Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1994-01-12 FDatei ED OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA 1 ZONING BOARD OF FINAL WEDNESDAY , JANUARY 12 , 1994 rlt ,1n, +oai IJ I4 TA The following Appeals were heard by the Board on January 12 , 1994 : APPEAL of Michael Herzing , Appellant , requesting authorization by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Zoning Ordinance , to allow for the expansion of the gasoline dispensing facilities at Big Al ' s Hilltop Quikstop located at 1103 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 43- 2 - 1 , Business District " C " . The expansion involves the installation of a canopy and fire suppression system above the gasoline dispensing pumps at said business . The business is a non- conforming use , as Business " C " zones do not permit gasoline sales stations . GRANTED . APPEAL of Thomas Bell , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII , Section 38 and Article VII , Section 45 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to allow for the use of a retail / light industrial building / property with 25 automobile parking spaces available ( whereby 27 are required ) at 612 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33- 3- 2 . 8 , Light Industrial Zone . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL ( Adjourned from June 9 , 1993 , May 12 , 1993 and March 24 , 1993 ) of David Bowlsby , Appellant , requesting a Special Approval under Article XII , Section 54 , and / or variances from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , and Article XIII , Section 68 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to have a second residential building • on a non- conforming building lot located at 829 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 - 2 - 38 , Residence District R- 15 , Said Ordinance permits only one residential building on a parcel of land . The appellant proposes to maintain a building meeting the definition of a dwelling unit , on Cayuga Lake ( between the high water and low water mark ) , and use the building for personal accessory use . ADJOURNED . APPEAL ( Adjourned from November 10 , 1993 ) of Gary and Donna Hofstead Duffy , Appellants , requesting an interpretation as to the application of Article V , Section 19 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to the operation of the Little Brook Farms Horse Training Facility at 340 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 68- 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Should an interpretation be made that finds the operation in violation of said Ordinance , the Appellants then request a variance from Article V , Section 19 , Paragraph 6 , to be permitted to conduct a riding academy and a facility to board and train horses . ADJOURNED TO FEBRUARY 9 , 1994 . FILED TOWN OF ITHACA 1 TOWN OF ITHACA pate �i .I I , G ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS o JANUARY 12 , 1994 Clerk� � n �� ` • PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Harry Ellsworth , Robert J . Hines , Edward King , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John C . Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew Frost . OTHERS : Mickey Herzing , Syndee Herzing , Thomas Bell , Joanna Bluh , Attorney Mariette Geldenhuys , Nancy Marino , Linna Dolph , Donna Duffy , Jim Grossman ( name not legible ) , Bruce Brittain , William Bassett , James Liebherr , Norman Foley , Jean Anderson , John Anderson , Megan MacCallum , Richanna Patrick . Chairman Austen opened the meeting and stated that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and the same were in order . The first appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL of Michael Herzing , Appellant , requesting authorization by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Zoning Ordinance , to allow for the expansion of the gasoline dispensing facilities at Big Al ' s Hilltop Quikstop located at 1103 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43-2- 1 , Business District "C " . The expansion involves the installation of a canopy and fire suppression system above the gasoline dispensing pumps at said business . The business is a non-conforming use , as Business "C " zones do not permit gasoline sales stations . • Chairman Austen asked Mr . Herzing if this was going to be an expansion of the number of pumps . Mr . Herzing stated the expansion of the pumps and tanks isn ' t really expanding . The expansion itself is in the canopy which has a fire suppression system . Mr . King asked if it was a free - standing canopy . Mr . Herzing said it was a two pole canopy . Mr . King asked if it would be connected to the building or the service station . Mr . Herzing answered it was not connected to the building . Mr . Ellsworth asked if there was a code requiring this or if Mr . Herzing was doing this for safety . Mr . Herzing stated self service gasoline stations would require a fire suppression system . Mr . Frost stated that if Mr . Herzing were building this new today , he would not get an approval to operate without the suppression system . Mr . Frost said the fact that it is existing and self service , it would probably be grandfathered in , but it certainly is desirable to have the suppression system . Mr . King asked what the suppression system consists of . Mr . Herzing stated it was within the canopy itself . He said the canopy is actually a shell on the top and the system is in the top and very rarely do you ever see it . Mr . Ellsworth stated it is a series of nozzles and Mr . Herzing said that is correct and it comes down from the roof of the canopy , almost similar to a sprinkler