Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (20) Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 57.-1-1 203 Pine Tree Rd Tax Parcels involved, with address if known 203 Pine Tree Rd 57.-1-1 with no subdivision or readdressing. History: 2000 – Height Variance for artist studio - Approved 1986 – Use Variance for Doctor’s Office not part of the residence – Withdrawn 1984 – Special Approval for a place of worship – Approved 1982 – Special Approval to keep chickens and goats - Approved 1976 – Area Variance for SDU with 10 ft side yard setback - Denied TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2000 7 : 00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, November 8, 2000, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Aurora Street Entrance (parking lot side), Ithaca, N .Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P .M ., on the following matters : APPEAL of G .D . Blanpied, Appellant, Margaret C . Hobbie, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a parcel of land 13 + acres in area, with a lot width of 31 + feet at the street line and 31 + feet at the maximum front yard setback line, located at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 56-3 -25 (next to 1586 Slaterville .Road ), Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of David Axenfeld, Appellant, George Gesslein, Agent, requesting a variance from Article VIII, Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to conduct a retail business at 618 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33 -3 -2 . 7, Light Industrial District . Said District does not permit a land use of retail businesses . A special approval under Article XII, Section 54 of said Ordinance might also be requested, since the property was originally developed and used for retail businesses . APPEAL of Stan and Maryann Bowman, Appellants, Susan Cosentini , Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 , Paragraph 6 and Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain artist studios in an accessory building with a building height of 20 + feet ( 15 foot height limitation) located at 203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 1 - 1 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Ordinance permits artists to maintain professional offices only within the buildings that they reside in and not in accessory structures . APPEAL of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, Appellants, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18- 5- 14, Residence District R- 15 . Said building is nonconforming as it extends beyond property lines, with part of the adjacent property being Cayuga Lake . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person . Individuals with visual or hearing . impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request . Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated : October 30, 2000 Published : November 3 , 2000 ZONING BOARD GP APPEALS PAGE 10 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-67 - VARIANCE - David Axenfeld, 618 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel No 33- 3-2. 7. November 8 2000. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth; seconded by James Niefer RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of David Axenfeld, requesting a special use from Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge a non -conforming use at 618 Elmira Road. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-2. 7, Light Industrial District, based upon the following findings: a . The existing photography business has a retail component, b. The proposed use is a retail sales use; C. The existing business has been there since before the Zoning Ordinance was amended precluding retail uses in Industrial zones, d. The proposed use is not inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood and areas, and does not adversely impact the welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stott Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NA YS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The third appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Stan and Maryann Bowman , Appellants , Susan Cosentini , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 6 and Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain artist studios in an accessory building with a building height of 20 ± feet ( 15 foot height limitation ) located at 203 Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57 - 1 - 1 , Residence District R - 15 . Said Ordinance permits artists to maintain professional offices only within the buildings that they reside in and not in accessory structures . Susan Cosentini , 527 North Aurora Street , stated the board was given all the documents . The structures are non -conforming by 1 foot . The proposed structure will join the 2 buildings . Mr. Bowman has retired . He no longer has space at Cornell . Mr. and Mrs . Bowman would like to have their studios together. The addition is to allow that . It will also allow more space . The addition will be non -conforming by one foot . Mr. Frost stated Mr. and Mrs . Bowman bought the property in the 1980s . They used to have their studios by the Chamber of Commerce . At some point they obtained a building permit to modify the accessory structures to create the current studios . At that time the board took the position that this was a home occupation and they were utilizing area less than 200 square feet . When Ms . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Cosentini came in to obtain a building permit , they reviewed the current uses and decided this is an artist studio . The artist studio would be permitted only if it was in the residence where the Bowmans live . There is a letter in the packet that describes what the applicant would like to do . It is the architectural design that is causing the height problem . It is advertised at 20 feet . Mr. Frost stated this property one point had an appeal for a church . The survey shows a 2 - story frame dwelling with anew addition . A pediatrician that had a pediatric office put on the addition . The new addition has become part of a 2 family residence . The appeal is to maintain the garage and barn as the artists ' studio . Chairperson Stotz asked if the addition would have steel roofing . Ms . Cosentini responded yes . The addition is supposed to appear as a separate element . The existing buildings are dissimilar in their roof configuration . The roof element was supposed to be sculptured . Chairperson Stotz stated the slope of the roof would face north and south . The building will be oriented east west . Mr. Smith stated the lot to the south is the future bikeway and trail . Ms . Cosentini stated the addition would not be much higher than the existing buildings . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 09 p . m . ; and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard ; Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 8 : 10 p . m . Mr. Niefer stated this location is part of the Art Trail . Would there be retail sales in the studios ? Ms . Cosentini stated they would not be entertaining walk- in sales at any given time . It might be considered during the Art Trail . Stan Bowman ; 203 Pine Tree Road , stated the Art Trail is a chance for people who are visiting in the area to go into artist studios and to see their work . It does not preclude the fact that they could be purchasing work there . In most cases it is not going to happen . This is the second year they have been on the Art Trail . They have had 2 people in the year stop by . They did not purchase any items . It is not a retail venture by any of the artists involved . Mr . Niefer stated the Art Trail is something new in the area . It may or may not have developed its full potential . It is conceivable there could be a greater traffic flow . Mr . Bowman stated there are other Art Trails throughout the country . They are average with what they have been told in the type of response . The biggest response is on the Art Trail weekends . There were 2 weekends this fall and there will be 2 weekends in the spring . There could be people dropping by on occasion . He does not want a lot of people coming to his studio all the time . He ZONING BOARD OF =APPEALS PAGE 12 NOVEMBER & . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED takes care of his retail sales through galleries . It is the proper place for a professional artist to sell their work . Mr. Ellsworth stated there is another house on Pine Tree Road that is on the Art Trail . They also exhibit their work downtown and where their sales are . The neighborhood forced out a gentleman that was making pottery on Pine Tree Road . He was selling out of his shed . He had neighbors working as employees . This gentleman has thanked the board . It has been better for him to move his business . The neighbors did complain . Chairperson Stotz asked if the addition would enable them to expand their production . Mr. Bowman stated that it is substituting for space he had at Cornell . He taught at Cornell in the Art Department for 27 years . It is going to allow him and his wife to collaborate on some clay projects . Chairperson Stotz stated it would enable them to work on larger pieces . Mr . Bowman stated they could do some larger pieces , but they could do some smaller pieces . Ms . Cosentini stated Mr. Bowman does painting and digital art . Mrs . Bowman has a ceramic studio . They are dissimilar art . Mr. Bowman works with large computers . They need separate facilities . They are going to do separate art as well . Ms . Cosentini stated the roof to Mr. Bowman 's studio is a Gable roof . Chairperson Stotz stated the sidings on the existing buildings are vertical boards . The addition looks to be masonry and glass brick windows with a steel roof . Ms . Cosentini stated it would be wood and masonry . Mr . Bowman stated they are going to create ceramic tile surface around the outside . Chairperson Stotz stated he was concerned about its appearance with the existing building and the neighborhood . Ms . Cosentini stated it is a small building . It will fit into the neighborhood . Chairperson Stotz stated there was an issue raised about the kiln generating odors . Mary Ann Bowman , 230 Pine Tree Road , stated the kiln does give off fumes . She has an envirobit for it . It draws the fumes to the outside of the building . Chairperson Stotz asked if it was something you could smell outside the building or is it just hot air . Mrs . Bowman stated it is hot air . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000E APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Cosentini stated she has never smelt any fumes . Chairperson Stotz asked if they have received comments from the neighbors about it . Mr. Frost stated he has never received any complaints . Chairperson Stotz asked what fire regulations apply to the building . Mr . Frost stated it is the same requirements as a home occupation . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Mr. Smith stated in Mr. and Mrs . Bowman 's letter , they stated they did not want these activities within the house because noise , fumes ; and solvents . The neighbors have not complained of any fumes or noise before . Mr. Smith stated there are approximately 7 parking spaces . Parking could be a problem during the Art Trail . Chairperson Stotz asked if there is room to expand the parking area . Mr. Smith stated it could be expanded into the back yard . Chairperson Stotz asked if there is a lot of noise from the kiln . Mr. Bowman responded no . Chairperson Stotz asked if ceramics involved sawing . Mr . Bowman stated he has a woodworking shop . It is an occasional activity . Mr. Ellsworth asked what is the louver for on the north elevation . Ms . Cosentini stated it is a heat exhaust . It is not connected to a heat system . It vents heat off the ceiling . Mr. Frost asked the board to consider the potential for the property to sell . The new owner could have a different activity in the buildings . He would like the resolution to be clear. Chairperson Stotz asked if the buildings have sanitary facilities . Mr . Bowman responded yes . Chairperson Stotz asked if there were kitchen facilities . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 14 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mrs . Bowman stated that they have slop sinks . RESOLUTION NO. 2000-68 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Stan and Maryann Bowman, 203 Pine Tree Road Tax Parcel No. 5744 November 8 2000. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Stan and Maryann Bowman, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 , Paragraph 6 and Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain artist studios in an accessory building with a building height of no more than 20. 5 feet located at 203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 1 - 1 , Residence District R- 15 based upon the reasons set forth in the environmental review. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES: Stott Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NA YS: The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Stotz asked if they needed to have 2 motions . Attorney Barney stated the resolutions could be combined . RESOLUTION NO. 2000-69 - VARIANCE - Stan and Maryann Bowman, 203 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel Noy 57- 14 , November 8, 2000. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Stan and Maryann Bowman; requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV Section 11 , Paragraph 6 and Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain artist studios in an accessory building with a building height not to exceed 20. 5 feet, located at 203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57- 1 - 1 , Residence District R- 15, based upon the following findings and conditions: a . The type of artistic endeavor that takes place is more suitable to be outside the home, b. The artistic efforts contribute to the community through participation in the Art Trail, C, The building is compatible with surrounding buildings. d. There does not appear to be any nuisance , noise or fumes. That the accessory buildings not be used as a dwelling unit. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz,, Niefer, Sigel. NA YS: NONE. The motion was declared to he carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Timothy and Linda Hinkin ; Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive . Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18- 5 - 14 , Residence District R - 15 . Said building is nonconforming as it extends beyond property lines , with part of the adjacent property being Cayuga Lake . Timothy Hinkin , 210 Willard Way , stated they had put an offer in on the house at 918 East Shore Drive contingent on getting approval from a structural engineer that the house could support a second story addition . The structural engineer determined the structure could support the addition . The second contingency was authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the second story to be built . The house is a 1 bedroom house . It started to be built in 1935 . It has evolved over the years . They would like to make the house a year round home . There is one large bedroom downstairs and a small room that could be used as a bedroom . The small room is not adequate for use as a bedroom for a typical family . Mr. Hinkin stated he is a profession at the Cornell Hotel School . He spends a lot of time working at home . He has a home office in his current home . The small room would work great as an office . Most of their family and friends do not live in the area . They entertain company in their current home and would like to do so in their future home . Mr. Hinkin stated they plan to greatly improve the structure . The structural engineer felt the current roof is not adequate . It was suggested that they replace the roof . They do plan on putting on nice siding and architectural shingles . The property value will be increased . Hopefully it will upgrade the neighborhood as well . They have notified their neighbors of the appeal . He did hear from one of his neighbors who is present . The issue is if it infringes on the view . Mr . Hinkin is not aware of a Town Ordinance or zoning about buildings obstructing someonefs view . The proposed addition would be within height restrictions . The proposed addition does not obstruct the other building 's view . Mr . Frost stated he received a letter indicating the building is feasible of handling the addition . Chairperson Stotz stated part of the building is suspended over water . D U� N , eIN NOV 9 2000 9 � Tom kins� County DEPARTIVIEl�T OF PLANNING TOWN OF ITHACA .. } J PLANNING , ZONING , ENGINEERING 121 East>@oo treet IthacNew'`Y 14850 James W. Hanson Jr. � � �° Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning Fax (607) 274-5578 November 7 , 2000 Mr. Andy Frost, Building/Zoning Officer Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street 216 Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Review pursuant to § 239 —1 and —m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action : Area variance and Special Permit approval, Bowman, 203 Pine Tree Road, Tax ID #57- 1 - 1 Dear Mr. Frost : This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to § 239 -1 and —m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The proposal , as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department, and you are free to act without prejudice. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, " " ry ames W. Hanson, Jr. ommissioner of Planning IL0 4r* Reci�cled paper FILE 0 , DATE o RESOLUTION NO . 2000=68 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT = Stan and Marvann Bowman , 203 Pine Tree Load Tax Parcel No. 57- 1 - 1 November $ 2000 . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Stan and Maryann Bowman , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 6 and Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain artist studios in an accessory building with a building height of no more than 20 . 5 feet located at 203 Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 1 - 1 , Residence District R - 15 based upon the reasons set forth in the environmental review . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . Carrie L . Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF T PKI S) S : TOWN OF ITHACA , I , 1 Gl _......_k `� Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attac ed resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 8t" day of November 2000 . T Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE Id DATE _ 1 p RESOLUTION NO . 2000-69 -V LANCE - Stan and Mar ann Bowman 203 Pine Tree Road , Tax Parcel No . 57mlml , November 8 , 2000 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by James Niefer. RESQ.LVED that this board grant the appeal of Stan and Maryann Bowman , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 6 and Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain artist studios in an accessory building with a building height not to exceed 20 . 5 feet , located at 203 Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 57- 1 - 1 , Residence District R - 15 , based upon the following findings and conditions : a . The type of artistic endeavor that takes place is more suitable to be outside the home , b . The artistic efforts contribute to the community through participation in the Art Trail , C , The building is compatible with surrounding buildings , d . There does not appear to be any nuisance , noise or fumes . e . That the accessory buildings not be used as a dwelling unit . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : NONE . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . 10AW C GUIC21 Jl -1 = Uv Carrie L . Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I � DYCk � .__._ ..__e._1.....__... ......._ T-e r ' . rt 1De ut Town Clerk p y C e k of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 8th day of November 2000 . _fie 4' .. .._..._.-_. _ .. ._._.� . T *4+4444'Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 YES NO X_ If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: ( Answers may be handwritten, if legible) Cl . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly : See Attached, C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : See Attached, C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly : See Attached. C4. The Town 's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly : See Attached. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly: See Attached. C6. Long term , short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05? 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 NOX If yes, explain briefly : E. Comments of staff 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 (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope, and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material . Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately address. 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 . X Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 0 �n„✓�t� Name of Lead Agency Preparer' s Sig ture(If different from Responsible Officer) David D. Stott , airm LName title e onsible is r Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer DATE : ( � ` U �00 Signature of Respon ' - fiver i ead Agency Town Assigned Projec ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, NY ONLY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION o be com leted by A pplicant or Project Sponsor) 1 . Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name : d � • n �or�/�1 3. Precise locatl n (street address, road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map) : Tax Parcel Number: 4. Is proposed action : NEW? EXPANSION? i( MODIFICATION/ALTERATION? S. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant Items) : See pld�AJ (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) i. Amount of land affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) Acres (6-10 yrs) U Acres (> 10 yrs) 0 Acres r. How Is land zoned presently? QQ / -6e.f/a9ei,7 c e ,Yfl, ti7L f. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? YES NO If no describe conflict briefly: url( s7t /4a 4L) ir, .rtccJta / �ti , '/� � w, 71 J� ti , /�n h< < /+ f of '70 i. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES NO ✓ Public Water? YES NO V' Public Sewer? YES NO 0. What Is the present land use In the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space Other Please Describe : 1 . Does proposed action Involve a permit, approval , or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local)? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding : P. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO ✓ If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether It will require modification. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE 1S TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ApplicanvSpons Name ( Print or Type) : Aa J et 4t � ,( 4(,o" Signature : Date : Gv —Z�v Rev. 8/92 TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $100.00 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: bk/(> Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1783 CASH SPECIAL APPROVAL CHECK - � to the ' Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer ZONING. and the Zoning Board of Appeals For Office Use Only of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been informed that authorization is required to : 5e a 4L V-Q-r;J47 ce r�Y� r71 Aem at Ro 3 Pvy, Tixe e Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. ' 1 , 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 Ordinan , the UNDERSIGNED respectfiilly submits this request for Special Approval authorization. (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.) - V 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 Owner/Appellant: Date: Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: G(t 2 Print Name Here: Si N Cos e4 Home Telephone Number:.j `l 9 a % y0 Work Telephone Number: NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any approvals given does not commence within 18 months, the approval will . PART II — Environmental Assessment: Stan and Maryann Bowman — artist studio 203 Pine Tree Road Artist Studio within Accessory Building, Height Variance Zoning Board of Appeals 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 : CI . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? No significant adverse effects are anticipated relating to water quality or quantity, solid waste, or potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage as a result of the proposed action. The proposal is to maintain artist studios in two existing accessory buildings and connect these buildings with a new addition. The height of the existing accessory buildings and the addition is greater than the 15 -foot height limitation (20 +/- feet requested) . The parcel is located at 203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 1 - 1 and is zoned Residence District R- 15 . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance permits artists to maintain professional offices only within the buildings that they reside in and not in accessory structures . Stanley and Mary Ann Bowman are both artists and are currently using the two accessory buildings as their studios . Mary Ann Bowman is a ceramic artist and Stanley Bowman is a painter and computer artist. They both are full time professional artists and are in the need of more space. They are part of the "Greater Ithaca Art Trail" which is a collection of studios in the region where the public can view and purchase art. The Bowman' s are available by appointment or on selected open studio weekends that all the studios on the trail are open. With the studios being on the art trail, the public could be visiting the site at various times and at different frequencies . There are approximately seven parking spaces available on property. If at a busy time, vehicles fill these seven spaces, any additional visitors would have to park on the shoulder of Pine Tree Road . This would be undesirable and would pose safety problems on the heavily traveled County road. The entrance to this property is off Pine Tree Road, between Synder Hill Road and Honness Lane, a heavily traveled area. The applicants letter (dated October 30, 2000) mentions that their art activities would not be suitable to be done in the main house because of the heat from the kiln, the mess from clay and glazes, the sawdust from woodworking equipment, the solvent fumes from oil painting, and other mess making art activities . It appears that there is the potential that these odors and noise could also impact the neighbors to the north, which is very close to the property line and the accessory buildings . While these impacts may not be significant, more information may be helpful about these activities, the chemicals used, frequency of use, and any plans on how to minimize the noise and odor impacts to adjacent residences . C2 . Aesthetic, agriculture, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? None Anticipated. The existing studio buildings are visible from both Pine Tree Road and Synder Hill Road. The addition between the buildings should not be visible from the roads but could be visible from neighboring properties . C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? None Anticipated . The site is developed with various structures, parking and driveways, and lawn. The area between the two buildings where the addition is going contains a mixture of plantings and low growth, with mostly a bark chip ground cover. No significant vegetation or wildlife habitats are known to exist on this site . C4 . The Town ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of land or other natural resources ? None Anticipated. The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan ( Sept. 1993 ) designates the site as between "Agricultural" and " Suburban Residential," and it is zoned Residence District R- 15 . This parcel is adjacent to the future William and Hannah Pew Bikeway and potential parking area for the trail . The trail will be starting south of the property at the intersection of Pine Tree Road and Honness Lane running southeast behind the residences on Synder Hill Road . The potential parking area is directly behind the property off Synder Hill Road . The studios could be visible from both the trail and the parking area. 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 C 1 -05 ? None Anticipated. C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? None Anticipated . D . Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated . PART III. — Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of it, 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: Michael Smith, Environmental Planner Review Date : November 2 , 2000 October 30 , 2000 OCT 3 0 2000 Andy Frost TOWN OF ITCA Building Inspector BUILDING /ZONING Town of Ithaca 215 N . Tioga St. Ithaca , NY 14850 Dear Mr. Frost : This letter is in regards to the proposed building addition to our property located at 203 Pine Tree Road , Ithaca . We are proposing to create a new room between two existing buildings at the rear of our property that will join them together. And since we are now both at home full time as professional artists we would now like to declare the two out buildings and proposed addition as " professional artists studios" , which requires a variance . The additional space is needed for two reasons . Stanley has retired from the Cornell University Department of Art and he no longer has studio space on campus , and now needs it at home . Additionally both of us are beginning joint projects in architectural ceramics that require additional space for their execution . It is not possible to use the current main residential structure for art studios for many reasons , not the least of which is that there is not sufficient space available in the main house for ceramic, painting , computer and woodworking activities . In addition the use of the main house is not suitable for the heat of a kiln , the mess from clay and glazes , the sawdust from woodworking equipment , the solvent fumes from oil painting and coating of computer prints , and other mess making art activities . Also one of the two existing buildings and the new addition exceed the height limit requirement in the Town zoning code . We are seeking relief from this requirement. The new addition will exceed the limitation because a sloped roof that is higher than 15 feet at one end is necessary to fit the two buildings it is joining . Sincerely , Stanley Bowman Mary Ann Bowm i 203 Pine Tree road Ithaca , NY 14850 Cosentini 527 North Aurora Street • Ithaca • NY 14850 607-277-2700 Tel 607-277-1316 Fax ruction Inc. Wd * �' Vv ujX— A Design / Build Firm Frofe55ional Remodeling 5pecialiot T00 ' d is ECVON XH/ Xl 9T : OT 00 / TZ / 90 Im }'- I 2 S NIF /n 1170AI M � b 144R6AREF M . " �'NIU �a 57-1 - 7• J 2 l 6 22- 7412) sY°bKF h CL G RA COOP Q/u E � V E 11 3 PRA a DW441 NG V�j v W � tA 3 o I ZAND5 of � � Q CyUN- YCH CHEN ro 419 283) AJA P 1�RiPr `L aiq.. 0 1 250 FRAW K C. . ' 8LYME C 84440 W INj .T;P. Apt (S12 - 718 57� / - 7. 2 58 ;L .767 4N8 OF AA dPW tt )1^�'1V dS AT Ac sss, OA OIL 70LVN Df 1T14A c/Q, TO/► 7pX/lv5 CD• 5P /VE W YORK SCALE I " = 5v0 PREPiQ REp er 25)j 98/ N01•ViQRI) R, SC1'1L /EpE � Y 29 /9� 4P/?1L 18,/988 i4 �' 5 Q6C T ' d uewmog uedjS eGT : OT 00 TZ un NOU-07-2000 15 : 58 ITCTC & TCPD P . 02 DEPART Lam' I :;� pLNING ,meet 0 James W. Iiansou, Jr. " * 'mss Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning ' Y�"' Fax (607) 274-5578 November 7, 2000 Mr. Andy Frost, Building/Zoning Officer Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street 216 Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Review pursuant to § 239 —1 and —m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action : Area variance and Special Permit approval, Bowman. 203 Pine Tree Road, Tax ID #57- 1 - 1 Dear Mr. Frost: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 - 1 and —m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The proposal , as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department, and you are free to act without prejudice. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, h, ames W. Hanson, Jr. ommissioner of Planning Recycled paper TOTAL P . 02 i.�.:.. i.J 9 -ice•" .i r � 4• �.y�it ice_w._•�r s-. . .. .rat f•�� FT�,S�N. �_y; ��.r r• t. Property Description Residential Status: Active SW IS: 503089 Tax Map #: 57.