The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA History Combined (19) Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 66.-5-9.2 116 McIntyre Pl Tax Parcels involved, with address if known 116 McIntyre Pl 66.-5-9.2 with subdivision from 66.-5-9 into 66.-5-9.2 116 McIntyre Place and 66.-5-9.1 110 Judd Falls Road. No readdressing. History: 1998 – Area Variance to enclose a carport - Approved 1997 – Area Variance for addition – Approved 1977 – Area Variance for carport – Approved 1973 – Area Variance for subdivision and carport - Approved td. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1998 7:00 p.m. APPEAL of Timothy and Anne Benedict, Appellants, Mark Masler, Agent, requesting a variance form the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for an existing residential building to be maintained with a north side yard building setback of 14.6 feet (15 foot setback required), at 174 Lexington Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-12.10, Residence District R-15. APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Southern Tier Hospitality, dba Best Western University Inn, Owner/Applicant, Jagat P. Sharma, Agent, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article VII, Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for building renovations, including, but not limited to, the conversion of restaurant space to guest rooms, at the Best Western motel located at 1020 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 13.7, Business District C. A variance from Section 37 of said Ordinance is also required to allow structures to be less than 30 feet to the south side property line (I 0± feet proposed). Additionally, variances from sections 5.02-1, 5.02- 4, and 6.01-4 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law are also being requested to allow for the replacement of existing signs on the building's portico, which will also include new lighting. APPEAL GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Robert Blackeney, Agent, requesting a special approval form the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18, paragraph 3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the construction of new bleacher seats and lighting for the Alumni Field soccer field variance from Section 18, paragraph 10 is also being requested to allow for lighting to be mounted on 8 poles, 70 feet in height, whereas such structures are limited to a height of 30 feet. APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Dennis Wille, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the Conversion of a carport into enclosed living space with a north side yard building setback of 12 feet (15 foot setback required) at 212 Muriel Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70-1-7, Residence District R-15. APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Robert Summers, Appellant, Daniel Strawbridge, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enclose a carport, creating a garage with an east side building setback of 1.5 :t feet (10 foot setback required) at 116 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel NO. 66-5-9, Residence District R-15. APPEAL GRANTED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1998 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman David Stotz, Harry Ellsworth, Ronald Krantz, James Niefer, Kirk Sigel, Andrew Frost, Director Building/Zoning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner. OTHERS: Robert Blakeney, Cornell; Pat Graham, Cornell Athletics; Dan Strawbridge, Summers' Agent; Patricia Page Wille, 212 Muriel Street; Dorothy Summers, 116 McIntyre Place; John Gutenburger, Cornell University; Jagat P. Sharma, 312 East Seneca Street; Ruth Mahr, 103 Judd Falls Road; Mark Masler, Harris, Beach & Wilcox. Chairman Stotz called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m., stating that all posting, publication, and notification of the public hearing had been completed and were in the same order. The first appeal to be heard by the board was as follows: APPEAL of Timothy and Anne Benedict, Appellants, Mark Masler, Agent, requesting a variance form the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow fro an existing residential building to be maintained with a north side yard building setback of 14.6 feet (15 foot setback required), at 174 Lexington Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-12.10, Residence District R-15. Mark Masler, Harris, Beach & Wilcox, stated it was discovered during refinancing that the house technically violates the side yard requirement in R-15. He is requesting an area variance to correct the area deficiency. It has existed for many years. The original survey showed the side yard as 15 ± feet. A more accurate survey showed it was less than 15 feet. Mr. Masler would like to obtain a variance to correct the problem. The house is located approximately 19 feet from the adjoining property owners Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. With no person present to be heard, Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing, MOTION Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Timothy and Anne Benedict, requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for an existing residential building to be maintained with a north side yard building setback of 14.6 feet (15 foot setback required), at 174 Lexington Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-12.10, Residence District R-15. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. ABSTENTION: None. ; ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -JANUARY 13, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED The motion carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard was as follows: APPEAL of Dennis Wille, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the Conversion of a carport into enclosed living space with a north side yard building setback of 12 feet (15 foot setback required) at 212 Muriel Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70-1-7, Residence District R-15. Patricia Page, 212 Muriel Street, stated the carport will not be entirely enclosed. They are enclosing ten foot distance into the carport. The back of the carport will still be able to house our cars. Mr. Wille is an artist and gave up his studio for a bedroom. They have been waiting to build a new studio for Mr. Wille. Mr. Ellsworth asked where Mr. Wille has been working. Ms. Page stated he is working in an area the size of a closet. Chairman Stotz asked if the entire carport will become a habitable space. Ms. Page responded only the back section of the carport. Chairman Stotz asked if the room would have bathroom facilities. Ms, Page stated they would like to, but it is in the future. It would be done within the time frame of the building permit if they are able to . Chairman Stotz asked if the carport is attached to the house. Ms. Page responded it is attached to the side of the house. Chairman Stotz asked if there are future plans for kitchen facilities. Ms. Page replied no. It will only be a studio. Attorney Barney asked when Ms. Page acquired the property. Ms. Page answered they acquired the property five years ago. They bought from the people who had bought from the Burmans. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard.. With no members of the public wishing to be heard, Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing. Andrew Frost, Director Building/Zoning, stated in the packet there is a copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals variance that was granted in the 1970s. This variance was for a porch that was being added to the back of the house. The variance allowed for a twelve foot setback rather than 15 foot setback as required. Item number three within ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -JANUARY 13, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED the minutes of that variance they mentioned the carport. The variance was not granted for the carport and the carport could be ten feet from the side yard setback. Since it is being converted to living space it needs the 15 foot setback. Attorney Barney asked if the porch is enclosed as part of the house. Ms. Page replied she thinks Attorney Barney is referring to the enclosed family room. Mr. Ellsworth asked if twelve feet would be enough for the setback. Ms. Page responded yes, MOTION Ronald Krantz, seconded James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Dennis Wille, requesting a variance form the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the partial conversion of a carport into enclosed living space with a north side yard building setback of I I feet (15 foot setback required) at 212 Muriel Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70-1-7, Residence District R-15. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. ABSTENTION: None. The third appeal to be heard was as follows: APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Robert Blakeney, Agent, requesting a special approval form the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18, paragraph 3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the construction of new bleacher seats and lighting for the Alumni Field soccer field variance from Section 18, paragraph 10 is also being requested to allow for lighting to be mounted on 8 poles, 70 feet in height, whereas such structures are limited to a height of 30 feet. Robert Blakeney, Cornell University, stated he is the project manager for the Alumni Field Bleachers and Lighting project. Cornell University is requesting a special use approval for both the bleachers and field lights. The field lights also require a height variance, More than a year ago this project was presented to this board. At that time there was not a proposal for bleachers. Prior to that presentation there was a proposal to construct 3500 bleacher seats on this field. They were to be temporary. The current proposal calls for 1600 permanent bleacher seats to be constructed along the west side of the track and soccer field. They were illustrated on a drawing Mr. Blakeney presented to the board and is in the board's packet. In addition, over a year ago Cornell University's proposal for the lighting consisted of four fixtures located at the four corners of the field. Two of which were 120 feet and two at 140 feet tall. They were to be angled from the four corners onto the field. There was further discussion that these four light poles be reduced to 110 feet in height. At that time the level of illumination plan for the field was in the range of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - JANUARY 1.3, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED 90-100 foot candles. Since that time they have significantly modified the proposal. It now consists of eight light poles in seventy feet in height. The level of illumination for the field has been reduced to sixty foot candles. The eight light poles will be located four on each side and oriented in an easterly/westerly direction. They are planning on using muscow light fixtures, level eight optional spill or glare control, or equal. Mr. Blakeney stated they will be competitively bidding the project. Cornell University has retained outside consultants for this project. Chairman Stotz stated included in the packet were drawings of the lights and bleachers. Has anything changed? Mr. Blakeney replied there has not been changes. Within the University there was considerable discussion about placing bleachers on this field. The proposal is one which provides for a every long linear configuration of bleachers. The back side will be screened behind brick masonry wall, Mr. Ellsworth asked what was represented in orange. Mr. Blakeney stated the view is looking from the west to the east. Chairman Stotz asked the board if they remembered the discussion of rather this field would be lit. Mr. Frost replied Schoellkopf was before the Zoning Board of Appeals. George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner, stated in and soccer field. 1996, the University received approval to build the track Chairman Stotz stated at that time there were no plans for lighting, Mr. Frantz stated in 1997, they made an application for a special approval for lighting. Mr. Frost stated Cornell University was before the board requesting a variance for lighting and was not approved. Mr. Krantz stated in the plan presented it was for up to ten lights with poles up to 240 feet. Cornell is to be commended for retrofitting the lights at Schoellkopf Field and have become far less of a problem for people on West Hill, Mr. Niefer stated on the adjacent field there are three rows of lights with one row empty. With the design of the light poles for this field, are the lighting banks completely filled, Mr. Blakeney stated he did not know of any design intent that would provide extra space for additional fixtures, The number of fixtures will depend upon the actual wattage of the lamp that is used. The wattage for this kind of lighting is available in 1500, 1650, 2000 watt fixtures. Cornell will be achieving 60 foot candles of illumination. Mr. Sigel asked what the reason is for the change in the proposal. Mr. Blakeney replied it was in response to the concerns of neighbors and the Zoning Board of Appeals. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 5 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 13, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairman Stotz asked if the lights will be shielded to a degree by the bleachers, Mr. Blakeney responded no. The are eight bleacher rows. Some of the earlier bleacher configurations concentrated on the center portion of the field. They were much higher. Their intent was to have very low bleachers. Mr. Sigel asked what the hours of use will be. Mr. Blakeney stated the track facility is used on average five times per year in the spring which are daytime events. In the fall, there are approximately twenty-five soccer events which includes both men and women. Most of those would be after dark events. Attorney Barney asked how late do the events run. Pat Graham, Cornell Athletics, stated no later than 11:00 p.m. Chairman Stotz stated at times there will be 1600 congregating at the field. Has any thought been given to the traffic flow. Mr. Blakeney stated at this time the road will remain as it is. There is long range planning in discussion that might suggest the configuration be improved. Mr. Ellsworth asked when the twenty-five event will take place. Mr. Graham stated soccer season starts approximately September 21 and are usually done by November 5. Attorney Barney asked if they occur the same day as football games. Mr. Graham replied there may be one or two times. If they have lights they may have those games on Friday night and football on Saturday, Many of the people coming to the games will be students. They will be walking over or using the bus system. Chairman Stotz asked what is being planned for handicap access. Mr. Blakeney stated the bleachers will be handicap accessible. At the south end there is a handicap ramp and parking spaces will be striped. Chairman Stotz asked if four handicap parking spaces would be adequate for 1600 people. Mr. Blakeney responded they could easily stripe additional spaces. Mr. Niefer asked where the orange appeal sign posted. Mr. Graham stated on the outside of the fence of the stadium. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 6 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - JANUARY I3, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Chairman Stotz asked if there are any plans for lit score boards. Mr. Graham answered there is a score board on site and is in the southeast comer. Mr. Niefer asked if restroom facilities will be available. Mr. Graham stated there would not be restroom facilities in the complex Chairman Stotz asked where people could use the bathroom. Mr. Graham replied the Field House is open during all events. There will be signs directing people. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. Ruth Mahr, 103 Judd Falls Road, stated this field has a direct line of sight to her house. Ms. Mahr read from a prepared statement. See Attachment # 1. Chairman Stotz asked if Ms. Mahr's concerns had to deal with traffic only. Ms. Mahr stated she is concerned with the traffic and the lights. She found out about the project one working day before the decision was to be made. She believes the decision of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board was conditioned on information provided by town staff. That information was incomplete and incorrect. The Planning Board passed the matter onto the Zoning Board of Appeals and was passed based on the information they had. If it is the same information she has, it was not enough to say there was not going to be a significant impact. Mr. Krantz asked if she has a consensus among the neighbors. Ms. Mahr replied she has not had time. She did not know this meeting was happening until another Forest Home resident called her, Mr. Frantz stated the policy that the notices of the meeting are sent to the adjoining property owners and mailed out the Wednesday or Thursday before the Planning Board meeting. Chairman Stotz asked if Ms. Mahr was concerned because there may be an illuminated sky. Ms. Mahr stated yes. She would need to wait and see if she would have direct glare. Attorney Barney stated there are lights on Alumni Field, Ms, Mahr stated those lights do not bother her, but these are additional lighting to the east of what is present. Mr. Frantz stated these lights are ten feet higher than the existing. He did spend several hours looking at this issue again and confirming his original assessment. It is always good to have someone question your findings. Mr. Frantz explained there is a difference in elevation. It is not as great as the board may think because there is a substantial drop-off into the hollow where the Plantations headquarters is. There is also a twenty foot rise from the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JANUARY 13, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Plantations Headquarters to Judd Falls Road. Between the south end of Forest Home and Alumni Field there are the Conifer Tree, To the south along Tower Road there are Oak Trees 35-40 feet high. Based on the trees between Forest Home and the field, the fact the lights are faced away from Forest Home, there will not be significant adverse impact on the residents of Forest Home. This is because of the trees and the direction of the lights. The tops of the lights may be visible from the rear. At the most they may see the top 10-12 feet of the light poles. This would be of the southern most pole. Mr. Ellsworth asked if the light pole would be seen above the trees. Mr. Frantz responded that the pole would be seen through the trees. At some point the leaves will drop. The two most northerly lights will be blocked by the conifers, Chairman Stotz asked if the conifers were not present, what would the assessment be, Mr, Frantz replied his assessment would be much different because the conifers provide a substantial screen. Mr. Ellsworth asked what is the assessment on traffic. Mr. Frantz stated in the Environmental Assessment Form the Planning Board had before them, as before the Zoning Board of Appeals, the staffs statement is in the first paragraph under C-1. There are no significant adverse impact. There is documentation in the Environmental Assessment Form backing up the statement. One of the reasons staff did not go into traffic impact in this review was it was an impact that was addressed when the track and soccer complex was approved in 1996. In 1996, in that Environmental Assessment Form staff stated, "No significant adverse impacts to existing traffic patterns are anticipated. Although normal use by University track teams and other users is not expected to generate any significant increases in traffic, there is potential for significant short -duration increases in traffic levels when the University hosts large-scale track and field events. However such events are expected to take place only a few times each year." "Aso, the proposed complex is located adjacent to the existing Schoellkopf Stadium/Fieldhouse/I_inah Knk/Barton Hall athletics complex and the attendant University owned and maintained street, parking, transit and pedestrian facilities which serve those facilities, and which are also expected to serve this facility." "Given the location of the proposed complex, the existing traffic and pedestrian facilities, and the University's traditional traffic control measures enacted during large scale athletic events on the campus, no significant adverse impacts to existing traffic patterns are anticipated as a result of the proposed action." Mr. Frantz state the Planning Board appended this statement to the November 17, 1998, Environmental Assessment Form. Chairman Stotz asked is there any assurance that there will not be overlapping large athletic events. Mr. Graham replied that he could not see where they would have the field house and this complex filled at the same time, Volleyball is the only program run during the fall in the Fieldhouse that would be drawing spectators for. In the past they have not drawn 1500 people in the event, There may be a day they would have a soccer ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 8 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUAR Y 13, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED game, but normally if they host a soccer game on a football day it is at 11:00 a.m, or 3:00 p.m. This prevents a made rush of traffic. Mr. Frantz stated staff was thinking of Empire State games, Special Olympics and the Heptagonals. Mr. Graham stated they are only allowed the host the Heptagonals every six years. Mr. Krantz stated between tournaments, playoffs, scheduling conflicts and outside activities, eventually two programs will be running at the same time, Mr. Frantz stated the reason they are not concerned about potential traffic impacts is because they are talking about two athletic activities that are long standing at the University. There is going to be some possible expansion. Chairman Stotz stated the attendance at soccer games is not close to 1600. There is some reason why a 1600 seat stadium instead of 500. Mr. Graham stated if they have a winning program and are in the running of the IV League title there will be more student body coming to the games. Mr. Ellsworth asked if there is a requirement to when residents need to be notified. Attorney Barney stated the requirement is a five day notice. There is no legal requirement of notice of mailing for surrounding neighbors. It is a policy of courtesy for the Town to mail out notices five days in advance. The only legal notice is the publication in the Ithaca Journal, Ms. Mahr stated rather there will be significant traffic impacts or significant lighting impacts, is not known. How is significant impact of traffic measured on a community that is already over burdened with traffic. One car more is a significant impact. Regardless of all the details, is this use consistent with R-30 or not? Chairman Stotz closed the public as there were no other persons wishing to be heard. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mr. Frantz stated staff recommends a negative determination of environmental significance. Mr. Sigel asked if there are any events in Cornell University that produces enough traffic in the area that Town staff considers it to be a problem. Mr. Frantz stated Cornell University has caused traffic problems in Forest Home. This is one of the staffs problems. Staff fully acknowledges that Forest Home has a critical problem as far as traffic. These are activities that have been ongoing for many years. They are not dismissing the fact that Forest Home has a major traffic problem, at the same time, this proposal will not have significant adverse impacts, Mr. Frost stated there are many different outlets leaving the field. Not everyone will not be leaving in the same direction. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 9 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -JANUARY 13, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Sigel stated adding small impacts adds up. At some point something will need to be done. Attorney Barney stated Cornell University is trying to do something. That is what the Northeast Transit is about. There is a problem in Forest Home, but that is because the institution is there. The way to get rid of the traffic is to eliminate the institution. The other alternative is to tell the University to stop growing. This proposal was originally 3500 seats and has been reduced to 1600 seats. Comparing the two, traffic impacts are reduced. Mr. Frantz stated the solution could be to eliminate the section of Judd Falls Road from Plantation Road to Tower Road. It would not be popular, but it would protect Forest Home. MOTION David Stotz, Seconded Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Cornell University, requesting special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18, paragraph 3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the construction of new bleacher seats and lighting for the Alumni Field soccer field at Cornell University, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 63-1-8.2 and 67-1-13.2, Residence District R-15. A variance from Section 18, paragraph 10 is also being requested to allow for lighting to be mounted on 8 poles, 70 feet in height, whereas such structures are limited to a height of 30 feet. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. ABSTENTION: None. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION Ronald Krantz, Seconded Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Cornell University requesting a variance from Section 18, paragraph 10 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance to construct no more than 8 poles not to exceed 70 feet in height with no more than 12 lighting fixtures per pole on the field where such structures are normally limited in height to 30 feet, at Aumni Field Cornell University, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63-1-8.2 and 67-1-13.2, Residence District R-15, with the following conditions: a. the lighting on the poles produce no more than 60 foot candles of illumination on the surface of the playing field, b4 every attempt be made under normal circumstances to have the lights be turned off by 11:00 p.m., and under no circumstances should the lights be on beyond 11:00 p.m. more than four times in a calendar year, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED -JANUARY 13, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED C, and Cornell University make every reasonable effort be made to maintain the mature Conifer Trees that serve as a buffer between the field and Forest Home residents. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. ABSTENTION: None. The motion carried unanimously. OTION Ronald Krantz, Seconded Kirk Sigel. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Cornell University requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18, paragraph 3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the construction of approximately 1600 new bleacher seats and lighting for the Alumni Field soccer field at Cornell University, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63-1-8.2 and 67-1-13,2, Residence District R 15, with the following condition: a. The lighting conditions approved in the variance apply to the special approval, b, approval is subject to the same conditions as the November 17, 1998, Planning Board Resolution, C, and Cornell University will do everything possible to avoid scheduling two major athletic events in the Field house and Alumni Field. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Sigel. NAYS: None. ABSTENTION: Niefer. The motion carried. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows: APPEAL of Southern Tier Hospitality, dba Best Western University Inn, Owner/Applicant, Jagat P. Sharma, Agent, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article VII, Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for building renovations, including, but not limited to, the conversion of restaurant space to guest rooms, at the Best Western motel located at 1020 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel NO. 62-2- 13.7, Business District C. A variance form Section 37 of said Ordinance is also required to allow structures to be less Y ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS I I DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JANUARY 13, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED than 30 feet to the south side property line (10± feet proposed). Additionally, variances from sections 5.02-1, 5.02- 4, and 6,01-4 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law are also being requested to allow for the replacement of existing signs on the building's portico, which will also include new lighting. Jagat P. Sharma, Seneca Street, stated they are asking for special approval for interior modifications to Best Western. Also asking variances for side yard and sign ordinance. They submitted several renderings and he mounted the drawings on a board. Best Western has four buildings, A, B, C, D. The main component of interior modifications will be constructed in Building A.. The second component is the relocation and design of the sign. The third is eliminating the breakfast room and adding another guest room in Building B and redoing the fencing around the pool. Building A is a two story building and previously housed Dunkin' Donuts and Checkers Restaurant in the lower level. They have gone out of business and it is vacant space. The vacant space is being converted into seven additional guest rooms. The rendering compares the existing first floor and the proposed first floor. The upper level will have one guest room added and two removed. The main lobby and administration desk will be redone. There used to be an interior stairway on the corner of the buildings. It will be removed and converted to two guest rooms, one on each level. To provide a second means of egress from the two floors they are creating a retaining wall and exit at the east end of the building. They are changing the window locations and the front of the building will undergo minor changes, Mr. Sharma stated a color rendering was submitted of the west side of the building. The window marked in red is rearranged to meet the new layout of the new guest rooms and conference room. There will be a red stucco on the facade because they want to match the brick. He explained two new window will be added on the east side of the building. As shown in the photographs the present sign is mounted on top of the covered canopy. There are two signs side by side. The signs are hardly seen from the parking lot. Many times people are within the same plaza and need to call to find the hotel. They are proposing to create a new structure in front of the canopy. The signs will be relocated vertically on the portico, The second is to highlight the portico in fiber optic lighting. This will not be more lighting. The sign ordinance does not permit fiber optic lighting. Fiber optic lighting did not exist at that time. Flood lighting would cause glare for traffic in the driveway. The Planning Board recommended the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the fiber optic lighting. Attorney Barney stated the Planning Board denied the request and the Zoning Board of Appeals can not overrule the site plan decision. Mr. Sharma stated he understood the Zoning Board of Appeals can approve it and then they would need to go back to the Planning Board. Christine Balestra, Planner, stated Mr, Sharma had spoken with Jonathan Kanter about it. If the Zoning Board of Appeals does approve the lighting, then he would need to go back to the Planning Board for modification of the site plan approval. Mr. Sharma stated this is a less intrusive way of lighting. The hotel is located in a parking lot, not a neighborhood. They are a far distance away from residence. Best Western would like to change the fence. Presently it has wired fence. They have not chosen fence design. They are asking a special permit for the construction of the project and variances for the side yard and sign ordinance. Chairman Stotz asked if the sign will be back lit. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 12 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED-�4NUARY 13, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED higher? Mr. Sharma responded yes. It will be internally lit. Chairman Stotz stated the sign would be higher than the current sign. What is the purpose of having the sign Mr. Sharma stated the sign is higher so that it can be seen. Mr. Sigel stated the proposed sign looks like a wall sign. Attorney Barney stated the roof pitches is and the sign is vertical. By the Sign Ordinance definition, it is not a wall sign. A wall sign is flush along the wall. sign. sign. lighting. Chairman Stotz asked if the new sign is a wall sign. Attorney Barney stated it will still be a projecting sign because it will mounted in the same way the current Mr. Sigel stated the old sign appears more clearly to be a projecting sign. The new sign is closer to a wall Mr. Frost stated a wall sign is an exterior wall of a building or structure. Attorney Barney asked if the sign would be mounted flush to the portico. Mr. Sharma stated it will be flush, but it will brace with the roof. Mr. Frost stated it will be an angle from the roof which makes it a projecting sign. The larger issue is the Chairman Stotz asked if there will be an interior entrance for the guest besides the exterior staircase. Mr. Sharma stated there will be another interior stairway connecting the two levels. The second exit is an emergency exit. There will be landscaping around the area. Chairman Stotz asked if there will be an alarm system on the exit. Mr. Sharma stated yes. Chairman Stotz asked if there have been any concerns from their neighbors. Mr. Sharma stated he is unaware of any. Mr. Niefer asked where the notice sign is posted. Mr. Sharma replied it is on the Ellis Hollow entry way. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 13 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 13, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing. Chairman Stotz stated one of the big issues is setting a precedence for fiber optic lighting. It outlines buildings and some people find it intrusive. Mr. Sharma stated it is expensive lighting so not everyone will want to have it. Mr. Sigel stated he does not find it attractive to see buildings framed. It is fine at Disney World or during Christmas. The benefit of fiber optic lighting is the applicant will be able to direct people by the red/green outline. Chairman Stotz stated there will be more visibility from the roadway with the sign being raised. Is most of the traffic looking for the hotel on Ellis Hollow Road. Where are people getting lost? Mr. Sharma stated in the parking lot. They can not find the sign at night. Mr. Frantz stated one problem the motel faces is the Town's prohibition against off premises signs. Otherwise it would be to their benefit to have a sign at the intersection of Ellis Hollow and Summerhill Roads. That is not what the Town would like to see. Chairman Stotz stated the new sign is much nicer than the old. Mr. Sigel asked what the Town's law is regarding landscape lighting, Ms. Balestra stated there can be flood lights facing the building. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Ms. Balestra stated the modification are interior. Overall staff' recommends a negative determination of environmental significance. The main issue is the fiber optic lighting. The Planning Board recommended denial of the illumination. There are no environmental concerns associated with the retaining wall, drainage and landscaping. Chairman Stotz asked how the fiber optic lighting would set a precedence. This proposal is in a shopping center. Ms. Balestra stated neon lights are prohibited in the Town of Ithaca. This is a new type of lighting, but is clearly prohibited in the sign law. It is the fear that allowing this particular use to have this type of lighting might encourage other businesses in the shopping center to use this type of lighting. Chairman Stotz stated fiber optic lighting is unintrusive and can not be compared with neon lighting. It is also in a shopping center. Ms. Balestra stated this proposal may not cause problems, but the accumulative affect of this lighting could. There is a current proposal to be placed in East Hill Plaza that is also proposing this type of lighting. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 14 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED -JANUARY 13, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Mr. Frantz asked what the wattage is. Mr, Sharma responded he did not know. Chairman Stotz stated the answer may be for the Town to look at these new technologies and state where they are appropriate. Ms. Balestra stated it is an issue of aesthetics and whether or not it is in character with the shopping plaza. MOTION Harry Ellsworth, Seconded James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination in the matter of Southern Tier Hospitality, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article VII, Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for building renovations. A variance from Section 37 of said Ordinance is also required to allow structures to be less than 30 feet to the south side property line (I 0± feet proposed). Also being requested to allow for the replacement of existing signs on the building's portico, which will also include new lighting. Additionally, variances from sections 5.02-1, 5.02-4, and 6.01-4 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law at 1020 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2-13.7, Business District C. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. ABSTENTION: NONE. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION Kirk Sigel, Seconded James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Southern Tier Hospitality, dba Best Western University Inn, requesting a variance from Section 37 of the Zoning Ordinance, to be allowed to maintain a structure (Building A as proposed in the submitted plans) to be no less than 9 feet from the south side property line (30 feet required) located at 1020 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2-13.7, Business District C. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NAYS: None, ABSTENTION: NONE. The motion carried unanimously. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 15 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JANUARY 13, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Ellsworth stated the Planning Board denied the lighting. If this board accepts the lighting there is not a legal problem. Attorney Barney stated the Zoning Board of Appeals could grant the variance from the sign ordinance. The Zoning Board of Appeals can not overrule the site plan determination made by the Planning Board. The site plan determination is specific there is to be no lighting. If the variance is granted, the applicant can go before the Planning Board and ask to have the site plan approval modified. MOTION David Stotz, Seconded James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Southern Tier Hospitality, dba Best Western University Inn requesting the replacement of the existing sign on the new portico which also includes new lighting in accordance with the recommendation of Planning Board November 1, 1998 Resolution. That this board denies the request for fiber optic lighting outlining the building and features of the building, located at 1020 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2-13.7, Business District C. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: Krantz. ABSTENTIONS: Ellsworth. The motion carried. MOTION Harry Ellsworth, Seconded Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Southern Tier Hospitality, dba Best Western University Inn, requesting a special approval for allowing building renovations to the conversion of existing spaces to guest rooms as submitted in the plans subject to all conditions and findings with the two prior resolutions, located at 1020 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2-13.7, Business District C. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: NONE, ABSTENTIONS: NONE. The motion carried unanimously. The fifth appeal to be heard was as follows: ft ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JANUARY 13, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED APPEAL of Robert Summers, Appellant, Daniel Strawbridge, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enclose a carport, creating a garage with an east side building setback of 1.5 ± feet (10 foot setback required) at 116 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel NO. 66-5-9, Residence District R-15. Dorothy Summers, 116 McIntyre Place, stated they are requesting to enclose their existing carport. The carport was erected by the previous owners in 1973. They are intending to only enclose the sides and erect a single large garage door matching the existing siding. Ms. Summers stated they will retain the hedge on the east side. Mr. Frost stated this property involved previous Zoning Board of Appeals actions. There was subdivision approval to allow a carport. Since the carport is becoming a garage, the Town wanted to make sure the applicant requested the appropriate variances. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing. walls? Chairman Stotz stated it is much more pleasant than a carport. Will anything be done beside putting up Ms. Summers stated no. It will be the same foot print. There will be an electric garage door opener. Chairman Stotz asked how the applicant planned on finishing the exterior, Ms. Summers stated they were going to match the existing exterior. Chairman Stotz asked if the neighbors had any complaints. Ms. Summers stated she was unaware of any concerns. Chairman Stotz asked if there will be outside lighting. Ms. Summers responded no. There is current lighting outside the carport. They would have a light on the interior of the garage. MOTION Harry Ellsworth, Seconded James Nieifer, RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Robert Summers, requesting a variance form the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enclose a carport, creating a garage with and east side building setback of approximately 1.5 feet (10 foot setback required) at 116 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-5-9, Residence District R-15, with the following condition: a. The garage be constructed in accordance with the drawings provided, siding be as specified and match the existing siding of the garage. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 17 DECEMBER 9, 1998 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JANUARY 13,, 1999 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: NONE. ABSTENTIONS: NONE. The motion carried unanimously, OTHER BUSINESS: Recommendation of the 1999 Zoning Board of Appeals Chair to the Town Board, MOTION Harry Ellsworth, Seconded Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board recommend David Stotz be appointed as the 1999 Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson, AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS; NONE, ABSTENTIONS: Stotz. The motion carried. Chairman Stotz adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p,m. Date- December 9, 199a3 To.- Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From- Ruth H IIa.hr . 103 Judd Falls Rd. Re- Variance for lights on Cornell UniverSit r, Alumni Field I would like to enter into the record some concerns in+ ernes• regarding process issues in this matter. 1. As a. resident. who will be affected b j this proposal: I receiJ;ed notice of it one working da.;T bef ore the f ilial ;approval by the- Tom3 a Flanninq Board. e. I was 2101 pre ileged to see the justification for Toilrn st.a.f f ' s determination of no significant impact regarding traffic impacts. This information Tris deleted from the Environmental Assessment Form and entered only following my complaint on this matter to the Planning Board. :j. AS a long-time resident, property -owner, and taxpaver false in the if TaTrn staff has no obje tiY- Town, I believe that a. function of the Zoning ordinance i�: to offer measure 'significant" impact.: it public. protection to property owners relative to USES in their opinion is not sought- in t-imel37 fashion.- and if the Zoning Beard of neiahborhoods. The fy.ct that this project is located in an R -,u obligation to uphold the zoning ordinance lone Trould seem to offer me reasonable assurance that se-?ent;: foot light poles would not be erected within a block: and a half of my house.. which is also in an R-30 zone. 4. I further believe that a function of the Fla.nnina Board and the Zoning Board of A�+�1e: 1S• i s to protectthe pub 14r int.erect 121 Ittit.t.er8 that come before it. Trii:s will not, transpire if eni,%,iXonuental assessments are false or incomplete.. if TaTrn staff has no obje tiY- criterion b;. which to measure 'significant" impact.: it public. opinion is not sought- in t-imel37 fashion.- and if the Zoning Beard of Appeala, taf.es lightly it -3 obligation to uphold the zoning ordinance ATTACHMENT #1 of this Toxm. IAV 5. I do not feel that the procedures followed in this case sof f ered me or gather members of the public the protectitri:r t I would expect from Tl7un government, 6"A -Ci 1 wv�-tai w�� r� +.. V fv uv-�a ;, t44 a •h.L--.._a- L�Ic� ., �a SUM�+eRS /16 . Mc. I ��,a pl. fir': I% • *y - . U. X11✓,,, .,� iy��+, ,�, r -i' m Having be at TOWN OF ITHACA 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1.783 S PEC IAL APPROVAL A P P E A L to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York informed that authorization is required to: L ,J FEE: $100.0 RECEIVED : Paz CASH CHECK ZONING: For Office Use Only , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents. Special Approval authorization is requested pursuant to: Articles) Section(s) WA of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this request for Special Approval authorization. (Additional sheet ay be attached as n cess -111r ,) Aq r.. � ��` w 'e%A C1C3'Y' % � _ By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my Signature of Owner/Appellant: Signature of Appellant/Agent: Print Name Here: Ioelhvii inspect in connection with my application. .Date Date: Home Telephone Number:Work Telephone _ v 77C ld'r�"f Number: L NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any approvals given does not commence within 18 months, the approval will eLcpire. STRAWBRIDGE & JAHN, INC. 715 Willow Avenue Ithaca, NEW YORK 14850 (607) 272-5923 JOB SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY _ SCALE t Ill OF _ DATE DATE • a M AcA"ET 1 C 1 C) O w %A e Q; a �-� n lot PIN 5eat I G .— s. Slee 0[2 OLD F1zNcerosT p S �•-t1' W X19 p \gee b P o � r- ('' S! s, v J1 t1! {• 1.(.':'i•14�.i 4 t 1. ' WAgNIN A1.TTIr�TON/"TO ..Tills MAI 'NOT z'> eoNrORMIN4 y :'T'O �. ♦tl r,rynY.+rrM. AUDOIVRI0`1 I. N. T. .STATIC IAW, ARF ►IIONINIT Co ST LAW, .'^AIL CromrICATIONS N[NroN AAE VALID ►Oq THIS MAP AND CO►Ip Trll'DEO► Dirty 1► SAID MAF ON COrI[S SCAII TN[ INPgSSS10N S[AL OF TM[ LICUIS[D [ANO :UgV':ypq Mt,vah UiONA• TV119A►r[AN1 N[proN• T elly �v 1.l E 10 w N 700051, 119.81 0 uI a T N x i LU -11 W 6` _+ r N o in W oe t1! {• 1.(.':'i•14�.i 4 t 1. ' WAgNIN A1.TTIr�TON/"TO ..Tills MAI 'NOT z'> eoNrORMIN4 y :'T'O �. ♦tl r,rynY.+rrM. AUDOIVRI0`1 I. N. T. .STATIC IAW, ARF ►IIONINIT Co ST LAW, .'^AIL CromrICATIONS N[NroN AAE VALID ►Oq THIS MAP AND CO►Ip Trll'DEO► Dirty 1► SAID MAF ON COrI[S SCAII TN[ INPgSSS10N S[AL OF TM[ LICUIS[D [ANO :UgV':ypq Mt,vah UiONA• TV119A►r[AN1 N[proN• T elly �v 1.l E 10 w N 700051, 119.81 0 uI a T N x i LU -11 1Oz. 0 O' NET LE. to 1.AcLUV6 IV ELV S OTO�. Ro�DA, tivjA � %V41E R o nv �` R y vwl NewsmenL J u vole oFrvEt, No. II(o NT`(ZE e /S (l. Arty •. 0 CO3 tile P\ I �1 rto off sUY MA.P 1 PLACE & 110.110 JUDO FALLS IZ.OA1 LOCATED IN FOREST WOMC,*MIL• LOT 97. 'TOW1.1 0� 1� NACA,iOI�PKINS COUNT`(, N•`;. MAY 15, 10'13 SCALE II`=COI Tv4OMAS. ca. MILLZVZ sNGIwEuv, NWO 6U1V4E`(0K 1QT H#NcAj"EW YORK I " • ew0 f4 ' i to in W z T m N 1Oz. 0 O' NET LE. to 1.AcLUV6 IV ELV S OTO�. Ro�DA, tivjA � %V41E R o nv �` R y vwl NewsmenL J u vole oFrvEt, No. II(o NT`(ZE e /S (l. Arty •. 0 CO3 tile P\ I �1 rto off sUY MA.P 1 PLACE & 110.110 JUDO FALLS IZ.OA1 LOCATED IN FOREST WOMC,*MIL• LOT 97. 'TOW1.1 0� 1� NACA,iOI�PKINS COUNT`(, N•`;. MAY 15, 10'13 SCALE II`=COI Tv4OMAS. ca. MILLZVZ sNGIwEuv, NWO 6U1V4E`(0K 1QT H#NcAj"EW YORK I " • ew0 f4 ' i • V O a iJ - rIF L r aa� di' .a 11 rA lot so :u.. • s� v c m A : sat- .. •u A:J 1 CY)O lti' • • 1 8 ' .::+ - { paFF rw • : m r.�:T;' ?fit � .,w • � � • i � Cb m• ,A'• tJ in r ;;iF Nk-rm, •�s_:r,, c.r -- ' •^' ' 11 „tui+::'•D -OF IV r tl� Efl PI OFF, FFFFF i m to i �A FOOL /• \ 04 It% I OFF. OFF Jab �1101 C" 5 SY � / ,t �' .dam % % OF OF wt LL , ..FF. / 0 r�P rillr i rV , • .4 0\a v �•` N r a ;:'srr': •� n rr _ �...�...✓� OFF_.. ... _... .. rh .`.am •a • OF. •w Q •� @� i'..FOOb y m fl y: t 3 n. � NOF M. N s i'• am Y e V Y Or CDOF S iflr -arr •V, ? R y �iN OF OF N R N m eo. •, �d.i; d it 3.212 s a ri Mod Q� OFF, OFF. R a` •Y, �•� a � f1 � N i • F. in Fy o w e, '4t�i✓ .;' �J 4 .S N QI �P B ;r a (T1 -4 �. 