type system , but much more pressurized than a sprinkler system . Mr . King asked if it was water coming down and Mr . Herzing stated he did not know the actual chemical used . Mr . Herzing said it is a fire extinguisher type of dry chemical . Mr . King asked if the size of this canopy comports with the size of the area occupied by the pumps . Mr . Herzing said it does , it is a very standard size in the industry , 22 feet x 36 feet and a lot of times 24 feet x 36 feet . Mr . King asked how many pumps are proposed and Mr . Herzing said two pumps . Mr . Herzing said currently there are three pumps , but one will be coming out . Mr . King asked which one . Mr . Herzing said they would be shifting over , the middle pump would become the end pump , to further separate the pumps . Mr . King said they would not be adding any more pumps . Mr . King asked if the 36 feet is sufficiently large to permit additional pumps . Mr . Herzing said it was not . If he were to put in another covered pump , it would have to have its own canopy or an addition to it . Generally they are not add-ons like a house . You would have to go with a whole new canopy . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12 , 1994 Chairman Austen asked if the canopy remains within his right- of -way . Mr . Herzing said that was correct . Attorney Barney asked if he was still going to be selling Sunoco and Mr . Herzing said yes . Attorney Barney said it says three prices on the sign , but you are only going to have two pumps . Mr . Herzing said they should see five . Sunoco is a blended gasoline . Two actual products come to the site which they blend to make five different grades . Attorney Barney said Mr . Herzing will only need two pumps and both pumps will need to be identical . Mr . Herzing said yes , you just choose your octane . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Since no one appeared to address the Board , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . ' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen read Part III of the environmental assessment form . MOTION By Mr , Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the Planning staff ' s findings and recommendations on the environmental assessment form and make a negative determination of environmental significance for the proposed canopy and fire suppression system above the gasoline dispensing pumps at 1103 Danby Road , Town, of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 43- 2 - 1 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows :. AYES - Austen , Hines , Scala , King , Ellsworth . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . MOTION By Mr , Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board grant the Appellant authorization for the canopy and the extension of a non-conforming use as a gasoline sales structure at Big Al ' s Hilltop Quikstop located at 1103 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax. Parcel No . 43- 2 - 1 , a use not recognized in a Business " C " zone but having been a pre - existing use ; and that under Article XII , Section 544 the Board finds that the proposed fire suppression shelter and canopy be approved on the following findings : 1 ) That it will not only provide a safety factor but a shelter . 2 ) That it will not extend the use of the station itself or extend the non- conformity of its use . 3 ) That the proposal meets with all the criteria set forth in Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a-h of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . 4 ) That it will promote the health , safety and general welfare of the community . 5 ) That it is in harmony with the general purpose of the Ordinance . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12 , 1994 • 6 ) That it will meet the other criteria of design and location , being consistent within the character of the present use . During the discussion , Chairman Austen stated that he did not see a diagram of the actual fire suppression system . He asked Mr . Herzing if he had anything there , and Mr . Frost said that Mr . Herzing will have to go through a building permit process and submit the paperwork at that time . Discussion followed as to its visibility , with Mr . Hines stating that it would not really be visible . Mr . Herzing said the only way it would be visible would be if one was able to get the top view , then parts of it would be seen if one was higher than the canopies . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - King , Ellsworth , Hines , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . The next appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL of Thomas Bell , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII , Section 38 and Article VII , Section 45 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to allow for the use of a retail / light industrial building/property with 25 automobile parking spaces available ( whereby 27 are required ) at 612 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33-3-2 . 