-1-1 " 203 PINE TREE RD - • Zoning Code: Site: 1 = ' Neighborhood: 30030 Old Style EXIT�D School District : Ithaca 220 2 Family _ Deed Book- 636 Page: 1,112 Owner: BOWMAN,STANLEY J&MARY ANN STANLEY&MARY ANN BOWMAN 203 PINE TREE RD ITHACA NY 14850 7/3112000 File Photo Improvements: Structure No Improvements Number of Baths: 2.5 Number of Bedrooms: 4 Number of Kitchens: 2 Number of Fireplaces: 0 Overall Condition: NORMAL Overall Grade: AVERAGE Porch Type: PORCH,ENCLSD Porch Area: 30 Year Built: 1933 Basement Type: PARTIAL Last Sale: No Sale Base Garage Capacity: 0 Att Garage Capacity: 0 Area Land: Living Area: 2,046 Land Type:PRIME SITE First Story Area: 1,650 Size: 100 x 244 Second Story Area: Total Acreage:0 Additional Story Area: Half Story Area: Three-Quarter Story Area: 528 Finished Basement: Assessment: Utilities Land : 30,500 Sewer Type: COMM/PUBLIC Total: 220,000 Water Supply: COMM/PUBLIC Taxes: Utilities: ELECTRIC Heat Type: HOT AIR Fuel Type: GAS Central Air: TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12 , 1986 7 :00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of -the _Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, November 12 , 1986 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST, Side.) , Ithaca, N.Y. , COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M. , on the following matters: ADJOURNED APPEAL (from September 10 and October 15 , 1986) of Mark Stevens, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Certificate of Compliance for a single family dwelling located at 118 Compton Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel- No. 6-36-2-4 . 2 , Residence District R30 , said, dwelling having been constructed with an east side yard of less than 40 feet. Certificate is denied under Article V, Section 21 , and Article XIV, Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. ADJOURNED APPEAL (from October 15, 1986) of Dr. Y. Chen, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission to operate an office of a resident physician for the practice of pediatrics where such office is not a part of the residence building at 203 Pine Tree Road, Residence District R15 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-1. Permission is denied under Article IV, Section 12, paragraph 1 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. ADJOURNED APPEAL (from October 15, 1986) of A. J. and Angeline Lenzini, Appellants, R. G. Gerber Real Estate, Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Certificate of Occupancy for a three-family dwelling located in a Residence District R9 at 201 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-37-1-12. Permission is denied under Article III, Section 4 , paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article XIV, Section 76, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Daniel R. and Heather R. Kailburn, Appellants , from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Building Permit for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Car Wash, located at 77 Judd Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-62-2-13 .6 , Business District "D" , such proposed expansion creating a side yard of less than 20 feet. Permit is denied under Article VII, Section 37 , paragraph 2, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of B.O.C.E.S . , Appellant, Gerald Friedman, Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission to operate aSchool at The Biggs Center, 1283 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-3-2 . 2 , Special Land Use District (Limited Mixed Use) , Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 4-1986 , Residence District R-30 Regulations applicable such that approval of the Board of Appeals is required. Permission is denied under Article V, Section 18 , paragraph 4,. of the Town of I-t1ac,a Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Therm, Inc. , 703 Hudson Street Extension, Appellant, Christopher Black, Development Engineering, Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Building Permit for the construction of a proposed office addition for Therm, Inc . , located in a Light Industrial District, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-2-1 , such proposed addition being a second story and also exceeding 25 _ feet in height, . Permit is denied under Article VIII, Section 44 , paragraph 4 , and Article XIV, Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Ruth M. Pond, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer, denying permission to operate a Bed and Breakfast business at 529 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-70-1-51 . 2 , Residence District R15 . Permission ,is denied under Article IV, Sections 11 and 12, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7:00 p.m. , and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Andrew Frost Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer DD b 998g66 Town of Ithaca Ptt1lish: November 1 , 1986 r.r . , : r TOWN OF ITHACA • ; ,4.._ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 12, 1986 A' regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on November 12, 1986 in the Ithaca Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York. PRESENT: Chairman Henry Aron, Edward Austen, Joan Reuning, Edward King, Building inspector Andrew Frost, and Town Attorney John C. Barney. ALSO PRESENT : Ruth M. Pond, Rosemary Gerber, William S. - _ Seldin, Frances _Connelly, _Mary__ Wessel,. Robert R. Sprole, -II, -Ed ---_- Cobb, - Gerry-Friedman, - Mark -Stevens;-Mary'--Yaple, Judy= Mark, Douglas Fain, Patricia Fain , Elliott Lauderdale , and Peter Hillman. The public meeting was opened at 7: 05 p.m. Chairman Aron stated that all posting and publication of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order. The first item on the agenda for consideration was as ' follows: ADJOURNED APPEAL (from September 10 and October 15, 1986 ) of Mark Stevens, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Certificate of Compliance- for a single family dwelling located at 118 -Compton--Road,..- Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 6-36-2-4 .2 , - Residence District R30 , said dwelling having been constructed with an east side yard of less than 40 feet . Certificate is denied under Article V, Section 21 , and Article XIV, Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Aron then read a letter addressed to Mr. Stevens, a copy of which -had been sent to him, from Mrs. Josephine Allen, dated November 10, 1986 indicating that she was unable to attend the meeting on November 12, 1986 but that she was willing to sell . part of her land to Mr. Stevens. Said letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . Chairman Aron inquired of Mr. Stevens whether he had contacted Mrs. Allen as he was directed to do at the last meeting. Mr. Stevens responded that he. had talked to her but with what she was willing to sell - some 26 feet of her land- it still would not put his east boundary in compliance, and if that amount of footage was alright with the Board then he and Mrs. Allen would work something out. Chairman Aron responded that it was not a matter of the Board being happy about it but it 2 was a matter of Mr. Stevens ' s intent. Chairman Aron asked if Mr. Stevens was willing to accept Mrs. Allen's offer to sell and Mr. Stevens responded that he was. Chairman Aron stated that the decision of the Board could only be made when Mr. Stevens and Mrs. Allen had discussed the matter and Mr . Stevens made a purchase offer and brought it before the Board signifying goodwill on the part of Mr. Stevens to rectify the matter. Mr. Stevens responded that even if he bought the land from Mrs. Allen it still would not be enough for the required east yard . Chairman Aron then stated that on November 10, 1986 Mrs.. Allen had called him in the morning and told him that Mr. Stevens had not contacted her as yet. Chairman Aron pointed out that he had four weeks within which to contact Mrs. Allen and yet he had not done so. Mr. ,Stevens respondedthw t . he was .directed_ to contact Mrs. Allen before the meeting and therefore he had called her the day before the meeting. •He further stated that he was hesitant about making a purchase offer on Mrs. Allen' s property because he was not sure the 26 feet she was willing to sell was enough to comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Mr. King asked if Mr. Stevens had a lawyer and Mr. Stevens responded that Roger Sovocool was his attorney. Mr. King advised Mr. Stevens to direct Mr. Sovocool to draw up a purchase offer to buy whatever additional land Mrs . Allen was willing to sell making the contract contingent upon the Zoning Board of Appeals approving a variance. He further advised that when Mr. Stevens came to the Board with such a purchase offer then the Board would decide. Chairman Aron concurred with Mr. King' s comments and called for a motion. Mr. King made a motion as follows: It is moved that this matter be adjourned until the next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Joan Reuning seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Aye - Aron, King, Austen, Reuning Nay -' None The motion was carried. The next matter on the agenda was as follows: ADJOURNED APPEAL ( from October 15, 1986 ) of Dr. Y. Chen , Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission to operate an office of a resident physician for the practice 3 of pediatrics where such office is not a part of the residence building at 203 Pine Tree Road, Residence District R15 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1 -1 . Permission is denied under Article IV, Section 12, paragraph 1 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. The Board was advised that Dr. Chen had withdrawn his appeal, and Chairman Aron declared the appeal moot, The next matter on the agenda was as follows: ADJOURNED APPEAL (from October 15 , 1 98 6) of A. J. and Angeline Lenzini, Appellants, Peter Harris, representing R. G. - Gerber Real Estate, A-get1t , , from- the decision of V the -- - Buil_ding__ Inspector_/_Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a �:.z •=fr .sros�= - Certificate -of-Occupancy- 'for three-famil-y -dwelqi-n'g-rl-'ocatea • Y-�°`t°-A in a Residence District R9 at 201 West King Road, Town of . _ __. _ Ithaca Tax_ Parcel No . 6-37-1 -1=2 . Per-miss-ion - is d-enied -- under Article III , Section 4, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article XIV , Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning - Ordinance. Attorney William Seldin representing the interests Of Mr. Lenzini spoke 'to the Board. He stated-. that Mary Gerber who was " 7 - _ _ a •presenta•t the _meeting hadr.prepared -a= financial st-atement"=whi•ch=-`-==--_--~�-- - statement was distributed -to the Board - Said statement 'is '— attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Mr. Seldin advised that he had spoken to both the attorneys for the seller andthe attorneys for Mr. Lenzini at the time Mr. Lenzini bought the property, and had checked the closing statement, and it was obvious that when Mr. Lenzini bought the property he was under the impression that it - was a three-family dwelling. Mr.- Seldin added that -Mr. Lenzini - - • -had- -been---pa•y-ing :ta=xes -on' the ; property" which wa"s"'assessed three-unit dwelling. Chairman Aron interrupted that he did not think the payment of taxes had a bearing on the matter before the Board. Mr. Seldin said that he knew that the taxes had no legal = - -- significance -whatsoever but mentioned -the' taxes -only to show V V hardship- -in- -what-ry the -property- had cost'TF1r Lenzini and• what it '="= ` = -= would continue to cost him. At this time Mr . Seldin referred to the statement from Rosemary Gerber, the listing broker for the Lenzini property. He pointed out that if the property were reduced to a two-family unit it would create a loss of $3600. 