9'ri'{i�, N •�N la % TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 119 1997 The,following appeals were heard by the board on June 11, 1997: ow► • APPEAL of Dorothy and George Allen, Appellants, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct 576 +/- square feet of additional living space on the east side of a nonconforming single- family residence located at 138 Indian Creek Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22-2-9, Residence District R-30. The building is nonconforming with a 31.5 +/- foot west side building setback (40 feet required) and will have a 22.5 foot east side setback (40 feet required). A variance from Article V, Section 21 may also be requested. GRANTED APPEAL of Carolyn Grigoro, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article X -A, Section 50 F and H of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be able to create, by subdivision, a parcel of land not fronting on a Town, County, or State Highway, nor having a front yard, within the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 51-1-3.2 off of Coddington Road. A variance from the requirements of Section 280-A of New York State Town Law may also be requested. GRANTED APPEAL of Dorothy and Robert Summers, Owner, Daniel J. Strawbridge, Appellant/Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge a nonconforming residential building/lot with a 14 x 16 foot addition to be added to the rear of an existing residence at 116 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-5-.92, Residence District R-15. Said building/lot is nonconforming since there is a 22 foot rear yard building setback (30 foot setback required) with said addition reducing the setback to 8 +/- feet. Additionally, the parcel is 11,343 +/- square feet in area (15,000 square feet required). GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS APPEAL of Dick and Mary Cogger, Owner, Ralph Vam, Appellant/Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct an observation loft on an existing residential building at 14 Dove Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61-1-8.45, Residence District R-15. Said building will have a new height of 40 +/- feet (36 foot maximum height allowed). GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS APPEAL of Jody D. And Jeffrey J. Boronkay, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 2.01-2 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to place an `off premise" sign advertising a day care operation on Evergreen Lane, with said sign placed at 105 DuBois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-2-1.2, Residence District R-30. The Sign Law prohibits the placement of a sign off of the property for which the sign is intended to advertise. GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS i 0 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NNE 119 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 259 1997 PAGE 6 RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the property of Carolyn Grigorov, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 51-1-3.2 off of Coddington Road, based on the review by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on May 20, 1997. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Stotz untables the previous motion. The previous motion was based on the findings and the requirements of Town Law Sections 277 B and C for an area variance. A vote on the previous motion resulted as follows: AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The third appeal to be heard by the board was as follows: APPEAL of Dorothy and Robert Summers, Owner, Daniel J. Strawbridge, Appellant/Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge a. non -conforming residential building/lot with a 14 x 16 foot addition to be added to the rear of an existing residence at 116 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 664-.92, Residence District R-15. Said building/lot is non -conforming since there is a 22 foot rear yard building setback (30 foot setback required) with said addition reducing the setback to 8 +/- feet. Additionally, the parcel is 11,343 +/- square feet in area (15,000 square feet required). Daniel Strawbridge, 721 Cliff Street, said he is representing Dorothy and Robert Summers who are in England. The Summers have a bowling alley sized kitchen, and they would like to enlarge it. There is a fence that would be located four feet away from the addition. The Summers own four feet on the other side of the fence. In relationship to the house this makes the most sense for the kitchen. There are utilities already there, and the driveway is on the right side of the lot. Mr. Strawbridge said the only neighbor he had contacted was George Hassock who lives across the street. Mr. Hassock mentioned this would not affect him because it would be in the back of the house. TOWN OF TTHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 11. 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 25. 1997 PAGE 7 Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Strawbridge if he had contacted the Washburns in the back of the Summer's property. Mr. Strawbridge responded, no. The sign the Town Building and Zoning Department gave him was in the front yard. The Town notified neighbors of this hearing. Mr. Ellsworth asked if the Summers contacted any of the neighbors before leaving for England. Mr. Strawbridge responded, no. The Summers instructed him to contact the neighbors. He was not able to contact Mr. Washburn for his reaction to this appeal. Mr. Frost said an affidavit of service by mail shows who was notified of this meeting. Chairman Stotz asked if the neighbors to the east of the Summer's property will be screened by the garage. Mr. Strawbridge showed photographs to the board of the Summer's back yard where the kitchen would be located. Mr. Strawbridge said this would be a one story addition added to the existing house. Chairman Stotz said the back of the addition would be approximately 15 feet from the side of the Washburn residence. Mr. Strawbridge said there would be enough setback on the side yard. The 7.3 feet is from the Washburn comer to the lot line. The lot line to the proposed new addition would be 8 feet. Chairman Stotz asked if there are any houses that close in this area. Mr. Frost said there are a lot of odd houses in that area. The immediate neighbors to the Summers were notified of this meeting. Also there was an orange sign posted in front of the house about this appeal. Chairman Stotz asked if the railing on top of the existing kitchen would remain. Mr. Strawbridge responded, yes. Chairman Stotz asked if the building would be extended out from that railing. Mr. Strawbridge responded, yes. Chairman Stotz asked if the roof would be used as a deck or a porch. Mr. Strawbridge responded, no. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 11, 199 APPROVED - JUNE Z5, 1997 PAGE S Chairman Stotz said the north elevation shows two windows with an awning facing the Washburn property. Mr. Strawbridge responded, yes. Chairman Stotz asked how would the siding on the addition be finished. Mr. Strawbridge said the existing siding is brick, but the addition would be done in cedar collaborate just like what the second story house has. Mr. Niefer asked with the building encroaching within four feet of the existing fence, would this affect the safety for fire truck to put a fire out. Mr. Frost said there is nothing in the code that requires four sides of access for a single family residents. fence. Mr. Strawbridge said the Summers own the two spruce trees on the other side of the Mr. Ellsworth asked what is the distance from the edge of the addition to the property line. Mr. Niefer said the survey says eight feet. Chairman Stotz asked if there would be a door out of the addition. Mr. Strawbridge responded, yes. Chairman Stotz asked if the existing door would be removed. Mr. Strawbridge responded, yes. The existing door would be eliminated, and the slider doors would be for the exit. Mr. Niefer asked what is the precedence for allowing a building so close to a property line. This seems to be encroached really close to the property line. Mr. Niefer further asked what is the criteria for giving a variance under these circumstances. Chairman Stotz said the board needs to evaluate whether this addition would be changing the neighborhood in any way. Mr. Ellsworth asked if the Washburns would be able to see this addition. Mr. Strawbridge said the Washbums would only be able to see a piece of the addition. Attorney Barney said the criteria for an area variance is spelled out in the Town Law. Mr. Frost said this appeals needs a special approval. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 11, 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 25, 1997 PAGE 9 Attorney Barney said the criteria for granting a special approval are set in Section 77, Subdivision 7, Sub -Paragraphs a - h in the Town's Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Stotz said these buildings would be located 15 feet apart. This would be the first time in the neighborhood of McIntyre Place where two buildings would be 15 feet apart. Mr. Frost said no one can access the Summer's property from Forest Home Drive. Some houses that technically front on Forest Home Drive can access those homes through private driveways off of Judd Falls Road by driving by houses that do -front on Judd Falls Road. There are homes in this area where road right-of-ways go through their house. These buildings lots are old lots, irregularly shaped, and under sized. This is the typical aspect of this neighborhood. Chairman Stotz asked if there are any adjoining properties that are that close. Mr. Frost said there may be some properties, but he does not know how many. Attorney Barney said the Bronfenbrenner's property next door has a garage located approximately 2 feet from the lot line. Mr. Frost said they had received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeal in 1973 for that garage. Chairman Stotz asked if the addition would just be a kitchen for cooking for a couple people. Mr. Strawbridge responded, yes. Mr. Niefer asked if the sewer line vent shown on the survey map would be interferred with. Mr. Strawbridge responded, no. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing. With no one present to speak, Chairman Stutz closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Stotz said an Environmental Impact Statement report was prepared by Planning Intern Benjamin Helber. The report states that the addition would reduce the rear yard setback to eight feet. The existing porch has the potential to extend eight feet to the neighbors property line. The property to the east should not be affected, and the addition will not be visible from McIntyre Place. Consideration should be given to the protection of the large pine trees on the rear property line during construction. Appearance of congestion along this property line is offset by mature vegetation on the large front and west side yard, which are both beautifully maintained of landscaping. The Planning Staff recommends a negative determination of environmental significance. TOWN OF F TTHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - NNE 11, 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 25, 1997 PAGE 10 Mr. Helber said after talking with the owners of the property, the owners own the trees and plan to protect them during the construction period. The only concern was the possibility of extending the porch on the flat roof of the addition. That would give them a height elevation where they could easily look into the Washburn's property. The Summers do not plan to extend the porch. MOTION by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer: RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the property of Dorothy and Robert Summers at 116 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-5-9.2, Residence District R- based on the review by the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff and their review on June 3, 1997. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Strawbridge how accurate is the eight foot limitation. Mr. Strawbridge said he feels confident that the limitation would be eight feet. There was a pin located at the northeast corner of the Summer's property. A pin was not located at the northwest corner, but he went parallel to the existing fence that was done in relationship to the eight foot line. A current survey has not been done for the back lot line, so he used the existing pin. Attorney Barney said the concern is to have the addition done for eight feet, then at some point a survey needs to be done, and there is not eight feet like there should be, there would be a problem. Mr. Strawbridge said he would make sure it is eight feet before construction begins. Attorney Barney said the board should include a condition that the construction base be located by a surveyor before construction begins. Mr. Ellsworth asked if this would be required if the owners need to go to the bank. Attorney Barney responded, no, not if a surveyor locates the eight feet for construction purposes. The bank would require a survey if there is a loan on the property. Chairman Stotz said the surveyor would need to locate the other pin so the addition would meet the eight foot requirement. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - JUNE 11, 1997 APPROVED - JUNE 25, 1997 PAGE 11 Mr. Strawbridge said if the board decided the addition would not be less than eight feet, the owner's could get a surveyor to make sure it was not and provide a copy to the board. Mr. Strawbridge asked if overhangs count as part of the footprint. Mr. Frost said overhangs up to two feet are not counted by the Zoning Ordinance. MOTION by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer: RESOLVED, that this board grant a special approval to Dorothy and Robert Summers of 116 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 66-5-9.2, Residence District R-15, to be permitted to enlarge an non -conforming residential lot for an addition to be located at the rear of the existing residence, conditional upon the following: 1. That no part of the proposed construction, except overhangs and other projections allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, encroach closer to than 7.5 +/- feet to the north boundary line. 2. That the addition be no greater than 14 feet. 3. That before construction is commenced, a licensed surveyor locate the boundary line and the foundation line for the proposed addition. 