HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1993-01-13 FILED
TOWN 4OIf 4ITHACA
Date
Clerk—`��'-"'
•
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JANUARY 13 , 1993
THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE HEARD ON JANUARY 13 , 1993 BY THE BOARD :
APPEAL OF CITIZENS SAVINGS BANK , APPELLANT , RANDY B . BROWN , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FROM ARTICLE V , SECTION 20 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT AN
ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 20 FEET ( + OR - ) ( 15 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT
ALLOWED ) ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 250 TROY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 45- 2- 14 ,
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
APPEAL OF CHRISTOPHER AND MELINDA HULLER , APPELLANTS , JAMES HILKER , AGENT , REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE III , SECTIONS 7 AND 9 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE AND
SECTION 280-A OF NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW , TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A PARCEL OF LAND THAT DOES NOT HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE ON A TOWN , COUNTY ,
OR STATE HIGHWAY , AND HAVING A LOT DEPTH OF 90 ( + OR - ) ( 120 FOOT DEPTH REQUIRED ) . SAID
PARCEL IS LOCATED NEAR WORTH STREET AND VINE STREET , ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 59-
1-9r RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 . VARIANCES FROM ARTICLE III , SECTION 9 , MAY ALSO INCLUDE
HAVING A MINIMUM IAT WIDTH AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 20 FEET ( + OR - ) ( 75 FEET
BEING REQUIRED ) AND A IAT WIDTH AT THE STREET LINE OF 20 FEET ( 60 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) .
ADJOURNED UNTIL FEBRUARY 10 , 1993 MEETING
•
FDatea -45.
Town of Ithaca HACi�Zoning Board of Appeals
January 13 , 1993 0
Clerk '
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JANUARY 13 , 1993
PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Robert Hines , Pete Scala , Harry Ellsworth , Town
Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew
Frost
ABSENT : Edward King
OTHERS : Christopher Muller , Jim Hilker , M . Taylor , Randy Brown
Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 p . m . and announced that all
posting , publication and notification of same are in order .
The first appeal to be heard by the Board was the following :
APPEAL OF CITIZENS SAVINGS BANK , APPELLANT , RANDY B . BROWN , AGENT , REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V . SECTION 20 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO
PERMIT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 20 FEET ( + OR - ) ( 15 FEET
MAM M HEIGHT ALLOWED ) ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 250 TROY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO , 45-2- 14 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 .
• Mr . Randy Brown explained that Citizens Savings Bank acquired the property in March
of 1992 . He explained that the house and the barn were present when they acquired the
property . The barn had been there for 20 years , if not longer.. and was moved to this
location back in the 70s from another site . In order to sell the property , a Certificate
of Occupancy is required . Through this process it was discovered a building permit was
never issued for the barn and to complete the process , the bank needs a variance for the
barn .
Chairman Austen asked if the property was a farm . Mr . Brown responded that , yes it
was , with 66 acres but that they are only selling 17 acres . The subdivision of the
property was already approved by the Town .
Mr . Frost explained that the Certificate of Occupancy and the building permit were
denied since the barn is approximately 20 feet in height and the Zoning Ordinance limits
accessory buildings in R- 30 zones to 15 feet . Chairman Austen asked if this property had
ever been zoned agricultural . Mr . Frost explained that in going through the Zoning
Ordinance , though the law has also changed to limit non- agricultural buildings in
agricultural zones , even if there are accessory buildings , they are not allowed to go
higher than 15 feet , so they wouldn ' t have any exemption .
Mr . Robert Hines asked what the building is used for . Mr . Brown responded that
there is a horse riding area right outside of the barn . The barn contains a couple of
horse stalls and storage space . Mr . Frost stated that they had labeled the barn as a
garage / accessory building in one of the building permits . Mr . Brown explained that they
have boarded horses in the past . He further explained that the barn used to be located
where the Cayuga Heights Police Station presently exists .
• Mr . Frost stated that the property , including this particular parcel with the barn
and the house , was before the Planning Board for subdivision approval . He believed there
is a condition in the subdivision approval from the Planning Board that stated that the
approval was contingent upon the Zoning Board of Appeals approval for a height variance .
Town of Ithaca 2
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 13 , 1993
Chairman Austen referred to the adopted resolution from the Planning Board Meeting
on January 5 , 1993 regarding preliminary and final subdivision approval for said
property . [ The Planning Board resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . ]
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 :
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
placement / location and existence of this barn structure , located at 250 Troy Road ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 45 - 2 -- 14 , as shown in the photograph as submitted with
the application to this Board , with the following findings :
1 . That the Zoning Board adopt as its findings those made by the Town of Ithaca
Planning staff , George Frantz ,
2 . That the subject property is large , undeveloped , residential property in a
rural residential neighborhood .
