ) TO 34 FEET ( + OR - ) BY LOWERING THE OUTSIDE FINISHED GRADE TO ACCOMMODATE A BASEMENT DOOR AT 113 PENNY LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 58 . 1 - 1 - 113 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 , SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS BUILDINGS TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 30 FEET IN HEIGHT . GRANTED WITH CONDITION . APPEAL OF RONALD SCAROFILE AND JANETTE MCCORD , APPELLANTS , RALPH VARN , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLING WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 34 FEET ( + OR - ) ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED ) AT 853 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 47 - 2 - 2 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 30 . GRANTED WITH CONDITION . FILED Town of Ithaca TOWN OF ITHACA 1 Zoning Board of Appeals Date ��aZ October 14 , 1992 • Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 14 , 1992 PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Robert Hines , Edward King , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector Andrew Frost . OTHERS : Jon Hilton , Christina Hilton , Nancy Goody , Gregory Bell , Ralph Varn . Chairman Austen stated that all the posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and the same are in order . The first Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF JON AND CHRISTINA HILTON , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON A NON-CONFORMING LOT LOCATED AT 128 WEST HAVEN ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 29- 5-6 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE ADDITION OF A SECOND-STORY OUTSIDE WOOD DECK ALONG THE FRONT OF THE HOME . THE PROPERTY IS NON-CONFORMING DUE TO A FRONT YARD WIDTH OF 97 FEET , WHEREAS 100 FEET IS REQUIRED . • Mr . Hilton appeared before the Board and explained the construction of the proposed deck . Mr . Frost presented photos of the property in question . 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 Jon and Christina Hilton for the enlargement of an exis- ting single - family dwelling on a non-conforming lot located at 128 West Haven Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 29- 5 - 6 , Residence District R- 15 , by the addition of a second- story outside wood deck along the front of the home , as recommended by Planner Richard Eiken and as indicated on the photographs presented by Mr . Frost . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals October 14 , 1992 • [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . ] MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a special permit under Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the Appellants , Jon and Christina Hilton , to construct a deck as proposed and presented to the Board , with the following findings : 1e that the proposal complies with Section 77 . 7 , Subpara- graphs a - f . 2 . that the adjoining lots also have front yard widths of 97 feet. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Scala , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF NANCY H . GOODY , APPELLANT , GREGORY BELL , AGENT , REQUESTING A • VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING FROM 30 FEET ( + OR - ) TO 34 FEET ( + OR - ) BY LOWERING THE OUTSIDE FINISHED GRADE TO ACCOMMODATE A BASEMENT DOOR AT 113 PENNY LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 58 . 1- 1- 113 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS BUILDINGS TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 30 FEET IN HEIGHT . Ms . Goody and Mr . Bell spoke to the Board regarding the proposed construc- tion . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Chairman Austen read a letter from Ira Kamp and Laurie Conklin Kamp , 114 Penny Lane and from Jean S . Deming and Robert C . Deming , 112 Penny Lane , both dated September 24 , 1992 in support of the proposed construction . The letters are attached hereto as Exhibit #2 . Mr . Frost presented photos to the Board of the property in question , as did Mr . Bell . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals October 14 , 1992 • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a declaration of negative environmental significance with respect to the request of Nancy H . Goody to increase the height of an existing single - family dwelling from 30 feet ( + or - ) to 34 feet ( + or - ) by lowering the outside finished grade to accommodate a basement door at 113 Penny Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 58 . 1 - 1 - 113 , Residence District R- 15 , as recommended by Planner Richard Eiken , and further , that there is no one to the south of this property . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Scala , King , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . [ The Short Enivironmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit U . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant to the Appellant , Ms . Nancy H . Goody , a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to increase the height of an existing single - family dwelling from 30 feet ( + or - ) to 34 feet ( + or - ) by lowering the outside finished grade to accommodate a basement door at 113 Penny Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 58 . 1 - 1 - 113 , Residence District R- 15 , with the following findings and condition : 1 . That the roof elevation maximum height shall be 33 feet above the grade , caused by excavation of soil from the rear of the house , 4 feet below its present level . 2 . That the photos presented show the character of the excavation and the character of the surrounding houses , which have similar excavation . 3 . That this alteration of grade will not cause any visual effect from the roadway and very little visual effect to the neighbors . 4 . That the benefits to the Appellant far exceed any detriment to the neighbors . 5 . That there would be a practical difficulty without egress from the basement . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Scala , Austen , King . ONays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals October 14 , 1992 The last Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF RONALD SCAROFILE AND JANETTE MCCORD , APPELLANTS , RALPH VARN , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 34 FEET ( + OR - ) ( 30 FEET MAMKUH HEIGHT PERHQZ M ) AT 853 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NOs, 47-2-2 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . Mr . Ralph Varn appeared before the Board and explained the proposed construction . Town Attorney Barney noted that his office has represented Mr . Varn in the past but is not involved with him at the this time . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment 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 determination of environmental significance with respect to the request of Ronald Scarofile and Janette McCord , Appellants , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a single - family dwelling with a building height of 34 feet ( + or - ) at 853 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 47 - 2 - 2 . 2 , Residence District R- 30 , as recommended by Planner Richard Eiken and upon consideration of the photographs as submitted by Andrew Frost . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , King , Austen , Scala . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit #4 . ] 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 Appellants , Mr . Ronald Scarofile and Ms . Janette McCord , a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the construction of a single - family dwelling with a ridge roof line of 34 feet ( + or - ) above the grade at 853 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 47 - 2 - 2 . 2 , Residence District R- 30 , with the following findings : O1 . That the structure characterizes a cupola two feet above that shown on thelans which were submitted with the application . p Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals October 14 , 1992 2 . That the grade level of the structure , as it is to be built , is approximately 8 feet below the road line . 3 . That the house is to be constructed approximately 175 feet from the road line . 4 . That the house is in conformity with the architecture of the community . 5 . That the proposed construction is in a sparsely populated area of the Town of Ithaca 6 . That the benefits to the owners from permission to construct this residence far outweigh any possible detriment to the neighborhood . 7 . That the view of the house would be sheltered by trees which would be in excess of the height of the house . 8 . That this variance is for the plan as submitted only . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Scala , King , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . • ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , the meeting adjourned at 8 : 05 p . m . p 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Connie J . Holcomb fol Recording Secretary APPROVED : Edward Austen , Chairman 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 : // /I / 2 . Project Name : S h Ch r'' Jfil7 � -ftr I T1 r !J CC - K 3 . Precise Location ( Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map ) : Tax Parcel Number : - j� - 4 . Is Proposed Action : 0 NEW EXPANSION El MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items ) : I ( Attach separate sheet( s ) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project . ) -7 I 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0- 5 yrs ) / Acres (6 - 10 yrs) Acres W0 yrs ) Acres I How is the Land Zoned Presently ? 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES". NO If no , describe conflict briefly I 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road ? YES [:] N0�o Public Water ? YES NOE Public Sewer ? YES NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? LNResidential E] Commercial F] Industrial Agriculture r�l Park /Forest /Open Space F�J Other Please describe : 11 . Does proposed action involve a Permit , aDD oval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES N0If yes , list agency name and permit / approval / funding : 12 . Does anti aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval ? YES F NO 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 KNOVLEDGE pplicant / Sponsor Name (P int of e yP ) ' `On Ch � rSfl nG� ` Signature : 11 4t �� Date : NUT 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 0 ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) Cl . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , draina a or flooding problems ? Explain briefly None anticipated . �e wi inor: C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly / /, / None anticipated . l�.ou.sw& %t 1� er.o� 4 4,,6r , . rand ,gyp / ur4 A /C aesf4tfic i,.ya wlara 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 . FX • '^J lO� %s 97a�n ; /oo '/rnp�� ,: ,-p ;r� o� Zo» ;M9 Ora� , are o- S ua.0 a��O�Y�! t+'o►►+ Z � J 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 C 1 - C5 ? Explain briefly : None anticipated , C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly : None anticipated , D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO a If yes , explain briefly : E . Comments of staff ® , CAC El , 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 , ® 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 �� Plar�rrar Name of Lead Agency Preparer 's Signature If different from Responsible Officer) Austen Chairman Nam itle of Responsible fficer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date :- /;`b ,/ 4 Qz/ ' na ure ofes onsible'' fficer in Lead A enc A . September Z4 , 1992 1 am an owner of 114 Penny Lane , which is immediately adjacent on the west to 113 Penny Lane . I have been informed about the plans by Nancy Goody and Gregory Bell to excavate at the rear corner of their house and to w install double doors as an exit from their basement. I understand that this will increase the legal height of their house by about three feet. 1 do not object and urge the zoning appeals board to approve the variance requested . t September Zy , 1992 I am an owner of 112 Penny Lane , which is immediately adjacent on the east to 113 Penny Lane . I have been informed about the plans by Nancy Goody and Gregory Bell to excavate at the rear corner of their house and to install double doors as an exit from their basement. I understand that this will increase the legal height of their house by about three feet . I do not object and urge the zoning appeals board to approve the variance requested . d Rev . 10 /90 LLIA I I I Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART 1 — Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) 1 . Applicant /Sponsor : 2 . Project Name : NQn 6e oz L1 113 %m Lahr 6asehert Foam cohOrti.,, 3 . Precise Location (Streelt Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : s l 3fG a ' '� Tax Parcel Number : 50 I 58 , Y - 4 . Is Proposed Action : NEW EXPANSION MMOD IF IC AT ION / ALTER AT ION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : i I wWe, i� �krld reet,y i� itc ah +� if �+1 baMOV4 eF our YteMb S ; t is in;ia( Plino � Ik;vk 70 k ��+iS we, pia a(fe '� �e rer �{,e• e9( r of {Le Jeer pue toot �� a� 3 J �2.� �Wtj �' - e ►!+ lair, hi TLS.. )044th 46kke &3 14 eoior . 14 PICA Lott( also vilve/ teat [ I a pA;k itt, 3W 65 know sleds Fes' 16w,k L4 we wd not C6 . `�l,e. Pkr ge i noet 13 {o 0414e ihcrWed liv x� 5&a 6 dire¢ IV-/ i, ILL Lee awl rr,crcew wkl (; Of 4 41�anf IAIO� 6 a 5* s(,�►e . 0 ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) ,�$ (6- 10 yrs) Acres 010 yrs) Acres How is the Land Zoned Presently ? 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES NO �X If no , describe conflict briefly : IANC✓ arc aftCii��t Cr a Vibr; , J k 1AI"� 'I1s. ke�iS 14 15 30 ' �,►� ►aXlw,�,r. allou,tel. $J C{ 1'Le e a 3 ' E"vg iad�ge, 9 . Will proposed action lead o a request for new : Public Road ? YES N0NK Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES El NO " 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? Residential Commercial Industrial ❑ Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space ❑ 0 her Please describe : 1 1 . Does proposed action involve a permit , appy al , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES ElN0; If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : 12 . Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES F1 NO M 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 T E TO THE BEST OF MY KNOVLEDGE licant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : _moo ,I�ft- ci Signature : 4 lid // Date : 1 � � Name � � 9A / An v& PART 11 — ENYI RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ; Use attachments as necessary ) A ,tf; 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 . R . 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 .) � . 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 . , re ra // on 4 t s110 -1i „rAt,, eA ,le S#r / ,C � eaY,3sc 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 . Mme • g- "n ` � A 0ki fe.0, C3) A&.1 � /A4er; Me C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities 04"likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly None antiQipated . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - C5 ? Explain briefly : None anticipated . 7 . 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 NO F If yes , explain briefly E . Comments of staff ® , CAC Other attached . (Check applicable boxes). : PART III — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ( To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above , determine whether it is substantial , large , important or otherwise significant . Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (ie . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude . If necessary , add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . 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 Zonin Board of AD-peals ��� • an.�er- Name of Lead Agency Preparer 's Signature If different from Responsible Officer) Ed . Austen Chairrnnn N e of Resp o sibie Officer in L ad Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date Si nature of Res onsible Officer in Lead A enc "' EN EU y Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 / 90 OCT 51419 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review S AWN ,I 1 " . iACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM �uIL�1NG /,? ,FoWIN LISTED 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 : 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : SS-S C o o o i N 4 fL&*.� 5 0 (ZaS FL p �,/ /a iu p v P I> i ICS• tz.P Tax Parcel Number : ��� C ! 2` Z` 2 0 4 . Is Proposed Action : OZNEW EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : LA #�) o u5 E Rz - 30 12UO. p05 >c c5 Sipi� I/ d GTo s T &r PR- � ✓ -4 3 - z A GRt e 1' . ! ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) I F6a Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) 3 . 2 Acres (6- 10 yrs) 3 . Z Acres W 0 yrs) 3 . Z Acres ! How is the Land Zoned Presently 7 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES F NO ® If no , describe conflict briefly : 30 _ra27T V49 Rte ¢. 46/ t dLC-, A.4, V A i1 a #; TSE -t�o rN u � I 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road ? YES a NO Public Water ? YES NOS, Public Sewer ? YES � NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space Other . Please describe : 1 1 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES F1 NO f If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : 12 . Does anu aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES NO I If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . 4004G7 s = 'jfr ;>Ae2 O�A , 1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVID IS TRUE TOT E BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE �licant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : y �-��, ie� G�. c/ ,Q . 1/A ICU Signature : Date : 1fem�e - - _. . . .. _ . ...- . _. � rt - _may . . . . _ ♦-..... _ - .. . . 1-. .. .3. j-_ .- . . 1 . . PART 11 - ENV IRON MENTAL 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 .) Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) Cl . Existing air quality , surface orgroundwater 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 . Piap'= �� ! mss' cZ �`"// �xce�o/ ,✓�a}r ;,„ w,^ a //(..,/,,e/�l A� bu C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands5ce.. :c or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly , to None anticipated . M ce"sl4a4cAla ., a�L;%n �j 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 . �jp�,os �� r 5J#<26 .,cti r4-P9rZVdres 0. v v ,r, C..,.cimz (v :S 3f y1Aa5.e1 ;% .,..,,,,. C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly None anticipated . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in Cl - C5 ? Explain briefly : None anticipated . �7 . 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 rX] If yes , explain briefly E . Comments of staff ® , CAC El , Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART I I I — DETERMINATION OF SIGNI FICANCE ( 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 . Town of Ithaca Zonin Board of Abneals 14 • �:�Cce . , �A;,,,�,1 Name of Lead Agency Preparer 's Signature If different from Responsible Officer) Edwa Ad N Austen Chairman N i le of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date : i na ure of es o sib a Officer in Lead Agency ell FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Dale � ClkLA `A TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 23 , 1992 The following Appeals were heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 23 , 1992 : APPEAL OF JAMES A . RIDALL , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ADD A SECOND DWELLING UNIT WITHIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON A NON - CONFORMING PROPERTY AT 170 SEVEN MILE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 32 - 2 - 10 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 30 . SAID PROPERTY IS NON - CONFORMING SINCE IT CONTAINS A GARAGE LOCATED 6 FEET ( + OR - ) FROM THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINE , WHEREAS 15 FEET IS REQUIRED . IN ADDITION , APPELLANT SEEKS A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V . SECTION 19 , TO BE PERMITTED TO UTILIZE SAID GARAGE AS A STORAGE BUILDING FOR BURIAL VAULTS . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANT , MORRIS F . ANGELL , APPLICANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 5 . 04 - 1 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW TO BE ALLOWED TO SUSPEND A DOUBLE - FACED SIGN FROM THE BUILDING FACADE / CANOPY AT JUDD FALLS WINES AND SPIRITS , EAST HILL PLAZA , JUDD FALLS ROAD AND ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 62 - 2 - 1 . 121 , BUSINESS DISTRICT C . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF ERIC FRIEDLAND , APPELLANT , NEAL HOWARD , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN A THREE - FAMILY HOME WITH A SINGLE FAMILY IN EACH OF TWO UNITS AND A SINGLE FAMILY WITH A BOARDER IN THE THIRD UNIT , AT 229 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAR PARCEL NO . 