8 , Light Industrial Zone . • Mr . Frost explained Mr . Bell is here because he went through the Planning Board to get some retail business approved for his building that was originally constructed as a storage building . Then he got an approval to have some light industrial use , and then further got approval from the Planning Board not to long ago to have a retail use . Mr . Frost said the maximum potential parking , based on the number of employees , will leave him two parking spaces short of what was the original approved site plan to the Planning Board , which was 25 spaces and we determined he needed 27 spaces . Mr . Ellsworth asked if this was based on square footage and Mr . Frost stated it was based on the Zoning Ordinance requirement for business zones for parking . The requirement reads as follows : " in a retail store you need one space for each 200 feet of ground floor " . Mr . Frost said he believes 4 , 000 square feet of the existing 12 , 000 square foot building was allowed to be retail , so that left us with a need of 20 spaces . Then when you get into the light industrial section of the Ordinance , the parking requirement is one space for each three employees . In talking with Mr . Roscoe , who is the present occupant in the building for the industrial use , he had a potential for 23 or 25 employees . The long and short of it is by formula he came out with 27 spaces , 25 are shown on the site plan . Mr . Frost continued that Louise Raimondo of the Planning Department made a site inspection and an observation of the current scheme of parking is the rough sketch within the board member ' s mailed material . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Bell if Jack Roscoe was his only tenant . Mr . Bell stated that he had one other tenant that has a display there . The general public doesn ' t come • to it , it is just a display for Proctor and Gamble . They use it as a warehouse . Mr . King asked if the parking lot had already been constructed , to which Mr . Bell said yes . Mr . King asked Mr . Bell if he had seen the diagram Louis Raimondo completed . Mr . Bell said no . Further discussion ensued with Mr . Bell regarding the diagram . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12 , 1994 • Chairman Austen asked if they have two spaces for handicapped . Mr . Bell stated yes , they have to put some blacktop on that area as soon as the weather permits . Chairman Austen confirmed that the rest of the parking lot is gravel or stone . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mr . Frost commented on the site plan and the actual parking configuration , as somewhat suggested in the photographs . The parking , because nothing is really designated either by stripping on the stone or railroad ties , it doesn ' t necessarily follow the pattern of the site plan . He said it is not clear to him whether that violates anything , but he wanted everyone to be aware that parking does not follow these spaces shown on the site plan . Mr . Ellsworth asked what the activity is in the light industrial portion of the building . Mr . Bell stated Mr . Roscoe ' s part is light manufacturing . Mr . Frost said Mr . Roscoe contracts jobs for the state school systems and colleges . He makes courthouse furniture and makes furniture for schools , etc . Mr . Hines stated Mr . Roscoe calls it Roscoe Woodworking . Mr . Bell said it is all wood fabrication . Chairman closed the public hearing . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen read from part C3 of the environmental assessment form . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Edward King . is RESOLVED , that this Board accept the Planning staff ' s recommendations for a negative determination of environmental significance for the property at 612 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33 - 3- 2 . 8 , based on the site plan included in the application . AYES - Scala , Ellsworth , King , Hines , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . Mr . King asked Mr . Bell if the site plan by Novelli Engineers which was revised 12 / 6 / 93 , was the last edition . He asked is this the plan as far as the parking goes , which was approved by the Planning Board . Mr . Bell said yes and he would have to get with Jack and make sure that his employees park where they are supposed to . They are kind of wandering around in different areas , so whether we have to put up numbered and signed stakes to get them to comply with that , he didn ' t know . Mr . Frost said one of his concerns , from a safety standpoint , is that as a minimum , railroad ties be on each side here to prohibit parking , then as long as you can ensure access for the truck up through here , they can at least always get into the loading dock without either running over a car , someone in the car , or a pedestrian . Mr . King asked what Mr . Frost meant by railroad ties by each side , did he mean each side of the truck lane . Mr . Frost said as a very minimum something that restricts parking in this lane , which is intended for the truck access for delivery . • Mr . Frost stated if Roscoe Woodworking ever moves out , the way he interprets the Zoning Ordinance , is that a different industrial occupant or light industrial occupant may have more employees , which would conceivably require more parking spaces yet , so any approval given to Mr . Bell right now , based on the current occupancy , would be based solely on the maximum number of employees working at Roscoe ' s . Should he move out , some guy could come in with twice as many employees , and certainly would need more parking . . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12 , 1994 Mr . Hines suggested this was similar to the Judd Falls problem . Attorney Barney said this was a little more severe because the formula for parking is based on employees . Mr . Hines said if the Board grants this variance , 25 parking spaces is adequate . Attorney Barney said if the use changes , as in Judd Falls it hasn ' t changed , the number of required parking spaces might have been increased . If there is a variance being granted , it is being granted tied to the particular use at the present time and any future change in use would make the variance invalid . Mr . Frost said what is fortunate about the site is that there is room for additional parking , should that be necessary . Chairman Austen asked if Mr . Frost was speaking of parking in the back , towards the north . Mr . Frost stated there was some question as to whether there are wetlands down there and this is apparently more southeasterly than where there might be some suggestion of wetlands . Mr . Frost said there is some cattails growing further down in a westerly direction , but that possible additional parking area seem to be in an easterly direction of where those cattails are . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that this Board grant to the Applicant , Thomas Bell , a variance for the use of the affected property at 612 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33 - 3- 2 . 8 , as a retail light industrial property with the scheduled 25 automobile parking spaces available , where otherwise 27 would be required under the zoning law , for the duration of this use , occupancy and employment conditions , with the following findings and conditions : 1 ) The reduction of 27 to 25 automobile parking places is essentially de minimus. 2 ) There is substantial area on the property for additional parking , if required in the future . 3 ) This is a semi rural area and the additional parking would not cause any aesthetic or traffic congestion as far as any evidence presented . 4 ) That the applicant make appropriate arrangements for the integrity of a passageway along the west side of the structure for a truck , whether that be with railroad ties or any other device which is acceptable . That the truck access be delineated so that people won ' t encroach on it with automobile parking . 5 ) The required number of handicapped spaces be provided for . 6 ) That if the status of use , occupancy or employment should change , this variance will be invalid . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Hines , King , Ellsworth , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The next appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : I Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12 , 1994 APPEAL ( Adjourned from June 9 , 1993 , May 12 , 1993 and March 24 , 1993 ) of David Bowlsby , Appellant , requesting a Special Approval under Article XII , Section 54 , and/ or variances from the requirements of Article IV , Section il , and Article XIII , Section 68 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to have a second residential building on a non-conforming building lot located at ' 829 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25- 2-38 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Ordinance permits only one residential building on a parcel of land . The appellant proposes to maintain a building meeting the definition of a dwelling unit , on Cayuga Lake ( between the high water and low water mark ) , and use the building for personal accessory use . Mr . Frost said the Board had adjourned back in May to allow time for the Army Corp of Engineers to respond to them as to whether or not there are any violations with the Army Corp permits that were issued for the construction of this building . There is a letter written in October 1993 from the Army Corp that sets forth their position . There was also a letter handed out that we just . received from Mr . Bowlsby ' s attorney addressing these issues . Chairman Austen read the letter from the Army Corp of Engineers dated October 26 , 1993 and the letter from Attorney Paul Tavelli dated January 11 , 1994 . Mr . Bowlsby said he built this for a camp on the lake , the house is way up on the hill . It ' s nice to have a little camp down there . He said the building is on stilts 8 feet high . He said it ' s a place down on the water to entertain . Mr . Bowlsby discussed various aspects of the rooms , some of which were a 40 foot x 13 foot room , a 10 foot x 12 foot room , a 6 foot x 6 foot room , a workshop , a counter , a deck and a pier . Mr . Hines asked about the original issue and Mr . Bowlsby said he came to get a toilet . Mr . Frost said by definition of both the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code , if you have a space that provides eating , cooking , sanitary or sleeping provisions , you have by definition a dwelling unit . What was built as far as the sanitary and the cooking provisions , was still provisions provided that met the definition for a dwelling unit . Mr . Hines asked if the toilet were eliminated and Mr . Bowlsby interrupted to say that there wasn ' t a toilet . Mr . Hines said you would just have an accessory building . Chairman Austen reaffirmed that there was electricity and water . Mr . Bowlsby said there was temporary water because there is a hose that he runs down there that he cleans his boat out with . There is no toilet , shower or anything like that . Chairman asked if there was a sink and Mr . Bowlsby responded yes that has a hose that could be attached to it and used for spraying and cleaning fish . There is also a coffee pot , anything that would be used in a camp . Mr . Hines asked if it was considered a dwelling unit if it didn ' t have the amenities described , it is simply an accessory building and since the lot is nonconforming , would he have to get approval for the accessory building . Mr . Frost said the lot is non- conforming . Mr . Frost said yes , the way this was advertised was a special approval and / or variance to cover both . Mr . Hines said if they granted approval for the accessory building , excluding the use of the toilet , that isn ' t what the appellant wants , that is what he originally applied for , but from reading the Army Corp of Engineers ' letter , Mr . Hines couldn ' t tell what was necessary . Mr . Frost said the Army Corp had no formal definition for living quarters , which was part of the prohibition of their permit . Mr . Hines said that was complicated by the fact that this wasn ' t living quarters , but a dock boat house . Mr . Frost said the Corp couldn ' t , by definition , define living quarters as plainly as our Zoning Ordinance , so hence they would not take enforcement action . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12 , 1994 Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mr . Frost said this Board has in the past , where we ran into situations where we had a dwelling unit that we want to eliminate , we did something to kind of eliminate the cooking provisions in someway . In fairness to Mr . Bowlsby , and also in consideration to the environment , if one does have to eliminate , it ' d be better to do it in a sanitary fashion . Mr . Hines said all the amenities have to be present in order to invoke the definition of a living unit . Attorney Barney said it doesn ' t really talk in that specific of terms , a dwelling unit is a place where it provides living accommodations . Mr . Hines said if it said there were no cooking or eating facilities , then you could have a toilet . Mr . King asked if a bedroom was in the back . Mr . Bowlsby said if you wanted to call it a bedroom , he has a workshop and a big room with three bunk beds in it that have not been slept in or assembled yet . It is his intent when they ( fishing party of 4 to 5 guys , not family ) get together , to hang out in this big room with the bunk beds . He said the large room with a deck out the end of it has kitchen counters in it and a sink that is not hooked up . The sink has a bucket underneath it that is used for cleaning the fish and dumping the coffee pot . Mr . Hines said you would have to make a conclusive finding that this is not a dwelling unit . You would have to make a factual finding to support it that there aren ' t certain facilities in there , sort of a negative determination that this is not a dwelling unit , because it has no facilities and none will be permitted . There is no heat in this outside structure . Chairman Austen stated there was a wood stove . Mr . Frost said the Zoning Ordinance refers to it as a living unit . Attorney Barney said a dwelling unit is a dwelling , or a portion of a dwelling , providing complete living facilities for one family . A dwelling is a building designed or used exclusively as the living quarters for one or more families . Mr . Bowlsby said nobody would live in this . Attorney Barney said he had a little difficulty with this because Mr . Bowlsby has three bunk beds , a sink , and he wants a toilet . Mr . Bowlsby said he isn ' t asking for a shower . He doubted anyone in their right mind would want to qgo down there and carry wood from 155 stairs upstairs . Attorney Barney said if you put a stove in , he assumes wood would be used . Mr . Bowlsby said the stove is in . Mr . Frost read the building code definition of a dwelling as being " one or more rooms with provisions for living , cooking , sanitary , and sleeping facilities arranged for use of one family . " Mr . Hines said he agreed with Mr . Bowlsby in that it sounds like a camp , if it stays that way . Mr . Hines said there are no cooking facilities fixed to the premises . Mr . Bowlsby asked what cooking facilities meant and Mr . Hines said the site of preparation of foods . Mr . Bowlsby asked if that meant a little bunsen burner Coleman stove . Mr . Hines said he didn ' t know , he was trying to accommodate what Mr . Bowlsby ' s asking for . Mr . Bowlsby said he did not have a stove down there at all . Mr . King asked if he had any intentions of putting one in and Mr . Bowlsby answered no , not a gas , electric or any other kind of stove , except a camp stove , a pump coleman . Mr . Frost wondered if intent had anything to do with it and whether the deed restriction reinforces the intent to use it as an accessory and not a dwelling . Chairman Austen asked if it didn ' t have a shower or a tub , if it had just a toilet and a wash basin , that would not constitute a bathroom as such . Mr . Frost answered no . Mr . Hines said he was going to be safe by eliminating facilities for cooking and preparation of foods for consumption on a permanent basis . Mr . Bowlsby said he would certainly be • agreeable to restricting heat of any type down there to wood . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12 , 1994 • RESOLVED , that the Board grant to the applicant , David Bowlsby , a Special Approval for the erection and maintenance of an accessory structure to the east of his property , extending over the waters of Cayuga Lake , located at 829 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 - 2 - 38 , which structure is presently constructed and shown in the application , as well as the photos submitted , with the following findings : 1 ) That the structure is not a dwelling unit nor is it to be used as a dwelling unit . 2 ) That the structure has no facilities constructed as part of its operation for the preparation and cooking of food . 3 ) That the use is primarily a camp or recreational facility , as an adjunct to occupancy of the house . 4 ) That the need arises because of the rather steep bank and incline from the house to the lake and that otherwise the lake has practically no use to the applicant . 5 ) That the area in which the facility is located is the extreme south end of Cayuga Lake with only two houses south of the applicant . 6 ) That the Army Corp of Engineers has reviewed the matter and is taking no action and finds the use consistent with its regulations . 