00 in rentals a year . Further, if the property could not be sold as a three-unit but instead was sold as a two-unit it would create a $20,000. 00 loss on the sale price. Mr. Seldin stated that at the time of the last meeting there 4 was a purchase agreement from a Joanne Gardella of Auburn , New York for $68, 000. 00 but the deal had fallen through because the purchaser was not willing to wait for the outcome of the proceeding before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Seldin went on to state that there was now a new prospective purchaser by the name of Gary Lindenbaum, Comptroller of the Ithaca City School District, but there was not an actual purchase offer as yet as Mr . Lindenbaum was awaiting the Board's decision. Mr. Seldin stated that Mr. Lindenbaum would purchase the premises on an owner-occupied bas-is. Mr. Seldin referred to the minutes of the previous meeting which reflected the concern of the neighbors . He went on to say that perhaps to serve Mr. Lenzini ' s interests and also to satisfy the concerns of the neighbors that the property could , be .rna: e ._,a •three-unit dwelling with the condition that it had to- be owner-occupied. Le felt that being owner- occupied the -property -would be- kept up and taken care of - because the owner would be living there as opposed to an absentee landlord. Mr. Seldin repeated that the loss to Mr. Lenzini of having to sell the property as a two-unit dwelling would be considerable.. - - At this time Mr. Austen stated that if the house were made into only two apartments, those apartments could be -made into two-bedroom apartments and thus the rental for those apartments could be increased, thereby- lessening the loss -of funds.- - - Mrs. Rosemary Gerber then addressed the Board. She stated that Mr. Austen was correct but that renovations would have to be made and most buyers look at a property to see what it would mean in income as it stands. Joan Reuning stated that when she suggested at the last meeting that the Board should have some sort of financial statement she did not have in mind what Mrs. Gerber had presented to the Board. What Mrs. Reuning meant was not how much would be lost on the sale price by changing it from a three-unit to a two- unit but what kind of a loss there would be in profits by having the property become a two-unit. She felt it would be helpful to have these figures. She added that as to the matter of - hardship even though- Mr. Lenzini had- paid taxes on a three-unit dwelling he_ had still been collecting rents - on a three -unit dwelling. The public meeting was then opened. Mr. Elliott Lauderdale of 381 Stone Quarry Road, Ithaca, New York, presented a letter addressed to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Ithaca in opposition to Mr. Lenzini ' s appeal which he read to the Board. Said letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Mr . Peter Hillman of 370 Stone Quarry Road, Ithaca, New • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15 , 1986 7 :00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, October 15 , 1986 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST , Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side) , Ithaca, N.Y. , COMMENCING AT 7:00 P .M.. , on the following matters: ADJOURNED APPEAL (from September 10 , 1986) of Mark Stevens, Appellant, from- the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Certificate of Compliance for a single family dwelling located at 118 Compton Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6-36-2-4.2, Residence District R30, said dwelling having been constructed' with an east side yard of less than 40 feet. Certificate is denied under Article V, Section 21, and Article XIV, Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning • Ordinance. APPEAL of Dr. Z. Chen, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission to operate an office of a resident physician for the practice of pediatrics where such office is not a part of the residence building at 203 Pine Tree Road, . Residence District R15 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-1. Permission is denied under Article IV, Section 12 , paragraph 1 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of A. J. and Angeline Lenzini, Appellants, Peter Harris , representing R. G. Gerber Real Estate , Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Certificate of Occupancy for a three-family dwelling located in a Residence District R9 at 201 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-37-1-12 . Permission is denied under Article III, Section 4 , paragraphs 1 and 2 , and Article XIV, Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Eric F. Dicke, Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Building Permit for the construction of an Indoor Equitation Arena measuring 90 feet by 250 feet, having a height greater than 30 feet but not to exceed 37 feet, and requiring Special Approval of the Board of Appeals, proposed to he located on Pine Tree Road near its intersection with Ellis Hollow Road, Residence District R30 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-60-1-8 . 2 and 6-60-1-9E. Permit is denied under Article V, Section 18 , paragraphs 4 and 16 , and Article XIV, Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7:00 p.m. , and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Andrew Frost Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca Dated: October 7 , 1986 • Publish: October 10 , 1986 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15, 1986 A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on October 15, 1986 in the Ithaca Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York. PRESENT: Chairman Henry Aron, Edward Austen, Jack Hewett, Joan Reuning, Town Planner Susan Beeners, Building Inspector Andrew Frost, Town Attorney John C. Barney and Mr. Barn.ey1s Associate, Attorney Richard P. Ruswick. ALSO PRESENT: S. Douglas Fain, Patricia Fain, Mark Stevens, Mark Schultz, Ying Jonny Chen, Bonnie Majestic, Virginia S. Sirois, Shirley Raffensperger, Josephine Allen, Minnie Orcutt, Mark Mecenas, Mary Yaple, Peter Hillman, Elliott Lauderdale, Peter Harris, Scotty Lin, Mario Giannella, Laing Kennedy, G. Wetzler, and Shirley Egan. The public meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Aron stated that all posting and publication of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order. The first item on the agenda for consideration was as " follows: ADJOURNED APPEAL (from September 10, 1986) of Mark Stevens, Appellant, from the decision of ' the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Certificate of Compliance for a single family dwelling located at 118 Compton Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-36-2-4.2, Residence District R30, said dwelling having been constructed with an east side yard of less than 40 feet. Certificate is denied under Article V, Section 21, and Article XIV, . Section 75,_ of the__Town_ of Ithaca _ Zoning . _ Ordinance. Chairman Aron then invited Mr. Stevens to address the Board. Mr. Stevens presented a survey map made by Thomas G. Miller which he had been directed by the Board to obtain at the September 10, 1986 meeting. This survey showed the location of his house at 118 Compton Road and the location of the house he had built at 122 Compton Road which now was owned by Josephine Allen. Said survey showed the lack of the required east sideyard footage on Mr. Stevens's property at 118 Compton Road. Mr. Stevens felt that since he had complied with Chairman Aron's request to have a survey of the property in question done, he had 2 satisfied the Zoning Board of Appeals directions and again asked for a Certificate of Compliance for his property at 118 Compton Road. Chairman Aron inquired as to whether Mr. Stevens had spoken to Josephine Allen about the possibility of purchasing some of her land so as to increase his east sideyard. Mr. Stevens responded that he did not remember that Chairman Aron had asked him to do so. Chairman Aron referred to the minutes of the September 10, 1986 meeting where it was stated that Mr. Stevens should approach Mrs. Allen about the possibility of her selling some of her land to Mr. Stevens. Mr. Stevens then stated that he did not believe that it would have done any good in that he felt that Mrs. Allen would not have been willing to sell. Josephine Allen was present at the public hearing and Chairman Aron then inquired of her as to whether she would have entertained the possibility of selling some of her land to Mr. Stevens. Mrs. Allen responded that she had never been approached by Mr. Stevens but that if she had she might have been willing to negotiate a sale but she would not know until she conferred with Mr. Stevens about the matter. Chairman Aron then directed Mr. Stevens to meet with Mrs. Allen to talk about a sale of a portion of her land to him. Chairman Aron inquired if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak on the matter. There was no one. The public hearing was then closed. A motion was then made by Edward Austen as follows: It is moved that this matter be adjourned until the November meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow Mr. Stevens to confer with Mrs. Allen and try to negotiate a sale. The motion was seconded by Joan Reuning. The voting was as follows: Aye - Aron, Hewett, Austen, Reuning Nay -- None Themotion was carried. The next matter on the agenda was as follows: APPEAL of Dr. Y. Chen, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission to operate an office of a resident physician for the practice of pediatrics where such office is not a part of the residence building at 203 Pine Tree Road, Residence District R15, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-1. Permission is denied under Article IV, Section 12, paragraph 1, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. 