3 . That the adopted findings by Mr . Frantz indicate that there is no anticipated
impact or adverse effect , and , as a result , this property has been in its
current state for a period of approximately 20 years .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - Hines , Scala , Austen , Ellsworth .
Nays - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
[ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit #21 .
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 to the Appellant , Citizens Savings Bank , Randy Brown , Agent , from
the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , which otherwise restricts
the height of the accessory structure to 15 feet , in this case granting permission
for the placement and maintenance of the two - story barn structure to be approximate -
ly 20 feet in height , as shown on the photographs as submitted by the Building
Inspector and made a part of this application , with the following findings :
1 . That the barn is an attractive structure located in a substantially rural area ,
architecturally consistent with the area .
2 . That the barn structure has been in its present location for approximately 20
years , with currently no adverse impact on the neighborhood .
Town of Ithaca 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 13 , 1993
• 3 . That the area of properties so subdivided on which this barn is located is 17
acres , more or less . The subdivided lot is from a total parcel of approxi -
mately 60 some acres .
4 . That the benefits to the Appellant by the granting of this variance , permitting
the issuance of the certificate , far outweigh any detriment that might
otherwise be noticed by the neighbors .
5 . That the visual impact of this barn is negligible because of its location .
6 . That after due notice , no neighbors appeared in opposition to this application ..
7 . That the economic hardship in this case , is the demolition or reduction of the
barn .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - Hines , Scala , Austen , Ellsworth .
Nays - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
The last Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following :
APPEAL OF CHRISTOPHER AND MELINDA MULLER , APPELLANTS , JAMES HILKER , AGENT ,
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE III , SECTIONS 7 AND 9 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING ORDINANCE AND SECTION 280-A OF NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW , TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A PARCEL OF LAND THAT DOES NOT HAVE
ROAD FRONTAGE ON A TOWN , COUNTY , OR STATE HIGHWAY , AND HAVING A LOT DEPTH OF 90 ( +
OR - ) ( 120 FEET DEPTH REQUIRED ) . SAID PARCEL IS LOCATED NEAR WORTH STREET AND VINE
STREET , ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 59- 1-9 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-9 . VARIANCES
FROM ARTICLE III , SECTION 9 , MAY ALSO INCLUDE HAVING A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT THE
MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 20 FEET ( + OR - ) ( 75 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) AND A IAT
WIDTH AT THE STREET LINE OF 20 FEET ( 60 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) .
Mr . James Hilker explained that the only access to the proposed lot is a private
easement which comes off of Worth Street . The Mullers are going to purchase that
easement from the Worth Street intersection back to the rear property line , as well .
Mr . Hines asked who owns the underlying title from that roadway . Mr . Christopher
Muller responded that the Vine Street access is owned by Mr . Willett , Mr . Hines
questioned if that access is going to be shared with other owners of the property and
asked if Vine Street started at Mitchell Street , Mr . Hilker explained that that part of
Vine Street will be staying as is . He further stated that that part of Vine Street is
owned by Norbert Schickel and there will be no intrusion onto it whatsoever and it will
remain as is . ( There currently is no Vine Street . )
Mr . Hines stated that the appellant is requiring title to a lot and either a fee
ownership or permanent easement over a strip of land approximately 25 feet wide that runs
over to Worth Street , Mr . Frost clarified that presuming that the appellants buy that
parcel of land , and it becomes one parcel where the house is proposed , perhaps the point
where Vine Street then intersects with Worth Street , would become the road frontage of
that parcel , but , then the issue becomes the width of the lot , which perhaps then would
result in the need for the variance for the width . Mr . Hilker stated at that point in
time , the lot would have 20 foot of frontage on Worth Street , Mr . Frost stated that the
Town of Ithaca 4
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 13 , 1993
lot would still front on Vine Street if Worth Street ends before the property line of the
Foyts .
Chairman Austen wondered if Worth Street comes back to Vine Street now . Mr . Hilker
responded that it did and you can go all the way up Worth Street to where Vine Street is
and take a right and go to Mitchell . Mr . Muller explained that what you would think of
as Vine Street is from Mitchell North to Worth Street , Mr . Frost stated that Vine Street
is not a town , county , or state highway .