4. That before a certificate of compliance is issued by the Building and Zoning Enforcement Officer, a licensed surveyor present a survey showing the foundation relative to the lot line by confirming that it is at least 7.5 from the lot line. 5. That there be no second story use of the proposed addition. 6. That the addition be used only for the intended purpose of a kitchen. 7. That the siding on the addition match the second floor of the existing house of the same type and color. 8. That this board makes the findings setforth in Article XIV, Section 77, Paragraph 7, Sub -Paragraphs a -h, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard by the board was as follows: APPEAL of Dick and Mary Cogger, Owner, Ralph Vam, Appellant/Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct an observation loft on an existing residential building at 14 Dove Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61-1-8.45, Residence District R-15. Said building will have a new height of 40 +/- feet (36 foot maximum height allowed). L . -- p R tVLr-T LAF-�E. PIN !IeT Is r r 'S. SIDI; of fl, Y JDEEp OLD F11"V.6 p lip W B, is o{ l 51-I1' 119 t • BI `d 0 m1- V I n M PI llt a m r' �+ r 0 -' 70 Ib -4 cho y O� � tl V.. 0-hI r m T 17' h� 710 0 nye it •D � •pIN N z--5-1 E o 56T W Rk of -: , 4 i pt ..I`o .. y' o -y r- 3 F I ILS 0 1el ol JY' C&i�W , S. 1 s` s K• ti: 'L .. WARNINQ ;:T0..Tp16 MAP NOT tONFOR1E1Ha �."P4 r,Yf CTI^45F7110, RUfInIYItfoij !, N. Y• 1TAi[ ➢...�r r�`+cc♦ u,u �1.♦vr. IAW. AnE PjrpHlAlyED eY LAW, ;• hlt cramICATIONM HEREON ARE VALID roR MAP A!ID COPIES THEREOF OHIY IF MAID `''.MAP,OR cor,lEs SEAR THE IMPRESSION MEAL OF �'•TH[ LIc EASED LAND sunvL%(jR FHVY4 riONh- TY,1r"'iIPPEAAf. HEREON. ,, �, 65ev ►rE�''�" IWO 119.8 W v n .�fZ oo 4 o '0 N at I L U v -rt 5" �fl :I •'0 or . in in cp + %D 7d 1.' ZDin r� N d.' "Z{�J'Io 4 IVA r itY -;:y.. . -- p R tVLr-T LAF-�E. PIN !IeT Is r r 'S. SIDI; of fl, Y JDEEp OLD F11"V.6 p lip W B, is o{ l 51-I1' 119 t • BI `d 0 m1- V I n M PI llt a m r' �+ r 0 -' 70 Ib -4 cho y O� � tl V.. 0-hI r m T 17' h� 710 0 nye it •D � •pIN N z--5-1 E o 56T W Rk of -: , 4 i pt ..I`o .. y' o -y r- 3 F I ILS 0 1el ol JY' C&i�W , S. 1 s` s K• ti: 'L .. WARNINQ ;:T0..Tp16 MAP NOT tONFOR1E1Ha �."P4 r,Yf CTI^45F7110, RUfInIYItfoij !, N. Y• 1TAi[ ➢...�r r�`+cc♦ u,u �1.♦vr. IAW. AnE PjrpHlAlyED eY LAW, ;• hlt cramICATIONM HEREON ARE VALID roR MAP A!ID COPIES THEREOF OHIY IF MAID `''.MAP,OR cor,lEs SEAR THE IMPRESSION MEAL OF �'•TH[ LIc EASED LAND sunvL%(jR FHVY4 riONh- TY,1r"'iIPPEAAf. HEREON. ,, �, 65ev ►rE�''�" IWO 119.8 W v n � + -JL 8) i t5'� �,ocuST G, A VJK CAV .�fZ w o '0 N it I L U v -rt 5" �fl ,tel in in cp %D 7d 1.' ZDin N � + -JL 8) i t5'� �,ocuST G, A VJK CAV pi► I . hhhhSohl rn SEf oil 12.0 001 NES vtiGu-T,'f ihTLS ,1 p,uD 1N7� RpAv 4L 1,0 V :- Qf fVFtr No. 1I(o NT`(RE •, -Y. r'' ) f+I•• � I} t f • y I: I *: ��• 234' •' . Nw or --- _. _ ,..., . -.. f► SuR`JEY IwIAP 1 PLACE $ No.110 JUDD FALLS R.OAI LOCATED 1N FOREST J40M z j'M1L. LOT 1 7. `roww OF 1"S kA%cA)TOt�PK•11�5 COUNT`(, N.`1. M A•Y 15, 19 13 SCALE V'=2.01 TwoMps ` cq. Mi LLEV, SWC;1WEaK AND 6URVEYOi, ., 1THACA41WEW YORK, , i.'.• -t A.1MN'LP'.. " I%It" •w•T'- 0*11 .,►...r .�fZ O I s I in pi► I . hhhhSohl rn SEf oil 12.0 001 NES vtiGu-T,'f ihTLS ,1 p,uD 1N7� RpAv 4L 1,0 V :- Qf fVFtr No. 1I(o NT`(RE •, -Y. r'' ) f+I•• � I} t f • y I: I *: ��• 234' •' . Nw or --- _. _ ,..., . -.. f► SuR`JEY IwIAP 1 PLACE $ No.110 JUDD FALLS R.OAI LOCATED 1N FOREST J40M z j'M1L. LOT 1 7. `roww OF 1"S kA%cA)TOt�PK•11�5 COUNT`(, N.`1. M A•Y 15, 19 13 SCALE V'=2.01 TwoMps ` cq. Mi LLEV, SWC;1WEaK AND 6URVEYOi, ., 1THACA41WEW YORK, , i.'.• -t A.1MN'LP'.. " I%It" •w•T'- 0*11 .,►...r /U &P6! k6bQ, aF pave �,MMe'P-S IX l c-lv�Pc- Pl- " 2,6Q I-ff -77 � ve Nvsc Q 11 ,2 ea,e Town Assigned Project ID Number ft Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County ONLY PART I — Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) I. Applicant/Spsor: 2. Projecme: Ito -Ta. h� • I t. 3. Precise Location treet Address and Rod Intersections, pro inent landmarks, etc. or provide map): Tax Parcel Number: („(,r 4. Is Proposed Action: Q NEW cm�M EXPANSION ❑ MODIFICATION/ALTERATION Rev. 10/9C ��. vescrioe eroject 9riefly (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items) : (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of Land Affected: Initially (0-5 yrs) Acres 7 n How is the Land Zoned Presently ? -1ti t (6'10 yrs) Acres (>10 yrs) Acres! Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? YES N0 JZ If no, describe conflict briefly: I 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES 11 NO C Public Water? YES❑ NO 10. What is the present land u e in the vicinity of the proposed project? U Industrial [] Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space Please describe: Public Sewer? YES l__3 NO Residential Commercial er 1 I . Does proposed action involve a permit, aproval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local)? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: 12. Does anv aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval? YESa NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether that permit/approval will require odificaticn. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS Applicant Signature t or Type): UE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE I f j ; 'J tP_ Date: f'�) '% — I Lo/�t��i 1 �e o r a rcl `ae�l-bo;clC, PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town; Use attachment 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. S. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6? YES NO XX If no, a negative dec!aration 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 hanawritten, if legible) .C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: See Attached C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: See Attached C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unicue natural areas, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: See Attached C4. The Town's existing clans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Exetain briefly: See Attached C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the prceosed action? Explain briefly: See Attached Co. 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 XX If yes, explain briefly: E. Comments of staff X, CB other attached. (Check as applicable.) 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; (9) 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. .XX 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 determinati n. owz of Ithaca oning Boar of Appeals Name of Lead Agency David Stotz - Chair ame)& TitleAResp#SibjIe Officer in Lead Agency of 9e`soon4ib$ Officer in Lead Preparer's Signature (If different from Responsible Office PART II - Environmental Assessment Property, 116 McIntyre Place Dorothy and Robert Summers, Owners, Daniel J. Strawbridge, Appellant/Agent Permission to construct an addition to a nonconforming residential building/lot Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 1997 A. Action is Unlisted B. Action will not receive coordinated review C Could action result in any adverse effects on to or arising from the following: Cl, Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quant tv noise levels existing traffic patterns solid waste production or disposal potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? No significant adverse impacts to air quality, water quality, solid waste production, or potential for erosion are anticipated as a result of this project. Proposed action is the request for a variance from the requirements of Article XII, Section 54, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to build a 14 x 16 foot addition to be added onto an existing nonconforming building. The existing building is nonconforming because it has a setback of 22± feet from the rear property line (30 feet required) The proposed addition would reduce the rear yard setback to 8 feet. Additionally, the parcel is 11,343± square feet in area, while 15,000 square feet is required. The property is located at 116 McIntyre Place, Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. 66-5-9.2, Residence District R-15. C2. Aesthetic agricultural archeological historic or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? No significant adverse impacts to agricultural, archeological, historic, natural or cultural resources are anticipated. Community and neighborhood character will not be significantly adversely impacted. The applicant is proposing to build an addition onto an existing kitchen which will extend out an additional 14+/- feet. The existing kitchen has a flat roof that serves as a deck with a railing. If the 14+/- foot addition is approved, the existing porch has the potential to also be extended to within 8+/ - feet of the neighbor's property. The addition will be visible mainly from the second floor of the house on the adjacent property to the north. A 6 foot high stockade type fence and a row of large trees creates a screen from the ground level of the neighbor's yard. The property to the east should not be affected and the addition will not be visible from McIntyre Place. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? None anticipated. However, protection of the large pines on the rear property line near the proposed addition should be considered during construction. CL 1 6 Property, 116 McIntyre Place Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 1997 Page 2 C4. A community's existing121ans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? The subject parcel is located in a Residence District R-15 which requires a rear yard setback of not less than 30 feet. The residential building is currently non -conforming as it is 22± feet from the rear yard property line, the proposed addition would encroach even more leaving an 8± foot rear yard setback. The existing carport comes within 2+/- feet of the east property line and the neighbor to the east has a garage within 2+/- feet of that parcels western property line. The appearance of congestion along this property line is offset by the mature vegetation and a large front and west side yard, both beautifully maintained and landscaped adding to the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? None anticipated. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in Cl -05? None anticipated. CT Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy).? None anticipated. D, Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? None anticipated. PART III - Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of it, 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: Benjamin C. Helber - Planning Intern Review Date: June 3, 1997 �� TOWN OF ITHACA 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1783 SPECIAL APPROVAL A P P E A L to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been informed that authorization is required to: FEE: $100.00 RECEIVED:017197 CASH CHECK ZONING: For Office Use Only at as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents. The Special Approval authorization is requested pursuant to: Article (s)— Section (s) '-�, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the respectfully submits this request for Special Approval authorization. (Additional s eets may be attached as neces ary.) 1\& d "l V S " • '7 VC CTI 'U* vox 1 � �_1[lt ►` � L' U\V� . C�1C. fanSd! 1P �N xa<<it Ve CL ej By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application. Signature of Own Signature of App Print Name Here: Home Telephone N NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any approvals given does not commence within 18 months, the approval will 9.gpire. PLO._ T PLAN INFORMATION TO -BE SHOWN: I. Dimensions of lot. 4. Dimensions and location of proposed structure(s) or 2. Distance of structures from: or addition(s). a. Road, 5. Nares of neighbors who bound lot. b. Both side lot lines, 6. Setback of neighbors. c. Rear of lot. 7. Street name and number. 3. North arrow. 