7 ) That it does not present any substantial aesthetic impediment to the enjoyment • of the lake . 8 ) With the condition of the granting of this special approval , Mr . Bowlsby will prepare and file with the County Clerk of Tompkins County , a deed setting forth as a restriction and covenant running with the land , that this is a recreational facility not to be used as a dwelling unit and is in conjunction with the occupancy of the house and not rent it as a separate unit . Attorney Barney wondered whether a SEQR has ever been done on this appeal . Mr . Hines said they had a complete application when they started last June . Attorney Barney said the short form is here , but the question is whether this board has ever made a determination as to the environmental significance of the action . The SEQR recommended a positive declaration of environmental significance . Mr . Hines said on the basis of the second dwelling unit . Attorney Barney said he thought they had adjourned it each time before they considered any motion . Mr . Hines said based on the changed character and on the report of the Corp of Engineers and on the approval which we intend to give , the vote is favorable . The review by the Town Planner is on a different set of facts . If George reviewed it on the basis that there was a living facility there , then obviously there is some different consideration if there isn ' t . Attorney Barney said the application states on its face that it is for a second dwelling unit . The appeal is advertised as permission to have a second residential building on a non- conforming lot . Mr . Hines asked if Andy didn ' t say in the ad " and / or special approval " , to which Mr . Frost replied he did . Mr . Hines said they are denying a variance . Attorney Barney said read the notice of public hearing notice . He said it • seems to him that if the Board is saying we ' re denying a certain residential dwelling , then that ought to be the initial motion , and then if we wanted to go onto the next and say we consider special approval permitting an accessory building of certain characteristics , which is what he gathers the motion as being , you are going to have to readvertise that . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12 , 1994 Mr . Hines requested that , with the unanimous consent of the Board , his motion be tabled . Mr . Frost noted the short EAF form was not signed by Chairman Austen . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Board deny the applicant , David Bowlsby , a special approval or variance for the construction and maintenance of a second residential unit on the property located at 829 Taughannock Boulevard , as requested in his initial applica- tion . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Hines , King , Ellsworth , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion for denial of the special approval or variance was carried unanimously . Mr . Hines asked Chairman Austen to restore the motion he made for special approval . Chairman said he would do so in a moment . Mr . King asked if the Board would have to act on the SEQR . Attorney Barney said that before the Board approves of anything , it has to make a determination of environ- mental significance , and therefore the answer is " Yes " . Relative to Mr . Hines ' motion , Attorney Barney stated that if the Board were to approve that motion , before the Board acts on the motion , the Board should deal with the environmental significance . Mr . Hines stated that it seems hardly likely that the Board is going to make a determination of anything other than a negative determination . He said he did not remember what the Board did . Mr . Hines said that if the SEQR paper was not signed , it is presumptive , we did not vote on it . Attorney Barney said he was looking at the minutes , and he said that he did not believe that the Board had ever gotten to that point . Mr . Hines inquired as to the correct procedure - table it until the next meeting and Mr . Bowlsby would not have to come back unless he wants to . Attorney Barney said that Part I is based upon two residential units , and now the Board is looking at something else . Attorney Barney said that it would be appropriate for a revised application , spelling out exactly what is going to be there , what is not going to be there , that that be presented and reviewed for its environmental significance from someone in the Planning Department , then that review come to this Board for action and then the motion for consideration would be before the Board . Mr . Hines asked once again to have his motion be tabled and the matter adjourned for the environmental quality review board . Attorney Barney said that he believes it should be clear that the submission of a revised application indicating precisely what is going to be there is required . Mr . Hines suggested that Roberta type up the motion because it is foolish if the Board votes on one , it will vote on the other . • Mr . Hines asked Mr . Bowlsby if he understands what is going on , and Mr . Bowlsby said that he was following the Board somewhat . Chairman Austen explained that the review was for a complete residential unit . Mr . Frost said that since the Board decided that it was not reviewing it as a dwelling unit , an environmental assessment has to be done for the accessory building . Attorney Barney said that the issue was a slightly different one . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12 , 1994 • He told Mr . Bowlsby he ought to bring in something that very clearly defines what ' s going to be in there in the way of eating , electrical , plumbing , all of the fixtures that normally go into a residential unit . Mr . Bowlsby said that he would like to have it clear to him , and Mr . Hines assured him that he would because Roberta will type up this part of the minutes before she plows through the rest of them . Mr . Bowlsby said that when he sees this , he will know what he is applying again for , and the Board assured him that he would . Mr . Hines said that Mr . Bowlsby would be applying for something that does not have a kitchen in it . Mr . Bowlsby asked what was meant by a kitchen , and it was explained to him that it meant cooking facilities so that if someone walks in there , they do not see a stove , refrigerator , blenders and toasters . Mr . Frost suggested that perhaps Mr . Bowlsby might want to seek counsel . Mr . Hines said that the deed has to be prepared . Mr . Frost asked if the Board would want to see a deed restriction at the next meeting or would a letter be just as satisfactory . Mr . , Hines said that it would be nice to wrap it all up at once , but Mr . Tavelli would like to see the resolution before he did the deed . Chairman Austen said there was a motion to table . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that Mr . Hines ' motion be tabled for a new environmental review based on an accessory structure on a non- conforming building lot and a clearly defined statement by Mr . Bowlsby as to what is going to be there in the way of heating , electrical , plumbing , all of the fixtures and that sort of thing that go into a residential unit and what is not going to be there . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Hines , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion to table the motion was carried unanimously . The last appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL ( Adjourned from November 10 , 1993 ) of Gary and Donna Hofstead Duffy, Appellants , requesting an interpretation as to the application of Article V , Section 19 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to the operation of the Little Brook Farms Horse Training Facility at 340 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 68- 1 -2 , Residence District R-30 . Should an interpretation be made that finds the operation in violation of said Ordinance , the Appellants then request a variance from Article V , Section 19 , Paragraph 6 , to be permitted to conduct a riding academy and a facility to board and train horses . Mr . King wanted the record to show that at the previous meeting this Board did adopt two resolutions , one of which was indicating that the use of the property was indeed in violation of Section 19 , Paragraph 6 of the Ordinance , and the second resolution adopted was that the present use is not a customary home occupation permitted under Section 19 , Paragraph 2 of the Ordinance . Mr . King said that at that point the Board is considering • the application for a variance to permit the conduct of the operations as now conducted . Chairman Austen stated that the Board now has the long environmental assessment form before them . Mr . Hines asked Attorney Geldenhuys if she had seen the environmental statement and she said she reviewed the statement , as well as , the Town ' s evaluation of the statement . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12 , 1994 • Mr . King stated Part I was prepared by the applicant , and Ms . Geldenhuys responded yes . Mr . King read the contents of the long environmental assessment form . Mr . King stated he did not fully understand who did the testing of the water from the creek because there were reports from Stearns & Wheler Engineers , Buck Environmental Laboratories , and from Novelli & Co Consulting Engineers . Attorney Geldenhuys stated Buck Environmental Consultants drilled the test sites where the samples were taken from and analyzed the results from the tests and these test results were sent to Novelli and to Stearns & Wheler , two separate engineering firms to analyze . Mr . King said Buck Environmental Laboratories actually took the samples from three different points , two from upstream and one from downstream of the facility . Mr . King asked if just one sample was taken and Attorney Geldenhuys responded yes . Mr . King discussed the attachments to the environmental assessment form . Mr . King said the Town Planning Department completed Parts II and III . He read their findings from the form . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the Appellants , Gary and Donna Duffy , at 340 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 68- 1 - 2 , and that the Board adopt as supportive findings : 1 ) The testimony of all the people who have spoken , as well as the letters which were written , that the operation of this facility is impeccable , pristine and unmatched and does not present any aesthetic or environmental impact on the community . 2 ) That the negligible coliform count indicated in one of the reports really is small . 3 ) That with the coliform count being the only negative factor of any of the evidence submitted , it not be sufficient to raise this to a level of a positive declaration or a conditional negative declaration . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Hines , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion carried for a negative determination of environmental significance . MOTION By Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED that the Board grant to the Appellants , Gary and Donna Duffy , a variance for the operation of the facility on 340 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 68- 1 - 2 as described in the testimonyin the application , with the following Pp g findings and conditions : Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12 , 1994 • 1 ) That the applicant engaged in the process of purchasing and substantially improving this property at great expense ( exact figures are in the record ) for the uses that they have since put the property to , with a building permit . 