Mr . Hines asked if there was concern over getting an easement or fee over that strip
of land . Mr . Muller responded that it was deeded , but his attorney and Mr . Muller ' s wife
have gone through and searched the deeds and in the deeds there is an easement for all
of that Vine Street from Schickel to the current residents on the other side north of
Mitchell Street , there are four or five houses there , so in the deed there is an
easement .
Attorney Barney wondered if the easement involved the portion of Vine Street running
north . Mr . Muller responded that the Willett ' s owned that parcel . Attorney Barney asked
if anyone had the right to go over that to get access to any of the houses . Mr . Muller
explained that there were no houses over there . Attorney Barney stated that he
understood the Willett ' s owned it outright and there ' s no easements or anything like
that . Mr . Hines stated that the easement Mr . Muller was speaking of was the easement
over Mr . Schickel ' s portion , which is south of his property . Mr . Muller explained that
right now the property that he is buying , that 100 feet , is owned by the Willett ' s and
he is buying it . Attorney Barney reaffirmed that Mr . Muller is buying the property
outright , not an easement over it , but buying total , so that Mr . Muller ' s property will
look somewhat like a flag . He asked Mr . Muller if the owner of the property , which is
now Mr . Willett , and soon to be Mr . Muller , has the right to transgress Vine Street all
the way down . Mr . Muller responded that the deed gives them access and that they would
not buy the property without that access .
Mr . Hilker explained that when the property was subdivided the first time , the
intent was to develop each one of the parcels and to continue Vine Street and then
intersect with Miller , and since the development never went through , it ' s just being
sold . Mr . Hines stated that if the access could be through Worth Street , that would be
the best way to go . He asked who owns the portion of Worth Street that ' s east of the
City line . Mr . Muller explained that they had researched it and that it is the easement .
Mr . Hines wanted to clarify that somehow Mr . Muller had to go through from his
property line through Vine Street , through those portions of land east of the City line ,
till he gets to Worth Street , which is then a City street . Attorney Barney stated that
he could go down Vine Street all the way down to Mitchell Street , so he has an access ,
clearly , from there . He further stated that Mr . Muller may or may not have access
legally over that little segment of Worth Street .
Attorney Barney questioned if the Willetts were going to convey to the Mullers a
piece of this striprhave the Willetts come in for any kind of subdivision approval . Mr .
Muller responded that he had no idea .
Further discussion followed regarding the subdivision of the parcel ..
Mr . Frost stated they could still receive a variance to build the house on a parcel ,
if they have the easement . Attorney Barney stated that they do not currently have an
easement . Mr . Frost questioned Mr . Muller and found out that the purchase offer includes
the easement and the Willetts own all the surrounding lots . Mr . Hines reaffirmed that
once the Willetts get the surveying done , they will need to get subdivision approval ,
Town of Ithaca 5
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 13 , 1993
• Mr . Hilker stated that the initial plan was to buy the lot and not that Vine Street
easement property because that was an easement to access these lots back there . The
Mullers decided that they did not want anyone to build back here , and if the Willetts
would sell them that much of the easement , then they might as well buy that up too . Mr .
Frost asked if they did not buy that , would they have the right to use it . Mr . Hilker
responded yes . Mr . Frost explained that was the point he was trying to make , because the
Board can still act , though they still need subdivision approval , if they buy the land .
They can still buy that parcel , build on it without having to wait to go to the Planning
Board , because they have a legal access already , as an easement . Mr . Hilker explained
that the property that has the proposed house is separate from the 20 feet .
Attorney Barney stated that as he looks at the tax maps the Willetts are , in effect ,
resubdividing tax parcel nine , which runs all the way up to the corner . Mr . Muller
explained that the realtor had it listed as two separate parcels .
Further discussion followed among the Board on the subdivision .
MOTION
By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth :
RESOLVED , that the appeal of Christopher and Melinda Muller , Appellants , James
Hilker , Agent , requesting a variance from Article III , Sections 7 and 9 , of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280- a of New York State Town Law , to allow
for the construction of a single - family residence on a parcel of land that does not
• have road frontage on a town , county , or state highway , said property located near
Worth Street and Vine Street , on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 59 - 1 - 9 , Residence
District R- 9 , be adjourned until the next scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of
Appeals on February 10 , 1993 .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - Hines , Ellsworth , Austen , Scala .