3 Dr. Y. Chen addressed the Board. Dr. Chen presented a survey map of his property and explained that he would like to convert the detached garage in the back of his property at 203 Pine Tree Road into an office for the practice of pediatrics. He stated that he was planning to convert the building into a waiting room, reception area, and several examination rooms. The upstairs of the building would be used for storage area for stationery and office equipment, etc. Dr. Chen estimated that he would see between ten to twenty patients a day, by appointment only. His office hours would start at 9: 00 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. Parking of cars would be in the front of said building and there was room for four cars. Dr. Chen stated that he would employ one nurse who would not be driving to work but taking a bus and therefore would not have to park on the premises. Dr. Chen's own personal car would be parked inside the barn in the back of the house. The public hearing was then opened by Chairman Aron who asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak for or against the matter. Mary Yaple of 151 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, New York spoke. She expressed concern as a long time resident of the area who had invested much money into her home. Mrs. Yaple felt that much is happening in the neighborhood already, i.e. , the new development of townhouses on Honness Lane and the possibility of a polo barn. She stated that since this area is a shortcut to Cornell anyway and the traffic has always been the major problem on that street that Dr. Chen's proposed plan would bring more traffic into an already congested area. Mrs. Yaple's other concern was that this area is a nice residential area and she would like to see it remain so and she feared that once a variance was granted to Dr. Chen it would open up the possibility of more businesses coming into the area. Shirley Raffensperger of 139 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, New York was next to speak. Mrs. Raffensperger stated that she is on _ the Town_ Board._ of sthaca_ .and ..because___of .that she had received- many telephone calls that afternoon and just before the meeting from people who had received a notice but assumed it was for the polo barns. She continued that the neighborhood is now aware that there is another proposal for Pine Tree Road. She went on to state that she believed Dr. Chen had visited some of the neighbors and asked for their assent to his plan. Mrs. Raffensperger further stated that some of these neighbors don't really understand what the proposal is and would appreciate it if the Zoning Board of -Appeals would postpone the approval of Dr. Chen's appeal until the neighbors have had a chance to clarify exactly what is proposed. Some of their concerns were whether an addition would- be made to the building, did the Board of Health approve of a health facility in this area, can Mr. Chen practice 4 at Tompkins Community Hospital and would their be signage? Mrs. Raffensperger informed the Board that several adjacent neighbors could not be present at the meeting because of a conflict with their children' s open house at school. She said that the neighbors would like a chance to talk to Dr. Chen about their concerns. Chairman Aron then read a letter from Dr. and Mrs. Frank C. Baldwin of 149 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, New York, in opposition to Dr. Chen's plans, a copy of which letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Scotty Lin of 201 Snyder Hill Road, Ithaca, New York said it was her understanding that Dr. Chen's property is located in an R15 which allows a physician's office in the residence building. She stated that Pine Tree Road is already heavily traveled and did not feel that Dr. Chen's practice would create any more congestion than there already was. Ms. Lin went on to state that she had spoken to several persons who were very pleased that there would be a pediatrician in that area and felt that his services would be valuable to those families who had small children especially when they might be in need of immediate attention. Chairman Aron informed Ms. Lin that she was correct when she said that Dr. Chen may have an office in his residence and then read from Article IV, Section 12, Paragraph 1. "1. Office of a resident doctor, dentist, musician, engineer, {teacher, lawyer, artist, architect or member of other recognized profession where such office is part of the residence building provided that not more than two (2) additional persons not residing on the premises may be employed. " _ Chairman Aron explained, however, that Dr. Chen wanted to open an office in another building which he does not reside in and that is why the zoning officer denied a permit for his operation. The public hearing was then closed. Joan Reuning was concerned about the lack of information of the Board on this matter. She expressed concern about the parking and also felt that the Board needed to see a better sketch plan showing what the building would look like. She added that it was her opinion that the Board could not with its present information make a decision. Chairman Aron inquired of Dr. Chen if he would be willing to meet with the neighbors and if need be show them exactly what he was planning on doing. Chairman Aron told Dr. Chen that if he • were going to be part of the community that it would behoove him to inform the neighbors of his plans. Chairman Aron stated that it would be his personal recommendation to consult with all of the neighbors within his surroundings and show good faith to them so that they would feel comfortable with what Dr. Chen wished to do. Chairman Aron said that Dr. Chen could then come back to the Board with the input from the neighbors and also present plans for the building so the Board could see exactly how it would look. Dr. Chen told the Board that it was important to him that the neighbors feel comfortable with what he wished to do but that he had not had time to visit every neighbor. He had made as many visits as he could and had obtained some signatures to support him. He went on to say that when he first visited with Dr. and Mrs. Baldwin in September they seemed in favor of his proposal but at that time he was not sure what he planned on doing as he had been offered space to rent near the hospital. He added that after further investigation he decided, and was encouraged, to stay in the area and serve the people there. At that time Dr, Chen went to Andrew Frost and made application. Dr. Chen stated that Mr. Frost informed him that it was just a formality and that Dr. Chen would probably be granted a variance. Dr. Chen explained that this was why he mentioned to the neighbors that the application was just a formality and that he was assured of being granted a variance. Dr. Chen went on to say that the traffic has always been busy on Pine Tree Road and that there were two peaks, one in the early morning and one in the late afternoon but since his office hours would be between 9 and 5 the traffic would be much less then. He added that the office would be closed at 5 unless there were still patients to see. Dr. Chen stated that he would see patients at night by house call. Dr. Chen informed the Board that he was a fully qualified physician receiving his training in West Germany where he had been for seven years and had gotten board certified there. When he arrived in America he had to get additional training at the State Medical Center in Brooklyn -and -is now at this point- board eligible. Dr. Chen stated that he is licensed in New York, New Jersey and Maryland. Andrew Frost interjected at this point that he never really told Dr. Chen how the Board would make a ruling. Mr. Frost asked if before he came in the Board had discussed the matter of the variance or approval that was given for a church that was going in at that same premises previously. Chairman Aron responded that this had nothing to do with the matter at hand. Mary Yaple asked how the special approval or permit would work if granted to Dr. Chen. Chairman Aron responded that if Dr. 6 Chen is given a special permit by the Board to operate his practice in the building in question, it is a special permit to Dr. Chen only and not to the house and not to the property. He added that if Dr. Chen moved out, the special permit is null and void. Ms . Lin stated that when Dr. Chen was about to move to Ithaca Mr. Lew Cartee had just passed away and that at that time Gary Wood was taking Mr. Cartee' s place. Ms. Lin said that Mr. Wood wrote a note stating that in his interpretation of the zoning ordinance a detached building on the same lot could be used as a residential use and that a permit would not be required. The letter was then read by Chairman Aron: "July 1 , 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: My interpretation of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance with reference to land use in the R15 district permitting use of °accessory building' is taken from Article I, Section 1, line 20, Article IV, Residence District R15, Section 12, line 1 . Copies of each are attached. S/ Gary Wood, P.E. " Chairman Aron stated that the interpretation of any zoning law is done by the Zoning Board of Appeals and no one else . Chairman Aron repeated that according to the zoning ordinance as read earlier special approval must be applied for an accessory building such as a garage which is detached from the house. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Jack Hewett as follows: - It is moved that this-matter be adjourned until November- 12, - 1986 to allow Dr. Chen to speak with his neighbors to explain the situation and then bring back to the Board - information as to the feeling of the neighborhood, and also provide the Board with a sketch plan as to the layout of the building. The motion was seconded by Joan Reuning. The voting was as follows: Aye - Aron, Hewett, Austen, Reuning Nay - None The motion was carried. TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $10.00 0)--I q 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: (-1, 1��, Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH -(/0 ) (607) 273-1747 CHECK - ( ) APPEAL ZONING: to the For Office Use Only Building Inspector and 44- C 76 Zoning Board of Appeals of the O Azt- /2_ 1 Town of Ithaca, New York * * * * * * * Having been denied permission to . ��-� a_ '' S,'CA.`r,1, s ?Yet 4`L-f ,ruyk 6u.,'ew CIF �dL 04 ? ems,%,r& at °3 %�1Z 4-ee 2'—viec,cov, , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. — /" / , as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of : • Article(s) -1 V , Section(s) /c / of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal from such denial and, in support of the appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: _• l `--k cn&i'tti evu LC 61 &( Ci--e.l' ftn S O r j COLD r i C Q ��i C CY 4.- �7 d L/' &� Me lc, Co Q(l c& Ae-isv" s °L de d y U. (moop.y -ecr e Ia - rek_Ae-Ak-A--s Cam. � Dated: � ( I e6 Signed: / • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE' OF PUBLIC HEARINGS" WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17 , 1985 7 :00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the, Zoning- Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings_ will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of -the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, `April 17 , 1985 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side) , Ithaca, N.Y. , COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M. , on the following matters: - ADJOURNED APPEAL (from December 12 , 1984 , January 23 , 1985 , February- 27 , 1985 , - March 20 , 1985) of R. Delli-Carpini, J. , Fairchild, and J. Saroka, Appellants, in re the conversion of an existing garage on a developed lot in a Residence District R15 to a place of worship (public place of assembly) at 203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-1. - ADJOURNED APPEAL (from March 20 , 1985) of Robert A. Boehlecke Jr. , Lawrence Hull, Agent, in re the use of an existing structure (barn) , located in Residence District R9", for an office, shop, and storage of plumbing supplies , with three employees, at 611 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel" No. 6-31-2-2 . 