54 - 7 - 45 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 9 . SAID PROPERTY HAS A CURRENT TOWN OF ITHACA CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO PERMIT ONLY THREE FAMILIES OR NO MORE THAN FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS IN THE ENTIRE BUILDING . GRANTED WITH CONDITION . APPEAL OF BRUCE G . RIGHTMYER , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO MAINTAIN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING CONTAINING A GARAGE , STORAGE AREA , AND A DWELLING UNIT ON A NON - CONFORMING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 155 POOLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 32 - 1 - 1 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( R - 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) , SAID PROPERTY IS NON - CONFORMING BECAUSE IT CONTAINS TWO SEPARATE SINGLE - FAMILY BUILDINGS , WHEREAS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A SINGLE PARCEL OF LAND IS PERMITTED . APPELLANT FURTHER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V , SECTION 20 , TO MAINTAIN SAID ACCESSORY BUILDING 16 1 / 2 FEET ( + OR - ) IN HEIGHT , WHEREAS 15 FEET IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED . GRANTED SPECIAL APPROVAL FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH CONDITIONS . DWELLING UNIT IN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITHDRAWN . HEIGHT VARIANCE GRANTED WITH CONDITION . FlLED TOWN OF ITHACA Q Clea TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 9 , 1992 THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE HEARD ON DECEMBER 9 , 1992 BY THE BOARD : APPEAL OF THOMAS D . FOX AND MARIA COSTANZO , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO EXTEND A NON—CONFORMING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 RENWICK HEIGHTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 17 - 3- 21 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE EXTENSION INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 X 32 FOOT ADDITION TO THE NORTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME . THE PROPERTY IS NON—CONFORMING BECAUSE AN EXISTING GARAGE IS LOCATED 0 . 9 FEET ( + OR — ) FROM THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE , 10—FOOT GARAGE SETBACKS BEING REQUIRED . THE HOUSE AND THE PROPOSED ADDITION MEET ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE . APPROVED . APPEAL OF MICHAEL CARROLL , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO EXTEND A NON—CONFORMING BUILDING LOCATED AT 1319 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 28- 1 - 26 . 6 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THE EXTENSION INVOLVES THE CREATION OF • A FOURTH DWELLING UNIT IN AN EXISTING THREE —FAMILY HOME . RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 ZONES PERMIT ONLY ONE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS . APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM NOVEMBER 18 , 1992 ) OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANT , BONNIE J . VANAMBURG , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VII , SECTION 38 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF AUTOMOBILE PARKING SPACES LOCATED AT THE EAST HILL PLAZA , JUDD FALLS AND ELLIS HOLLOW ROADS , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 62 - 2 - 1 . 121 , — 1 . 122 AND 62 - 2 - 12 , BUSINESS DISTRICT C . SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES 611 PARKING SPACES , WHILE 556 SPACES ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE , WITH A REDUCTION TO 503 SPACES PROPOSED , THIS APPEAL IS PROMPTED BY PROPOSED CHANGES TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND TO PROVIDE FOR LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE PLAZA , CARRIED WITH CONDITIONS . 40 FRW Town of Ithaca TOWN OF ITHACA 1 Zoning Board of Appeals Dates I q December 9 , 1992 0 • Cler TOWN OF ITHACA I dm- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 9 , 1992 PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Robert Hines , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer / Building Inspector Andrew Frost . ABSENT : Edward King . OTHERS PRESENT : Maria Costanzo , Thomas Fox , Michael Carroll , Bob Boehlecke , Bonnie VanAmburg , Shirley Egan , John Majeroni . Chairman Austen stated that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearing were completed and in order . The first Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF THOMAS D . FOX AND MARIA COSTANZO , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO EXTEND A NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 RENWICK HEIGHTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 17 -3- 21 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE EXTENSION INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 R 32 FOOT ADDITION TO THE NORTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME . THE PROPERTY IS NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE AN EXISTING GARAGE IS LOCATED 0 . 9 FEET ( + OR - ) FROM THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE , 10- FOOT GARAGE SETBACKS BEING REQUIRED . THE HOUSE AND THE PROPOSED ADDITION MEET ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE . Mr . Frost presented photographs of the house and the property involved in the request . Mr . Fox explained the house has a kitchen that , as measured , is about 10 1 / 2 feet x 11 1 / 2 feet and since purchasing the house in 1987 , they have increased their family size by two children . He stated that they have to go into the dining room to eat and they would like to be able to eat in the kitchen together . He also explained they would like to add a screened porch on the side of the house . He stated that the addition would not in any way interfere with the garage . Mr . Frost stated that if the garage were not on the property , Mr . Fox would not need to appear before the Board . Mr . Fox stated that none of his neighbors were opposed to the proposed addition . 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 . Pete Scala : Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals December 9 , 1992 RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the request of Appellants , Thomas D . Fox and Maria Costanzo , to extend a non- conforming property located at 15 Renwick Heights Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17 - 3 - 21 , Residence District R- 15 . The extension involves the construction of a 10 foot x 32 foot addition to the north side of an existing single family home , as recommended by Planner Richard A . Eiken . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Scala , Ellsworth , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . ] MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant the Appellants , Mr . Thomas D . Fox and Maria Costanzo , Special Approval to permit the construction of the addition at their dwelling unit at 15 Renwick Heights Road , as set forth in their application , with the following findings : 1 . The non-conformity of the property is in the area of the garage and its location is on the south side of the property , which will remain unaffected by the construction . 2 . The photographs submitted indicate an older house and construction is necessary in order to accommodate the family to gain additional space . 3 . The construction is consistent with the neighborhood . 4 . Any detriment suffered by the neighbors is certainly far outweighed by the need of the Appellants . 5 . No one appeared before the Board in opposition to the proposed construction . 6 . The proposed construction is in conformance with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub- paragraphs a - h . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Scala , Ellsworth , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following :. Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals December 9 , 1992 • APPEAL OF MICHAEL CARROLL , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO EXTEND A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING LOCATED AT 1319 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 28- 1 -26 . 6 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 . THE EXTENSION INVOLVES THE CREATION OF A FOURTH DWELLING UNIT IN AN EXISTING THREE-FAMILY HOME . RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 ZONES PERMIT ONLY ONE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS . Mr . Frost presented photographs of the house and the property in question . Chairman Austen explained that the extension took place before the variance was granted . Mr . Frost explained that the footprint was not necessarily increased , but the use is being increased . Mr . Michael Carroll appeared before the Board and gave background information on the property and explained how many people live in the house . He stated that the house in question has 17 rooms . Mr . Pete Scala asked Mr . Carroll if he resides there now and if there were three tenants presently . Mr . Carroll responded that he did reside there and there are three tenants . Chairman Austen questioned who lives there now . Mr . Carroll responded that himself and Mr . Chase live in the main part of the house , sharing the upstairs and the kitchen . He stated that there are four bedrooms on that side . There are two bedrooms in the main part of the house which are not being used . He further explained that • there are a total of seven people living in the house . Mr . Carroll stated there are 17 rooms in the house . Discussion followed regarding the existing and the new plumbing . Attorney John Barney questioned Mr . Carroll on the occupancy of the building since 1971 when he purchased the property . Mr . Carroll stated that all three apartments have been occupied since he purchased the property . Discussion followed whether the property is non- conforming . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Further discussion ensued regarding the plumbing and kitchen fixtures . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make • a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the appeal of Mr . Michael Carroll to extend a non- conforming building located at 1319 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 - 26 . 6 , Residence District R- 30 , as recommended by Planner of Richard A . Eiken , on December 2 , 1992 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals December 9 , 1992 • Ayes - Hines , Scala , Ellsworth , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 . 1 MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant to the Appellant , Mr . Michael Carroll , Special Approval for the construction , in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Town , for the fourth dwelling unit at 1319 Mecklenburg Road , Tax Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 26 . 6 , with the following findings and conditions : 1 . Having reviewed the requirements of Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub-paragraphs a through h and in light of the application and the facts submitted , and adopting those factual findings made by the Planning Department in connection with the environmental impact statement , this appeal is consistent with those findings . 2 . Having reviewed the photographs and having observed this property , there will be very little , if any , impact on the character of the neighborhood , either architecturally , traffic-wise , or by the number of people . • 3 . There is concern about extending the number of units in an R- 30 zone by means of this Special Approval procedure and that a condition be imposed that at some time in the future the Appellant file for a variance for this property . 4 . That the Special Approval terminates September 1 , 1993 . 5 . That there shall be no more than eight people occupying the entire building . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Scala , Ellsworth , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . The final Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM NOVEMBER 18 , 1992 ) OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANT , BONNIE J . VANAMBURG , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VII , SECTION 38 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF AUTOMOBILE PARKING SPACES LOCATED AT THE EAST HILL PLAZA , JUDD FALLS AND ECUS HOLLOW ROADS , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 62-2- 1 . 121 , - 1 . 122 AND 62 -2- 1200 BUSINESS DISTRICT C . SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES 611 PARKING SPACES , WHILE 556 SPACES ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE WITH A REDUCTION TO 503 SPACES PROPOSED . THIS APPEAL IS PROMPTED BY PROPOSED CHANGES TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND TO PROVIDE FOR 4 LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE PLAZA . Chairman Austen stated that he had talked with the Planning Board Chairperson and found the Planning Board to be supportive of this project for safe traffic control . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals December 9 , 1992 • Mr . John Majeroni and tis . Bonnie VanAmburg appeared before the Board . There was extensive discussion regarding the number of parking spaces required versus the number of spaces being requested by Cornell University . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines : Seconded by Mr . Pete Scala RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the appeal of Cornell University to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces located at the East Hill Plaza , Judd Falls and Ellis Hollow Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62 - 2 - 1 . 121 , - 1 . 122 and 62 - 2 - 12 , Business District C , as recommended by Planner Richard E . Eiken , on November 13 , 1992 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines Scala , Ellsworth , 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 to the Appellant , Cornell University , a variance from the requirements of Article VII , Section 38 , of the Town Zoning Ordinance to permit the reconfiguration of its parking lot at the East Hill Plaza , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62 - 2 - 1 . 121 , - 1 . 22 , and 62 - 2 - 12 , to permit the current use and occupation of the premises and the uses thereon , with a total number of parking spaces after reconstruction of 503 , whereas 556 are currently available , more or less , with the following findings and conditions : 1 . The University has presented a plan for landscape architecture and reconfigu- ration of the parking lot at the East Hill Plaza at the request of the Town of Ithaca . 2 . By engaging in this activity at the request of the Town of Ithaca , Cornell University is imposing upon itself an economic hardship for which this Board expresses its appreciation . 