Nays - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
CJo t rcu Q .Trn V4''
Connie J . Holcomb
Recording Secretary
APPROVED :
At 'zo
dward Austen , " Chairman
• uvsac ZCLI. ILL .' ULlU .L V .L. � iUI1
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 45 - 2 - 14
. 250 Troy Road
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board , January 5 , 1993
•
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR
Jones Farm Subdivision
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 45 - 2 - 14
250 Troy Road
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board , January 5 , 1993
MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by William Lesser :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 45 - 2 - 141 66 . 5 + / - acres total , into four
( 4 ) lots ranging in size from 2 . 9 + / - acres to 42 . 196 + / - acres .
Parcel proposed to be subdivided is located at 250 Troy Road ,
Residence Districts R - 15 and R - 30 .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review with respect to the proposed subdivision , and
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing held on January 5 , 1993 ,
has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant , Parts II and
III prepared by the Town planning staff , and a subdivision plat
entitled " Final Subdivision Map Showing Proposed Division of
Lands of Citizens Savings Bank , F . S . B . , " dated 11 / 20 / 87 -
11 / 25 / 92 and revised 12 / 9 / 92 and 12 / 30 / 92 , prepared by T . G .
Miller , P . C . Engineers and Surveyors , and other application
materials , and
4 . The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination
of environmental significance with respect to the proposed
subdivision , as proposed ;
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED :
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative
determination of environmental significance in accordance with the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the subdivision
as proposed and , therefore , an Environmental Impact Statement will
not be required .
Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Cornell , Lesser , Finch .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
V v11c0 CC11. 111 OUJULA .LV Lb .LU11 - G -
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 45 - 2 - 14
. 250 Troy Road
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board , January 5 , 1993
•
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Jones Farm Subdivision
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 45 - 2 - 14
250 Troy Road
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board , January 5 , 1993
MOTION by Herbert Finch , seconded by Robert Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 45 - 2 - 14 , 66 . 5 + / - acres total , into four
( 4 ) lots ranging in size from 2 . 9 + / - acres to 42 . 196 + / - acres .
Parcel proposed to be subdivided is located at 250 Troy Road ,
Residence Districts R - 15 and R - 30 .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as lead agency in environmental review , has , on
January 5 , 1993 , made a negative determination of environmental
significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing held on January 5 , 1993 ,
• has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant , Parts II and
III prepared by the Town planning staff , and a subdivision plat
entitled " Final Subdivision Map Showing Proposed Division of
Lands of Citizens Savings Bank , F . S . B . , 11 dated 11 / 20 / 87 -
11 / 25 / 92 and revised 12 / 9 / 92 and 12 / 30 / 92 , prepared by T . G .
Miller , P . C . Engineers and Surveyors , and other application
materials .
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED :
1 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval , as
shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist , having
determined from the materials presented that such waiver will
result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board .
2 . That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 45 - 2 - 14 , 66 . 5 + / - acres total , into four
( 4 ) lots shown as Lots 1 , 2 , 4 and combined Lots 3 and 5 as shown
on a subdivision plat entitled " Final Subdivision Map Showing
Proposed Division of Lands of Citizens Savings Bank , F . S . B . , 11
dated 11 / 20 / 87 - 11 / 25 / 92 and revised 12 / 9 / 92 and 12 / 30 / 92 ,
hobol + I
JV11C5 rdl-M OUDUIV1SIOn - 3 -
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 45 - 2 - 14
.250 Troy Road
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board , January 5 , 1993
•
prepared by T . G . Miller , P . C . Engineers and Surveyors ,
conditioned upon the following :
a . That Parcel # 2 ( 2 . 8 + / - acres ) of this subdivision shall be
transferred to Kenneth Sullivan within six months of the
date of this approval .
b . Parcel # 2 of this subdivision shall be , upon such transfer ,
consolidated with the Sullivan parcel ( 6 - 45 - 2 - 6 ) .
c . The final plat be redrawn to combine Lots 3 and 5 as one lot .
d . That no further subdivision of Lots 3 and 5 ( combined ) occur
until :
( i ) There is provided information satisfactory to the
Planning Board as to the existence or size of any
wetlands on Lots 3 and 5 ;
( ii ) The location on Lots 3 and 5 of a Town Park be
determined as part of any further subdivision
applications , it being understood that in
calculating the size of the park and related set
• aside land , the areas of parcels 1 , 2 and 4 , shall
be added to the areas of Lots 3 and 5
( i . e . , the calculation shall be based on 66 . 5
acres - the total acreage of the entire parcel ,
rather than on 42 . 196 acres - the acres of Lots 3
and 5 alone ) .
e . No construction shall occur on parcel 4 until Health
Department approval for individual septic disposal system or
water supply system is approved .
f . Before any subdivision of Lots 3 and 5 is considered , a
Full Environmental Assessment Form be provided to the
Planning Board .
Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Cornell , Lesser , Finch .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
1 / 6 / 93
JONESF . ARM/ PBMTG
� � h ° b ° + 4 /
Eal= T�l
Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 / 90
Town of Ithaca Environmental Review 41
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 :
3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) :
a56 Trod' 1`c> c<.d ,
Tax Parcel Number : 445 ` 2 - 14-4
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 t
relevant items) : t
Ti,
I
PXi S ,` rto Lam !✓, ct+ +e�Q (� iG�2 /d,� cit- 2 5o T�. Y n�c> a r( . _ 4 f v LJr C � y�f� i S + Cj nd
41 , ( h -; 1 t- h
I Ioj +r� c- VCCl 1'1 LLiG < fYl (,rl�C� �l �1��'•1�3�1 G� C 'c. �7Lr 10Cc4- i Zcry ) 4V 4-61 lam. ctcl C( re S i /'l "'-H-1 C i
eft v(� i � 7o 's . (�l^, �� ; r Lit t x vn L e.X J .S r� 1 ri t� .- .c. e�:�z �F I
(J p Y� J F7IE 73 ht- r' ht c� 11 �
7. 00 C f��-� hcl rn i CL(>Pfwz,< Ima., CL. �U '� c n�c� C2C� G� +q �,PC 07n r) r-1-7t, /✓ 41io �ec7 by �;� �:�J1Jc. I �os'7 � i2vG
t.S /� ��L`'�SiJ r2,! t'r-Y 'J-�7C iiC l ' c' r�,<C. /"1'�?i^yam' / r ? � ,
✓: - ti ' 1 a-' J J i � - f�' l,�'i��--? F7 CC/ �,� �'. ' �iL % �//)i'✓jlLy" /7
( Attach "sepa'r' ate shee (s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project . )
6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0- 5 yrs ) �; 6, r5 Acres (6 - 10 yrs) Acres ( > 10 yrs ) Acres `.
How is the Land Zoned Presently ?
i
8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ?
YES F NO If no , describe conflict briefly : !
� I
9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new :
Public Road ? YES NO Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES NO i
10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? Residential Commercial
Industrial Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space Other L .
Please describe : PG! IlII� '}��-Zx: }:c( rcl url'C
C�.rl-) C1 CZ r`�fl C7:1 rer'ct41'? �jcy: I nc1Jh 1'1dYVIOCC711
J
11 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency i
(Federal , State , Local) ? YES NO J><J If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : {
i
i
12 . Does anq aspect of the proposed action have a currentltj valid permit or approval ? YES F] NO 7
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
scant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : l-fl L�YIs SulL)O4 ?" L
., Signature : �,Qk� Z Z
� Date : j
• -- PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; 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 XX 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 XX 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 .
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 ? Exclain briefly :
None anticipated .
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 C1 - 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 XX If yes , explain briefly :
E. Comments of staff XX CAC other attached. (Check asapplicable . )
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 (le. 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 here 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 here 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 attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination.
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Name of Lead Agency Preparer's Signature ( if d ' rent from Responsible Officer
Edward Austen , Chairman
Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer
Date :
Si nature of Res onsible Officer in Lead Agency
O bo + �
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
• NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
WEDNESDAY , JANUARY 13 , 1993
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 ,
January 13 , 1993 , 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 CITIZENS SAVINGS BANK , APPELLANT , RANDY B . BROWN , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM
ARTICLE V . SECTION 20 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY
BUILDING WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 20 FEET + ( 15 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) ON A PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 250 TROY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 45- 2 - 14 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 .
APPEAL OF CHRISTOPHER AND MELINDA MULLER , APPELLANTS , JAMES HILKER , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FROM ARTICLE III , SECTIONS 7 AND 9 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE AND SECTION 280-
A OF NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW , TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
ON A PARCEL OF LAND THAT DOES NOT HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE ON A TOWN , COUNTY , OR STATE HIGHWAY ,
AND HAVING A LOT DEPTH OF 90 FEET + ( 120 FOOT DEPTH REQUIRED ) . SAID PARCEL IS LOCATED NEAR
WORTH STREET AND VINE STREET , ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 59 - 1 - 9 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT
R- 9 . VARIANCES FROM ARTICLE III , SECTION 9 , MAY ALSO INCLUDE HAVING A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 20 FEET + ( 75 FEET REQUIRED ) AND A LOT WIDTH AT THE
STREET LINE OF 20 FEET ( 60 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) ,
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 : January 5 , 1992
Publish : January 8 , 1992