8. Show existing structures in contrasting lines. Signature of Owner/Appellan Signature of Appellant/Agen Date: Date: `7 ~�� ~' JOB �JU YEA Y �1 STRAWBRIDGE & JAHN, INC. SHEET NO. OF 715 Willow Avenue Ithaca, NEW YORK 14850 CALCULATED BY DATE (607) 272-5923 CHECKED BY DATE _ SCALE 1w� V 1w� STRAWBRIDGE & JAHN, INC. 715 Willow Avenue Ithaca, NEW YORK 14850 (607) 272-5923 CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE 47 ir 16k W 71 4 M,*A CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE 47 ir 4;1 16k 4;1 71 4 M,*A STRAWBRIDGE & JAHN, INC. 715 Willow Avenue Ithaca, NEW YORK 14850 (607) 272.5923 JOB SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE I I I , TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 25 , 1973 An adjourned Meeting 'of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of - Appeals was held on Wednesday , July 25 , 1973 , at 7 : 30 p . m . in the Town of Ithaca Offices , 108 East Green Street , Ithaca , New York . PRESENT : Chairman David Powers , Jack Hewett , Loran Marion , Roger Sovocool , Lauren Ripley , David Cowan ( Zoning Officer ) , Nancy Fuller ( Secretary) . ALSO PRESENT : Dr . and Mrs . Urie Bronfenbrenner . Chairman Powers declared this adjourned meeting open at 7 *040 p . m . DIVISION OF LOT OWNED BY BRONFENBRENNER AT 116 McINTYRE PL . AND AT 110 JUDD ' FALLS ROAD. Mr . Cowan stated that this was a continuation - of a meeting- held on February 14 , 1973 , at which the Bronfenbrenners were granted a variance to divide an existing lot into two parcels and build a carport at 116 McIntyre Place . The Bronfenbrenners presented a Survey map dated May 15 , 1973 , prepared by Thomas _ G . _ Miller , . Enginneer.:. and Surveyor , _ _ as . attached to these Minutes . They also presented a note to the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting a letter from that Board confirming that the division of property shown on the survey is the same division approved by the Board on February 14 , 1973 . . A__ copy . of_ this_.note._ is_ also_ attached - to- these. Minutes . The Board agreed that the note and map were acceptable to them . MOTION by Mr . David Powers , Seconded by Mrs . Laurene Ripley : RESOLVED , that Survey Map of No . 116 McIntyre Place and No . 110 Judd Falls Road , Forest Home , Mil . Lot 92 , Town of Ithaca , New York , prepared by Thomas G . Miller , Engineer and Surveyor , dated May 15 , 1973 , be accepted and hereby - is accepted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , and THAT said map be placed on file in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca . There was no further discussion and the Chair called 'for a vote . All members present voted in favor and the Motion carried . i CONTINUATION OF ADJOURNED MEETING IN RE APPEAL OF WALTER J . WIGGINS . Mr . Cowan stated that this meeting was the result of the ad ' ournment of a meeting held by the Board on the 18th of June , 1973 , said meeting being a continuation of a Public Hearing held on this - 1 - TOWN OF ITHACA COPY r ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 14 , 1973 A meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday , February 14 , 1973 , at 7 : 30 p . m . in the Town of Ithaca Offices , 108 East Green Street , Ithaca , New York , PRESENT : Chairman David Powers , Laurene Ripley , Loran Marion , Jack Hewett , David Cowan ( Zoning Officer) , Nancy Fuller ( Secretary) . ABSENT : Roger Sovocool , ALSO PRESENT : Dr . and Mrs . Urie Bronfenbrenner PUBLIC HEARING : APPEAL OF URIE AND LIESE BRONFENBRENNER . Chairman Powers opened the Public Hearing at 7 : 30 p . m . and asked that Mr . Cowan read the Legal Notice as published in The Ithaca Journal , as follows : " Town of Ithaca Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals , notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals under the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca on the 14th day of Feb . 1973 at 7 : 30 p . m . in the Town Office , 108 East Green Street , Ithaca , New York on the following matters : Appeal of Urie & Liese Bronfenbrenner , Appellants , from the decision of the Zoning Officer denying permission to divide an existing lot into 2 parcels , and build a new carport at 116 McIntyre Place . Permit is denied by the Zoning Officer under Art . IV Sec . 13 & 14 of the Zoning Ordinance , Dated : Feb . 7 , 1973 David W . Cowan Feb . 129 139v149 173 " Zoning Officer The Affidavit of Posting and Publishing , signed by the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , and dated February 23 , 1973 , duly notarized is attached to the Official Minutes of this Public Hearing and kept in the Official Minute Book of the Zoning Board of Appeals on file in the Town Office , Mr . Cowan commenced the discussion by referring to Sections 13 and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance which in essence state that no structure may be built forward of the existing front line of the house and no structure may be built closer to the lot line ( side ) than specified in said sections . Mr . Cowan noted that the rear lot line may be three feet . He noted also that one of the problems in this matter is that one house faces on one street and one house faces on another street . Mr . Cowan now presented for the Board ' s perusal , papers listing the nei &hbors ' consent to the proposed division of the Bronfebrenner lot and their approval of the construction of a carport on that part of the Bronfenbrenner lot known as 116 McIntyre Place . own of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 February 14 , 1973 Mr . Cowan also submitted two sketches , marked Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 , showing the existant parcel with the two houses on it and the proposed division , respectively . Mr . Cowan stated that the Bronfenbrenner property existed prior to Zoning in the Town of Ithaca and includes a large parcel of land with an existing large house and garage and driveway known at 116 McIntyre Place and another parcel of and with a small house on it=;. built to house his father , known as 110 Judd Falls Road . The property is essentially a double property which makes it very expensive as far as taxes go and difficult to sell . The Bronfenbrenners feel that the land can be divided and sold as two parcels . Mr . Cowan noted that many years ago this property was shown as two separate lots , however , as development came it was built upon as :one parcel . Mr . Cowan referred to Exhibit 1 and noted again that it shows the existing use of the entire property as two parcels . He stated further that the Bronfenbrenners are requesting a change to Exhibit 2 which would mean the establishment of a lot line dividing the parcel into two lots as part one of their request , and a request for permission to erect a carport to serve the dwelling known as 116 McIntyre Place . Mr . Loran Marion stated that the buildings are legal since they were both constructed prior to Zoning . The question before the Board is how to proceed with the appeal . Mr . Cowan asked Mrs . Bronfenbrenner how far the existing garage would be from the proposed lotline . She stated approximately one or two feet . Mr . Marion asked if the lot sizes that would be created by the proposed new lot line are relevant to any decision . Mr . Cowan said they would not because the parcel and homes have all been existing since before Zoning . Mr . Marion asked what the area is zoned and Mr . Cowan stated that the area is R- 15 zoning . Mr . Powers felt that the only problem before the Board is the two feet distance of the garage from the lot line . Mr . Cowan stated that this is a two- part appeal - one for the lot line and one for the carport . Mr . Marion suggested looking at the carport separately . He noted that the distance from the line will be two feet and that three feet is the requirement , or , a one - foot variance . The set -back required is 25 ft . and they have 28 ft . Mr . Marion felt that if the division of the lot werh to be approved the other part of the request takes care of itself . Mr . Powers stated that in old established areas like Forest Home , it is important to remember the long- established character of the area . He noted further that the Bronfenbrenners own both parts of this parcel and the Zoning Ordinance states that with agreement a garage can be over the lot line . There now followed general discussion of the wording for a Resolution granting variance . The following MOTION was presented by Mr . Loran Marion : I The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca recognizes that the homes located at 116 McIntyre Place and 110 Judd Falls Road existed before Toni of Ithaca Zoning went into effect . The lot was previously Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 February 14 , 1973 divided into two lots , as described on Map of Carl Crandall -dated Aug 16 ust 1904 , as Lots 1 - 395 and 161 - 385 , and the area of each lot was larger than the average lot in the surrounding area . I , therefore , move that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca grant approval of the request of Dr . and Mrs . Urie Bronfenbrenner to establish a new lot line , as indicated in their Appeal , and further , that a variance be granted for an existing garage on the set-back requirement of three feet ( 31 ) from the back lot line to two feet ( 21 ) from the back lot line , and further , that a variance be granted for that part of the Bronfenbrenner property known as 116 McIntyre Place on the three - foot ( 31 ) side yard requirement to permit the carport to be built two feet ( 21 ) from the lot line . The MOTION was seconded by Mrs . Laurene Ripley and passed j unanimously . The Public Hearing was closed at 8 : 20 p . m . by Chairman Powers . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M. Fuller , Secretary . i 17 ef U �� 1 David Powers , Chairman ! Zoning Board of Appeals i i k j i i� I BRONFENBRENNER 116 MC INTYRE PLACE ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 To : The Board of Appeals , Town of Ithaca 1 ) This is a petition by Urie Bronfenbrenner and Liese Bronfenbrenner to obtain either a variance , or an exception , or a special permit , whichever is required , to divide the lot which we now own and on which there are now located two dwellings . It is our intention that the lot be divided into two parcels as follows : A ) The East portion will be known as 110 Judd Falls Road , and will have a frontage on McIntyre Place of about 71 feet from the curb on the West side of Judd Falls Road to the West line of the existing driveway on our property . `j' he frontage on Judd Falls Road will be 120 feet as described in the deed . B ) The west portion will be known as 116 McIntyre Place . This parcel will be approximately 120 feet North and South with a frontage on McIntyre Place of about 8 'J feet . The old dwelling , which we now occupy is on this parcel . 2 ) We are submitting two sketches as follows : A ) Sketch showing the present total layout of all our property which we identify as .Exhibit 1 . This sketch shows the approximate relative location of the boundary lines , the dwellings on the property , the garage and the dimensions which will apply to the proposed division . B ) Sketch showing more atiparticular the plan for the division of the lot and the proposed improvement - we intend to make if the petition is granted . This sketch map we show as exhibit 2 . 3 ) We submit to you the following information : A ) We became owners of this property by Deed of John Parker Hertel and his wife , dated March 17 , 1949 , which was recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office at Liber 319 of Deeds at page 99 . This parcel conveyed a lot having • width East and West of 158 . 