3 . The final parking lot project , as proposed and as submitted in the plans and application , will be very attractive and a benefit to the entire Ithaca community . • 4 . Cornell University has provided a study by a reputable traffic consultant ( Travers Report ) to the effect that less than the required number of parking spaces is appropriate under the circumstances for the reconfigured lot . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals December 9 , 1992 • 5 . The Board adopts the findings of the Travers Report dated May 28 , 1992 , as submitted at the previous Board meeting , as evidence of the facts therein . 6 . The Town of Ithaca has been a strong proponent of this change and it will be done to benefit the Town of Ithaca and imposes a hardship on Cornell and that this hardship • will continue in the future . Should Cornell University be required to come before this Board again with respect to parking at East Hill Plaza , future Boards should be cognizant of the fact of why and how this came about . 7 . Based on the above , the Board grants the variance to reduce to 503 the required parking spaces at the East Hill Plaza . 8 . No more than 10 spaces shall be assigned by Cornell to people for preferable parking . And the Board exhorts Cornell to discourage any permanent parking thereon . These 10 spaces shall be for use by persons other than people associated directly in operations or occupancy of the Plaza . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Austen , Hines , Scala , Ellsworth . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . Nomination for Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for 1993 By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals nominate Mr . Edward Austen as Chairman of that Board for the year 1993 , and be it further RESOLVED , that the nomination be sent to the Town Board for their consideration . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Scala , Ellsworth , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . Re-appointment of Mr . Robert Hines to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals MOTION By Mr , Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth RESOLVED , that Mr . Robert Hines be re - appointed to the Zoning Board of Appeals with a term to expire December 31 , 1998 , QA vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Scala , Ellsworth , Austen , Hines . Nays - None . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals December ' 9 , 1992 • The motion carried unanimously . The meeting adjourned at 8 : 55 p . m . CC% o0LLrv� Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary APP and Austen , V<airman • O L� 1111111111= 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 : Thomas D . Fox & Maria C . Costanzo Fox & Costanzo addition 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : 15 Renwick Heights Rd . , Ithaca ' Tax Parcel Number : 17 . '-3 - 21 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) : The present land use is residential . Our 0 . 55 acre of land contains a house and separate garage . Our current construction plans are to build a one-story addition , approximately 10 by 32 feet , on the north side of the house , - in order to have a larger kitchen and screened porch area for our growing family . We have no future construction plans . i ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) .0@55 0 . 55 0 . 55 y Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres ( > 10 yrs) Acres . How is the Land Zoned Presently ? n • Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES NO If no , describe conflict briefly : The proposed action will comply with existing zoning restrictions . However , because an existing garage ( built many years ago ) is too close to the property line , the entire property is considb6red to be .in non-compliance . I 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road ? YES 1:1 NO [Z] Public Water ? YES EJ NO Public Sewer ? YES NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? Residential Commercial 7 Industrial Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space Other Please describe : 11 Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES F1 NO 7 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 a If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . 1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Alicant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : Thomas D . Fox & Maria C . Costanzo I Signature : s ' �i /�w�Lt;, < T Date : 11 / 18 / 92 PART 11 — E NY IRON MENTAL ASS ESS ME NT (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 ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) Cl . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHE) C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C4 . The Town 's existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - C5 ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED D , Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO ® If yes , explain briefly : E . Comments of staff � , CAC Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART III — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ( To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above , determine whether it is substantial , large , important or otherwise significant . Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (ie . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude . if necessary , add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . ❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . 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 1214 . E---- - / l� nnee 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 : Si nature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency PART II - Environmental Assessment Fox / Costanzo Proposed Addition to Residence on Non - conforming Lot 15 Renwick Heights Rd . , Residence District R - 15 Zoning Board of Appeals : Special Approval Request December 2 , 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 is to construct a one - story , 320 sq . ft, addition to a building located on a non - conforming lot. The residence conforms to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance , however there is a garage located within the rear and side yard setbacks , which makes the property non - conforming . The addition is proposed in order to increase the size of the existing kitchen , and will not result in air pollution , reduction in surface or groundwater quality or quantity , • increased noise levels , increased solid waste production or disposal, or increased potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural, archeological, historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? None anticipated . The proposed addition , as shown on the attached architectural sketches , will be consistent with the character of the surrounding area, which is characterized by medium- density residential uses ( see attached aerial photo ) , therefore no impacts to the neighborhood character are anticipated . No adverse impacts to agricultural, archeological, historic, 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 . There is a stream corridor at the rear of the property , however the proposed addition will be located far enough away so that no impacts to this area will occur. 