2 ) That under the bona fide belief in his own mind at least that he was engaging in a completely lawful activity and a hardship obviously has ensued . 3 ) That with the expenditures that he made , he now finds himself with a rather unique facility for which no reasonable economic use can be made for except for the purposes it ' s presently put to . 4 ) That this particular facility , although a complimentary residence , shows an economic activity that is not an obtrusive element in the neighborhood . It has an element of charm and creates a benefit of living in the community . It has no negative aspects in that respect . 5 ) That it fits in with the character of the neighborhood , aesthetically and otherwise . 6 ) That the use of the property is to be limited to the uses as described in the application and as represented to the Board , which is presently being made at the property , and that no expansion of that use be made , except marginally , beyond its present activity . 7 ) That the use be permitted to continue but only on the condition that the appli - cant obtain a written opinion from a qualified governmental agency as to the need and character of any remedial plantings , structures , facilities or programs to ameliorate potential pollution conditions which are present or may arise as a result of the operation . 8 ) That such program be implemented and that the nature of the program or facilities be furnished to the Building Commissioner for this Board ' s record . 9 ) The variance shall be limited in time to a period of seven years from the date hereof . However , in the event that the applicant does not present to this Board or file with the Building Commissioner an appropriate program within a period of six months that the variance will terminate at the end of that period of time . 10 ) That this should be operated as a show horse facility . 11 ) That counsel submit some standards by February 9 , 1994 . A decision was postponed so the appellant , with her counsel , can reappear before the Board with a document that sets forth limitations on the particulars for the specific uses on the property . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . • RESOLVED , that the Duffy matter be adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meeting . Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12 , 1994 • A vote on the motion to adjourn resulted as follows : AYES - Hines , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . The meeting was adjourned . 011 Polga I Roberta H . Komaromi Recording Secretary Edward Austen , Chairman • • FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , JANUARY 12 , 1994 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 12 , 1994 , 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 Michael Herzing , Appellant , requesting authorization by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Zoning Ordinance , to allow for the expansion of the gasoline dispensing facilities at Big Al ' s Hilltop Quikstop located at 1103 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43- 2 - 1 , Business District " C " . The expansion involves the installation of a canopy and fire suppression system above the gasoline dispensing pumps at said business . The business is a non- conforming use , as Business " C " zones do not permit gasoline sales stations . APPEAL of Thomas Bell , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VII , Section 38 and Article VII , Section 45 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to allow for the use of a retail / light industrial building / property with 25 automobile parking spaces available ( whereby 27 are required ) at 612 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33- 3- 2 . 8 , Light Industrial Zone . APPEAL ( Adjourned from June 9 , 1993 , May 12 , 1993 and March 24 , 1993 ) of David Bowlsby , Appellant , requesting a Special Approval under Article XII , Section 54 , and / or variances from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , and Article XIII , Section 68 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to have a second residential building on a non- conforming building lot located at 829 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 - 2 - 38 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Ordinance permits only one residential building on a parcel of land . The appellant proposes to maintain a building meeting the definition of a dwelling unit , on Cayuga Lake ( between the high water and low water mark ) , and use the building for personal accessory use . APPEAL ( Adjourned from November 10 , 1993 ) of Gary and Donna Hof stead Duffy , Appellants , requesting an interpretation as to the application of Article V . Section 19 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to the operation of the Little Brook Farms Horse Training Facility at 340 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 68- 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Should an interpretation be made that finds the operation in violation of said Ordinance , the Appellants then request a variance from Article V . Section 19 , Paragraph 6 , to be permitted to conduct a riding academy and a facility to board and train horses . 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- 1783 Dated : January 4 , 1994 Publish : January 7 , 1994