3 feet along the North side of McIntyre Place and • depth North and South along Judd Falls Road of 120 feet . We are attaching hereto a photostatic copy of the first page of the Deed which we identify as Exhibit 3 . The dwelling on this parcel is designated as 116 McIntyre Place . The Tax Parcel Number of the entire parcel is 66 - 5-9 , B ) When we purchased the property there was only one dwelling on it , namely 116 McIntyre Place . C ) In 1952 , Dr . Alexander Bronfenbrenner , was bedridden with crippling illness : tuberculosis , loss of one leg due to the tuberculosis , and in that summer a heart attack . He was a patient at Biggs State Hospital . Urie Bronfenbrenner was his only child . In order to preserve his life , after he was cured of the tuberculosis , it appeared to us necessary that he come live near us where his only relatives could administer to his needs and give him the necessary care , physical and psychological support . It was necessary for us to build a separate house as he was still not in a condition to reside in the same house with young children . Accordingly the dwelling known as 110 Judd Falls Road was constructed . This is a one story frame dwelling , having a living room , kitchen , bathroom , utility room , and two bedrooms . It was necessary for us to borrow funds at that time in order to build the house for our father . We borrowed the money in 1953 from 2 r j a local bank . At that time we suggested that we give a Deed to our father so that the property would be legally as well as physically separated . The bank advised against doing it at that time because they held a purchase money mortgage on the entire property , which we had given in order to obtain the money to buy the house from Hertel . Because we felt it imperative to obtain the construction funds as soon as . possible , we did not argue the matter at that time . D ) The house was constructed in 19530 Dr . Alexander Bronfenbrenner came to live in the house and he spent the remaining years of his life there . We feel that the construction of this house prolonged his life for many years . He had a nurse or housekeeper in constant attendance and we were able to provide him with the care and support which was not available to him while he was in the hospital , and after Biggs •Hospital was closed he would not have been within easy visiting distance from Ithaca . E ) For one reason or another we neglected to pursue our original intention to divide our property by deed as indicated above . However , for all practicable purposes , the property has been divided and used as two . separate properties since 1953 • Since the death of Dr . Alexander Bronfenbrenner in 1966 , the smaller house has been rented by us to young university couples . 4 ) We ask for the variance or special permit or exception on the following grounds . A ) We will suffer a financial hardship if we are not permitted to divide the property into two parcels as requested . The aggregate value of the two lots with the two seperate buildings on them , if sold separately , exceeds the value of bur property if it , is sold as one parcel . With few exceptions , a person purchasing a house in the Forest Home Community is looking for a single family dwelling with , at the most , a separate apartment , for income . A separate dwelling unit , such as our small house , to be used as a subordinate dwelling unit is neither generally practicable or desirable for prospective purchasers in the Forest Home area . Thus the market value for our property is considerably diminished if we must sell it as one property . It should be noted that at this time we do :, not plan to sell either property . But if the upkeep costs and taxes on the 110 Judd Falls Road house continue to increase and/ or the sewer installation costs are prohibitive we may have to sell that house B ) It is difficult to landscape and improve the property if we are not permitted to divide . If the permission is granted to divide the property , we would like to alle - , iate the serious parking problem on our own property and on McIntyre Place by constructing a carport on the 116 McIntyre Place parcel , West of the present driveway and also reconstruct the walkways and stairway leading to the house from McIntyre Place . Thus we would preserve as much lawn , trees , and hedges as we can . If we are not permitted to divide , we must construct parking places on the open space South of the 110 Judd Falls Road dwelling , between such dwelling and McIntyre Place . This latter alternative will. not be as attractive and desireable for the neighborhood . S) The assessed valuation of the property , including both dwellings , is § 27 , 630 , of which § 6 , 920 is the assessed valuation of the land . ( As the two houses are part of the same deed they are assessed as one . A : division of the property would resultin seperate assessments for each house and the parcel on which it is located . This would be very desirable advantage for drawing up financial records and tax reports . ) - 3 - 6 ) It is our position that the Board of Appeals can determine that . A ) The health , safety , morals and general welfare of the community will not be affected . In fact , we believe that the proposed division d s substantially in harmony with the existing uses . 1 ) If you will examine the tax assessment map for -Forest Home , you will find that the proposed division will result in two parcels , each of which is larger , or at least as large , than many of the parcels which are now owned and occupied as separate parcels . If necessary , we can submit a list of all these parcels . We point out , for example , parcel 66 - 5 - 6 , 66 - 5W7 , 66 - 5 - 29 66 _ 5 - 3 , 66 - 6 - 2 , 66 - 1 . 51 66 - 1 - 11 , 66 - 1 - 127 66 - 4 - 6 , 66 - 4- 10 , and 66 - 4 - 11 . B ) T' he premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed division . The small dwelling will provide an attractive house for a retirement couple , a single person , or a young family , wishing to live close to the university . 1' he demand for small homes for occupancy of this type is extremely high and we can thus provide a dwelling to meet a legitimate housing need . This , alone , is an impor - tant element supporting an affirmative determination of our request . C ) The proposed division , location , and design of the building is consistant with the character of the district . D ) The proposed ingress and egress to and from 116 McIntyre Place parcel can be safely designed . E ) - The proposed use is not detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character . 1 ) Items C ) and E ) are supported by the information set forth in the previous portions of this application . But we also point out that on an old map ( 1904 ) made by Asa King and copied by William Hazlitt Smith , as we are in - formed and believe , our property was originally two separate parcels each 60 feet by 158 . 3 feet . ( See Deed Book 161/ 395 and 161/ 385 ) . We are abstracting a copy of this map as exhibit 4 . . 7 ) We further petition for a variance or special permit to construct a double carport on the 116 McIntyre Place parcel , the carport , with a back storage cupboard to have the following dimensions : 18 feet width and 22 feet in length . The carport is to be situated 28 feet from the north edge of McIntyre Place , and 2 feet from the line between the 110 Judd Falls Road and 116 . . Mclntyrei . Place parcels . A ) We are exhibiting a sketch to indicate the size and location of this carport as exhibit 5 . 8 ) We ask for the variance or special permit or exception to construct this carport on the following grounds : A ) When the property is divided the present garage , which is located less than one foot from the North - West corner of the 110 Judd Falls Road dwelling , will be on the 110 Judd Falls Road parcel and will serve the dwelling on that parcel . This will leave the dwelling on the 116 McIntyre Place parcel without a garage for automobile and garden tool storage . B ) We feel that a double carport , with storage space at the rear , will enhance the appearance of the property and the neighborhood , by having all residential automobiles on both parcels parked under cover . C ) A single carport could be set in ten feet from the line between the two Parcels , but in that case a second residential car from the 116 McIntyre Place Parcel would be parked in the open spacN between the carport and the new , lot line , The size of the 116 McIntyre Place dwelling , ( three stories , 13 rooms ) , denotes the presence of a second automobile at frequent intervals . D ) The plan ( Exhibit 5 ) presented for the construction of the driveways and the carport would improve the appearance of both properties and also eliminate some of the serious parking problems present at the East end of McIntyre Place . At the present a second car parked in the drive 'r!ay will block any others parked in the garage , or the driveway or the side parking area . Therefore most people park on McIntyre Place , although this is illegal and hazardous . E ) If a carport is not constructed the . driveways and parking areas for both parcel's to - gether would still . be situated adjacent to each other and create a large open , un - soded area . ( The small maple tree , which at present stands in the middle of the parking area , will be removed this spring in any case to increase the parking space . ) F ) The carport and / or driveway and parking area for the dwelling on the 116 McIntyre Place parcel can not be placed anywhere else on that parcel because of the hilly terrain of the remainder of the property and the street ( McIntyro P1 ) . 9 ) The East - West measurements , 158 feet , of the total property given in all the statements above are those stated in our deed and indicated on the Town of Ithaca Tax map number 66 . Other maps and our measurements show a distance of about 10 to 20 feet more for the same lot lines . 5� 7 -V - P Fro' � — M A 7 V M _ o I FAC Cq X I� NI lz ` � = a I a � 7 I go � 2 a ic Ile • a. s ZIII IId � 2 osi • � ( f 00 I s I Ilk s d � I d ALLE4 v� � ~ o SAR. a V5 t�' R0 PE2T \4 ►� I v S 7 7 +to M yt &7 VM - - - - - - , pzt - - - - - - - 1 N N I � a IN / 779 mQ. E4b(1- a09 v21 Vag V (1i ?jQ. Ntw Go r � L I N B Zr- . N / 1 ey -v �1 a t5 d O o • o• *a '1 2 d !b z 0 'a Jt oC w � ti IL aN PIL � n1N No 21 319 Deeds Pg gg _ . John Parker Hertel War deed dated Mar 17 , 1949 and Martha Warren Hertel , husband and wife , individually Ack : Briar 17 , 1949 and as tenants by the entirety Rec : Mar 17 , 1949 at 345 P • • to %jon : : $1 . 00 & c Urie Bonfenbrenner and Liese Bronfenbrenner husband and wife as tenants by the entirety - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x Conveys same premises set out at ljo 14 ( 144 Mtgs Pg 367 ) No a 200 Mtgs_ . 70 Uri Bronfenbrenner and Mtg dated Mar 17 , 1949 Liese Bronfenbrenner , husband and wife , individually and as Ack : Mar 17 , 1949 tenants by the entirety Rec : Mar 17 , 1949 at 3 : 46 P . M . ' to ' To secure : 48351 . 62 s Ithaca Savings Bank : - x Conveys same premises set out at No 14 ( 144 Mtgs Pg 367 ) "This is a purchase money mortgage . " i 't . . . . free and clear . . . except a mortgage from John Parker and Marth Warren Hertel to First National Bank of Ithaca dated May 4 , 1948 to secure 46500 . of principal and recorded in Liber 192 of Mortgag at page 490 , on wbi. ch mortgage 46248 . 38 of principal remains unpai and which mortgage is hereby consolidated and merged with the mortgage herein to form a first lien upon said premises in the total principal sum of 014 , 600 . 00 and which mortgage is being assigned concurrently herewith to the mortgagee herein . " + ij, ,q F 1 - i ..r 0 �q, Opa ° � a � 09 v9 � eJ Qom. D aq a o9 d ? � ' � h T.CI tJ c` cb p Ch c.'3 I t '� �? ►i CCO Lb 4 04F ° � o��i 'o >mS �K �• uE, p ?aa�f1( �° u o r p ,,la--°�--' � r F- Y 0 � -� NI lei i "S S U C J v, a o d 1 4%b (j 400or J 7 [coal V Xq dj E 2 i OT LIN qg2mce v ` K v � r ' a ' aV Z 7z i L , From The Town of Ithaca Board of Appeals : A letter attached to the survey map of the `propeity . . . Letter to state : Confirm that the division of - property schown on the attached map is the same division approved by the Board of Appeals on February 149 1973 • Letter to be addressed to Mr . and Mrs . Urie Bronfenbrenner ' Four -. copies to be made of this letter and the map : 1 copy : to Board of Appeals 2 copies to Mr . Buyoucos ( one , to be filed at the Court House ) = 1 copy to .Mr . and Mrs . Urie Bronfenbrenner . . L t Q • O e f. • N1 A �' NE-� I C 19 V6 p Q1VAZ E . . LANE,, •pIN SET � 5 , 6IDf 0E: p11p ED a0d ) OLD FIFoWCfP05T S Lei o 6, a, I G Ln C I . 7q O k C t � � D • v m L m f O 1 x 10 : U\ ~i Ion lIl In In PT Ln .1 � � r J C { .� ➢ O � rn z 0 r- pL -a � --i ottool Z -v 03 n two. 0 p = y A ( I'' (� _ % 7%1 a I n A '•1 6 3� n • 1s %% 1 OGVSS STET (X) tootooto 4 r d 10" M A P l_E � � I S l o u .1.. 11-1� • ---- , —� -_ 2 »:' eA� FS � �. . m . lot AR A � n 2o 5 E. (0 --7, to'" y G� w o In 0 Z �., Ln I –n G ITI — a � ofi� Z o _I r Ln ! ' N � o , I1 O 11 n 11 �1 a I CN .fl l� F f d l l Z Z: in , I 0000 p 1- 1 I 000l LA Ln to uDs A1. 1.. . R1G1- , oto �. P. 1>1D__11J T ER-tr5� N � p AP p2E5 _ . � c � � _ . . . . . .. WARNINCA A7TERATIONS TO THIS MAP NOT @ONFORMINO 70 SECTION 7209 , SUBDIVISION 2 , N. Y• STATE EDUCATION LAW, ARE PROHIBITED BY LAW. ALL CERTIFICATIONS HEREON ARE VALID FOR ' THIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONLY IF SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSION SEAL OF S v Y M Alp TFIE LICfNSF_D LAND SURVEYOR WHOSE SIONA' TORE APPEARS HERE ' � F_-ivE �y NT `( RE : ? LACE. 8& WO - 110 JUDD FALLS 1ZOAD s" < _ � pCATED IN FOREST NOM .IE -, _ � I .L . LOT too soo. ,; _ OF 17 NACA , 7ON` PKINS COUNT `, N t , ' • 19 1 6cALE 1 ' 1 = 2, 01 7 H 0 M A S Ca . M I L, LIE `-L 'ENGI N Eu- R AND SU2YEy0K ITNACA , N �W YORK to o