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 . The proposed addition involves an expansion of a building located on a lot which is non - conforming due to a garage which is within the required rear and side yard setbacks, therefore a special approval is required from the Board of Appeals . The addition as proposed will not result in a significant change in the use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources . 0 0 ' EAF Part II ( cont. ) Fox / Costanzo : Special Approval Request Board of Appeals, December 2 , 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 ? None anticipated . C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? None anticipated . D . Is there or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts 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 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 Review Date : December 2 , 1992 O o P � ` IFJ I I I I 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 : M. I, ewHa- 5: CIA 94zele LW V 5 (LEGIL� 5)�AIrT 8V1Lt2iNi 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map ) : � J I C1 AA 5 G (4 L E N r3 v (-- U TZ o A Y I I T H a C _a 1 Iti . `� 0 (T o v%l til en I T H A6 CS Tax Parcel Number : '2S 4 G r2 G- S 4 . is Proposed Action : NEW EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION f 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : ! ! UN irSf bENT1A& L- 45TP� U4� Tvr' 1= To �}- vt�4rTS 13y SVBtJI ` / f17I .�4G 60R 4r- 7HE vtitITS - i . i o1-4 � Vlr_ tlrNG SIZ. � Orz -cac> T �2 ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) 6 Acres ( 6- 10 yrs) Acres ( > 10 yrs) Acres How is the Land Zoned Presently ? 1Z 3 � ! 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES NO Ill If no , describe conflict briefly : { r rz i;� cry s o 7r 2. D 1- I I r`i Ge SO C= 5 I4O 'T Fgi r7- M t -r M U !T :1 IF L7< (Z E S t b e iJ G i=& N 14 H W t GH 7f?e P- -rGFV Zt t> NIN. G I 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : i 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 21 Commercial 7 Industrial Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space F�J 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 F�] If yes , list agency name and permit / approval /funding : ' 1'� � I '�f • lJiL,CIi-! G 6Ot2E r.✓ 0AIx0 OF� r200vl r=iW r4 -1: Q �qE5 •T FOrz, VAp.IAtdl GE ----- 12a Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES El NO i If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . I I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE I V�licant / Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : MIG 4-f G 1✓ !, GQ y2 rZ• eD L L ! Signature : �.•�� - `� .�.L_ _ �✓(�1. Date : o 0 PART II - ENYIRON MENTAL 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 Lj 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 0 NO [Z ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACI-lID 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 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 ATMCHID 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 CI - C5 ? Explain briefly SEE ATM= C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO ® If yes , explain briefly : E . Comments of staff , CAC Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART III — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ( To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above , determine whether it is substantial , large , important or otherwise significant . Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (ie . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; ( e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude . If necessary , add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . ❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . 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 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 City Lights Antiques Special Approval Request Board of Appeals , December 2 , 1992 No significant impacts anticipated . As noted above , there are three units in an existing non - conforming residence , whereas only two units per residence are permitted by the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance in the R - 30 District. The applicant has petitioned the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special approval to allow an additional unit to be created within the residence . Although the proposed action would not conform to existing plans or goals ( multi- family uses are not permitted in the R - 30 District ) , no significant adverse impacts have been identified . C5 . Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? None anticipated . C6 . Lona term, short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - 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 ? 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 O Reviewer: Richard A . Eiken , Planner Review Date : December 2 , 1992 2 0 0 �� PART II - Environmental Assessment City Lights Antiques Proposed Additional Unit in Three Unit Residence 1319 Mecklenburg Road , Residence District R - 30 Special Approval, Zoning Board of Appeals December 2 , 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 creation of an additional unit within an existing non - conforming three unit building , thereby creating four units , which is more than the maximum allowed by the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance . Two units are permitted per residence by right in the Residence R - 30 District, and the request, if approved , would result in an increase the total number of units by one , from three • to four. The proposal will not result in any new exterior construction , and will not create a significant increase solid waste production , potential for erosion , level of traffic , or noise levels , nor will it result in a reduction in air quality or surface or groundwater quality or quantity . There is adequate space to accommodate additional parking behind the residence . Currently there is a large parking lot for customers at the City Lights Antique Shop, which could be used by tenants , or additional parking specifically reserved for the tenants could be provided . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural, archeological, historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? None anticipated . The residence is already existing , therefore no new structures will be created . The area surrounding the site is characterized by low to medium density residential uses , agriculture , and open space . The parking area is located behind the residence so there will be no significant visual impacts to the neighborhood . 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 ? 6EIVE / L911 Zvol 5101 , Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 / 90 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review NOV 5 . 1992 SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORgOWN OF ITHACA For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins Coun i LBAW/ZONING PART I - Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) 1 . Applicant /Sponsor : 2 . Project Name : CORNELL UNIVERSITY / John Majeroni East Hill Plaza Landscape Improvements 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : Judd Falls Road and Ellis Hollow Road Ithaca , NY Tax Parcel Number : Town of Ithaca 62- 2- 1 . 121 , 1 . 22 , 12 14 . 15 Proposed Action : NEW EXPANSION ® MODIFICATION / ALTER AT ION Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose , present land use , current and future construction plans , and other V relevant items) : Improve landscape and traffic circulation in the East Hill Plaza parking lot to handle both present uses and all future uses currently allowed under Town of Ithaca zoning , including the development of parcel 62- 2 - 1 . 22 for future retail / resturant / office uses . i I ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) 16 , Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0- 5 yrs ) 12 . 4 Acres (6 - 10 yrs) 0 Acres ( > 10 yrs ) 0 Acre; How is the Land ironed Presently ? i Business C I = . ' Vill proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? Y = S NO u If no , describe conflict briefly : Will create parking shortage . i I Wiii proposed action lead to a request_ for new : Public Road ? YES NO Public Water ? YES E] NO [X Public Sewer . YES u NO IX � 0 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? ( Residential Commercial n I Industrial F7 Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space J Other Please describe : i Educational I I 1 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency i (Federal , State , local ) ? YES NO FX If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : i i ; 12 . Does anti aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES ® NO j If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . Existing Town of Ithaca Site Plan approval will require modification I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE pplicant / Sponsor Na a (Print or Type) : CORNELL UNIVERSITY / Real Estate Department , John Majeronz f qq Signature ; Date : I East Hill Plaza : Parking Varianc PhR's 11 - ENYIRON MENTAL 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 ? A 1k YES NO ® ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) Cl . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACK 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 CS . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED P . C6 . Longterm , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - C5 ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly ': SEE ATTACHED D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO 2g If yes , explain briefly : E . Comments of staff ® , CAC ❑ , Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART III — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ( To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above , determine whether it is substantial , large , important or otherwise significant . Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (ie . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude . If necessary , add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . Then proceed directly to the full EAF: and /or prepare a positive declaration . rqZ;;T Check this box if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , ICI 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 �Z 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 Res onsible Officer in Lead A enc • PART II - Environmental Assessment East Hill Plaza Proposed Parking Improvements Judd Falls and Ellis Hollow Roads ; Business District " C " Zoning Board of Appeals : Variance for Number of Parking Spaces November 13, 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 proposed internal traffic circulation improvements at East Hill Plaza include additional landscaping and modification of driveway configurations, in order to improve the appearance of the shopping area and to facilitate safer and more efficient traffic circulation on the site . The proposed improvements , however, will result in a reduction of 53 parking spaces, • from 556 to 503 total spaces . Under existing conditions , a total of 542 parking spaces are required by the Zoning Ordinance . A traffic study prepared by Travers Associates indicates that actual parking demand for the plaza is 434 parking spaces . At the present time Cornell does not have any plans to expand the shopping center, but indicates in the traffic study that the plaza could be expanded by 13 ,780 square feet, and that such an expansion would result in 611 parking spaces being required ( only 490 actual demand estimated ) . Although Planning Staff does not necessarily concur with the future expansion potential projected by Cornell, it appears that there will be sufficient parking available to accommodate such an expansion if their figures prove to be accurate . Planning Staff notes that there is a 30 % open space requirement in the Business " C " District which may limit future expansion of East Hill Plaza. The reduction in parking will not result in effects to existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , effects from solid waste production or disposal, or from erosion , drainage or flooding problems . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural, archeological, historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? The proposed landscaping will improve the appearance of the shopping center, and will therefore be compatible with adjacent uses . No significant adverse impacts to agricultural, archeological, historic , natural or cultural resources have been identified . O C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species ? • EAF Part II ( cont. ) East Hill Plaza: Variance for Parking Spaces Board of Appeals , November 13 , 1992 None anticipated . The site is fully developed as a commercial use . C4 . A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted , ora change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? No significant impacts are anticipated . The proposed landscaping and traffic flow improvements are compatible with existing plans and goals of the Town . The proposed reduction of 53 parking spaces will result in 39 spaces fewer than what is required by the Zoning Ordinance , and a variance is being sought for this condition . The traffic study prepared by the applicant indicates that sufficient parking would exist following the improvements , and therefore no significant impacts are anticipated , No impacts are anticipated to the use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources. C5 . Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? None anticipated . • C6 . Long term, short term, cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - 05 ? None anticipated . Future expansion of East Hill Plaza will be limited , therefore the reduction in parking will not have any future impacts. Me 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 . O PART III - Staff Recommendation , Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action , the existing character of the area, the proposed traffic circulation and landscaping improvements, and the information above , it has been determined that no significant impacts are anticipated, therefore 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 Review Date : November 13, 1992 • - - : - - --- - - a �