1. , APPEAL of Tompkins 'Community Hospital , Appellant, Lawrence Hoffman, Architect, Agent, from the- decision of the Building Inspector denying Special Approval for the construction bf a physicians ' office building in Residence District R30 , and further denying a Building Permit for said building having a proposed height of greater than thirty feet, at 1281 Trumansburg Road, a portion of- Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-3-2.2. Approval and Permit are denied under Article V, Section 18 , Paragraph 11; Article V, Section 18 , Paragraph 16 ; and Article XIV, Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . (continued on Page 2) - TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING, BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 17 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday, April 17 , 1985 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7 :00 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Henry Aron, Edward We King, Joan G. Reuning, Edward N. Austen, Jack D. Hewett, Peter G. Grossman (Town Attorney) , Lewis - D. Cartee (Town Building Inspector) , Peter M. Lovi - (Town Planner) , Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary) . • ALSO PRESENT: Raymond Delli-Carpini, Augusts- Zeipe, Maiga Zeipe, Heinz P. Riederer, Norbert H. Schickel III, John L. Camilli, Clara Camilli, Peter W. Post, Isobella B. Spencer, Marian S. Woolley, Adolph 1.Purco, David Gries, Manning Woolley, Constance E. Cook , Georgia MacNeil , Velma J. Jackson, Lawrence H . Hull, Dorothy E. Zimmer, Arthur Diamond, Daniel J. Aneshansley, Deborah J. Stevenson, Lawrence Hoffman, Scott Perra, Bonnie H. Howell, David S. Hawkins (Q-104-FM News) . Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly _opened at 7:06 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings (4) in Town Hall and the Ithaca -Journal on ' April 9 , 1985 and April 12, 1985 , respectively, together with the Secretary' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties in question, as appropriate, upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca, upon the Acting Tompkins County Administrator, - upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and upon each of the Appeallants and/or Agent, as party to the action, on April 10 , 1985. Chairman Aron described the manner in which the meeting would be conducted. , ADJOURNED APPEAL (FROM DECEMBER 12 , 1984 , JANUARY 23, 1985,, FEBRUARY 27 , 1985 , MARCH 20, 1985) OF R. DELLI-CARPINI, J. FAIRCHILD, AND J. SAROKA, APPELLANTS, IN RE THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE ON A DEVELOPED LOT IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP (PUBLIC PLACE - OF ASSEMBLY) AT 203 PINE TREE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-57-1-1 . Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7 :09 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Delli-Ca-rpini was present. , Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the place of worship at 203 Pine Tree Road. No one spoke. . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing at 7 : 10 p.m. Chairman Aron read aloud as follows from a proposed resolution with respect to the Delli-Carpini appeal : " . . .SPECIAL APPROVAL: Zoning Board of Appeals 2 April 17 , 41985 '. Section 77 (7) of the Town of Ithaca .Zoning Ordinance requires that, in considering whether to grant or deny Special Approval, the Zoning Board of Appeals must determine: (a) Whether the proposal will promote the health, safety and general welfare. (b) That the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use; and that such use will fill a neighborhood or community need. (c) The location and design of any structure shall be consistent with the character of the District in which it is located; and the proposed use will also be consistent with the character of that District. (d) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity - or to the neighborhood character - in 'amounts' sufficient to devaluate neighboring property - or to seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants. (e) Access and egress for all structures and uses shall be safely designed. (f) General effect upon community as a whole [including items such as traffic load and demand upon water and sewer] will not be detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare of the community. and (8) the ZBA may impose such reasonable conditions as it deems necessary to protect the general welfare of the community. FINDINGS: In addition to our adopting the findings of fact implicit and explicit in the foregoing statements of this situation, we further find the location and topography of this land to present no great problems to or hazards in the proposed additional use, particularly so long as ample off-street parking is provided and so long as access and egress for congregational meetings is directed primarily over the northerly arm of the existing driveway, well separated from the immediate highway intersections. We further find that while the garage may conceivably provide an adequate meeting place for a relatively small congregation, and while the proximity of garage to the dwelling would not seem to pose any particular problem in the proposed use by such a small congregation, any considerable extension of the church use -- e.g. by a congregation whose numbers would make likely the occupancy of the garage facilities by more than 35 to 40 people at one time, would be better directed toward an expansion to the north, into the ' vacant lot' area, rather than by an expansion into the remaining portion of the garage. And further, expansion of the church facility and activities toward the south -- viz . behind [east of] the dwelling, would constitute a much further departure from the separation of uses envisaged by §68 of the Zoning Ordinance, and is therefore to be avoided. • CONCLUSIONS: (A) . Subject to the Conditions following, the proposed use should be- given a Special Permit so long as the intensity of the use in the particular building and location is within the limits contemplated by the application, such use not to be extended beyond the limits indicated without further consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals. i Zoning Board of Appeals 3 April 17 , 1985 (B) . The site plan approval previously given by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board upon the request of this Board is deemed to constitute adequate compliance with the provisions of Town of Ithaca Local Law #4-1985, despite such approval having been given prior to the Decision of this Zoning, Board of Appeals. CONDITIONS: Assuming that the intensity of use of the premises for church purposes will be as contemplated by the Petition and the presentations to the Boards, and that -only the two westerly bays of the garage will, be renovated for these purposes, no extensions of that proposal nor exterior modifications to the building being contemplated, the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grants Special Approval for such use of the subject parcel and its improvements, upon the following conditions: 1 . The church structure as remodelled is not to be occupied by more than 40 people at any one time (or to such lesser number as any other applicable Code or Ordinance might dictate) , and it is to be used only for usual church and congregational purposes, viz. excluding its use as a dwelling, school , nursery, place of public assembly, etc. etc. 2 . The church structure must be made to comply with the Fire_ Safety Code and other Codes and Ordinances applicable to such a place of assembly. . 3 . Ingress and egress to and from the premises and Pine Tree Road will be had primarily (if not exclusively) over the northerly arm of the loop driveway shown on the map. No parking is to be permitted in the driveway during services , both arms of the driveway to remain open and traversable by emergency vehicles. _ 4 . . Off-street parking is to be provided in and limited to the areas shown on the site plan, viz. to the west (extending northerly) of the garage site, with a small area immediately south of the easterly end of the garage -- none of such areas to be so located 'as to block or impede the free movement of emergency vehicles in the driveway. The parking areas -shall be prepared and maintained in suitable condition for such parking, viz . adequately based and surfaced with gravel or- a" 'macadam type' material, suitably drained, and adequately delineated and reasonably landscaped with shrubbery as proposed by Petitioner in presentations to the Boards. A reasonable time will, be allowed the Petitioner or the Fellowship to prepare such parking areas. - 5 . The existing outdoor lighting of limited intensity, is approved. No additional outdoor electric lights or other illumination is permissible except upon approval of the ' Board of Appeals after the filing of a specific application with the Building Inspector. 6 . The siting of the proposed single exterior sign is approved, but- the particular sign and its size must be presented for approval upon a proper application under the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance. However, only one sign is to be placed upon the premises . / Zoning Board of Appeals 4 April 17 , 1985 ' 7 . The grounds shall, of course, be maintained and \utilized in accordance with Local Law #4-1979 regulating the maintenance of real property in the Town. 8 . Before any expansion of the building (or expansion of the church use into the 3rd bay) , and before any new construction, or any intensification of use may be undertaken, a Special Permit therefor must be obtained. " Chairman Aron asked Mr. Delli-Carpini if he had anything he wished to say. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that he did in regard to some of the conditions, particularly with reference to expansion to the north. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that they have no plans at this time for expansion to the north but they are contemplating expanding the building to the west by a few feet. Mr. Delli-Carpini asked if he understood that these proposed conditions prohibit this . Chairman Aron stated that the proposed conditions state, simply, that if the building is extended an application must be filed with the Building Inspector. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that the conditions state "not more than 40 people" , adding that the way they figured it the number it could hold would be maybe 45 . Chairman Aron asked Mr. Cartee if a number over 40 does not come under a different part of the Building Code. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that the Code calls for 50 before you go into another Code. Mr. Cartee stated that there is no question that the way the matter exists now, their may be 40 people, no more. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that the Code calls for 7 square feet per person. Mr. Cartee stated that this has been all talked about over all these meetings, adding that he had thought it had been all discussed thoroughly. Mr. Delli-Carpini agreed, commenting that he had learned a lot, and adding that the figure of 40 came from the Planning Board because they asked him for that, and further adding that right now this is not: even a problem. Mr. Cartee noted that it is the Building Code that sets the numbers. Chairman Aron wondered how long Mr. Delli-Carpini would say that it would be until they would have 40 people. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that he could not say. Chairman Aron wondered if it could be 4 - 5 - 6 months - years. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that he did not know. Chairman Aron suggested taking this matter one step at a time. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that all he was saying was, what was the maximum allowable under the law without coming back to the Board. Chairman Aron responded that, under the terms of the proposed conditions which he just read, that number is 40 and after that the Fellowship sees the Building Inspector. Discussion of the number 40 followed. Chairman Aron read aloud from the Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of March 5 , 1985, page 20, as follows: " . . .NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board that the following comments and/or recommendations , with respect to proposed conditions pertaining to the Appeal of the Ithaca Christian Fellowship, be forwarded to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals: 1 . Occupancy should be restricted to 40 people. . . . " Mr. Delli-Carpini responded, okay, he would let that go. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that he was concerned that this matter should have been decided at the last meeting, and asked if there were going to be any other conditions. Chairman Aron responded, no. Mr. Delli-Carpini wondered what would happen if they took exception to some of the ":Zoning Board of Appeals 5 ' April 17 , 1985 conditions. Mr. King stated that what is being discussed at this time is a sax-page document, a portion of which the Chairman had read aloud. MOTION by Mr. Edward W. King, seconded by Mr. Jack D. Hewett: RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, that Mr. Delli-Carpini be given a copy of the proposed conditions with respect to the Application of Delli-Carpini, Ithaca Christian Fellowship, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing in said matter be and hereby is adjourned until the next meeting of said Board of Appeals,- May 15 , 1985., Mr. Delli-Carpini asked if the reason for this adjournment was that he may be questioning the conditions. Mr. King responded, yes, adding that it is also to give Mr. Delli-Carpini an opportunity to read them fully . Mr. Delli-Carpini asked if he did not question them and the Board does it tonight, did he give up his right to appeal . Chairman Aron stated that Mr'. , Delli-Carpini can appeal from this Board. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that the Chairman had spoken of a -school. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that they feel school is a regular part of their ministry; the Christian education of their children as well as regular education, that is a regular part of their ministry. Mr. Delli-Carpini wondered where they stood on the basis of these proposed conditions in the future as to this. Chairman Aron stated that Mr. Delli-Carpini would see_ Mr. Cartee and come to this Board at that time. Mr. Delli-Carpini wondered if Chairman Aron meant if they want to do something like that -- use the facility for Christian education, also including regular ,subjects, regular academic subjects. Chairman Aron responded, yes. Mrs. Reuning stated to ' Mr. Delli-Carpini that she thought if he had anything else in mind different from what he originally brought before the Board, - he should, ' perhaps, come back. Chairman Aron stated to Mr. Delli-Carpini that he would suggest, as Chairman, that if he wanted a school incorporated in this request, he file another appeal. Mr. King suggested to Mr . Delli-Carpini that he take the thirty days until the next Board meeting and examine the proposal and come back to the Board. Mr-. Delli-Carpini stated that he thought at this point he would like to just get this over. Chairman Aron commented to Mr. Delli-Carpini that he can always come back to this Board on other things. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that that is why he wanted to know these- things. Chairman Aron noted that Mr. Delli-Carpini has been to this Board five times with tonight' s meeting arid, 'commenting that Mr. Delli-Carpini had said he learned quite a bit, stated _that the_ Board and Mr. Delli-Carpini have been talking, up to now, about a - place of worship, that is all, and that is what this Board is considering right now, a house of worship in this garage, that is all. Chairman Aron stated that 'if, in the future, Mr. Delli-Carpini would like to have a school, he sees Mr. Cartee, he files another appeal, and we talk about a school only. Mr. Delli-Carpini conjectured that a determination tonight does not preclude anything in the future as far as expansion goes. Chairman Aron responded that Mr. Delli-Carpini sees Mr. Cartee and sees this Board.. Chairman Aron suggested to Mr. Delli-Carpini that he had a choice -- (1) thirty days to digest this proposed document; (2) if he were not interested and he_ _wanted a school, that is another matter. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that, as far as expansion work, they have no plans for that, asking, however, in the future Zoning Board of Appeals 6 April 17 , 1585 ? would they be prohibited just by these conditions. , Chairman Aron stated that Mr. Delli-Carpini could still come to this Board. Mr. King stated that he really would feel uncomfortable in voting on a resolution of this matter at this time. Mr. King stated that he believed Mr. Delli-Carpini should have the time to digest this proposal . Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that he was willing to accept this tonight. Mr. King stated that Mr. Delli-Carpini was saying that the Board is forcing him. Mr. Delli-Carpini responded, no, it was not, adding that he understood. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that he had one more question, which was, that as far as the sign goes, the way he understood it, is that it is exempt. Mr. Cartee explained the Town of Ithaca Sign Law with respect to Mr. Delli-Carpini ' s sign request. Mr. Delli-Carpini said that that was okay, adding that he had thought the conditions meant he had to come back to the Board for a sign. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Delli-Carpini if he felt comfortable. Mr. Delli-Carpini responded, yes, he did. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that lie would like to make a comment, which was, that the reason he was bringing this up was whether these were unnecessary or arbitrary restrictions on the use of their property. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that they feel this should have been decided a long time ago and they have reservations about the treatment they were getting and it should have been resolved a long time ago. Mr. Delli-Carpinl stated that he wanted to make sure some of the things, not worded the way they are tonight, but through the process they have had substantial legal rights that have been violated. Mr. Delli-Carpini , stated that it is not his purpose to argue these rights; he was willing to accept these conditions and go home. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that they are not willing to be prohibited from future plans . Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that, as far as coerced, he was not, adding that he knew he can postpone the matter until the next time, but he did not want to do that. Mr. Hewett stated that he withdrew his second of the Motion on the floor; Mr. King withdrew his Motion. MOTION by Mr. Edward W. King, seconded by Mrs. Joan G. Reuningo RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adopt and hereby does adopt the six pages of fact finding, conclusions, and conditions in the matter of the Delli-Carpini application, thereby granting the special permit on the conditions stated in that document, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of said document be given to Mr. Delli-Carpini as soon as possible so that he can be fully advised. By way of discussion, Mr. Austen asked Mr. Cartee if he had any thoughts on this proposed resolution. Mr. Cartee stated that he did not, adding that he can work with Mr. Delli-Carpini. Mr. Austen stated that he did wonder about the use of the words "place of assembly" because he had understood that under the Code this was a "space of assembly" . Mr. Cartee stated that Mr. Austen was correct, it should be "space of assembly" . Mr. Austen said that, also, he would like to clarify, with respect to "Zoning Board of Appeals 7 April 17 , 1985 • Conditions #3 , "Ingress and egress to and from the premises and Pine Tree Road will be had primarily -(if not exclusively) over the northerly arm of the loop driveway shown on the map. etc. " Mr. .Austen wondered if that should not be ingress on the northerly and egress on the southerly arm. Mr. King stated that that was intentional on the part of the Board, as he understood it, that only the northerly arm was to be used. Mr. Cartee stated that he thought Condition #3 as moved was acceptable. Mr. Austen stated that that was fine with him; he just wanted to be sure. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Delli-Carpini if he had noted the changefrom place to space. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that he understood. - There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye -- Aron, King, Reuning, Austen, Hewett. - - Nay - None. - The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Delli-Carpini et al Appeal- duly closed at 7:45 p.m. For the record, the document duly adopted by Resolution of the Board of Appeals, this date, April 17, 1985 , is hereinbelow set forth. - TOWN of ITHACA: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Re: Application of Delli-Carpini • ITHACA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP Church & Residence on Same Lot . 203 Pine Tree Road SUBJECT PROPERTY: - The property _consists of a CONSOLIDATED PARCEL composed of Town of. Ithaca - Tax Parcels 57-1-1 and 57-1-7 .12 , being the property conveyed by ROBERT & SARAH LILLIE to RAYMOND DELLI=CARPINI, JEFFREY E. FAIRCHILD, AND JAMES - SAROKA as tenants in common, by deed dated June 29 , 1984 and recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk' s Office in Book 602 of Deeds at page 466 . This parcel has a frontage of 280 feet on the easterly side of Pine Tree Road and an irregular, average depth of about 250 feet. The northerly 125 feet or so of the parcel width is unimproved (being sometimes referred to in our proceedings as "the vacant lot") , and the southerly 140 to 155 feet or so of the parcel width is improved with several buildings, including a single family dwelling, the garage here concerned as the SPACE OF ASSEMBLY, and a barn. - Judging from the survey map presented to us and the Planning Board by Petitioners [viz. the map entitled "SURVEY OF LANDS of Robert J. & Sarah R. Lillie & of Lands to be conveyed. . .etc. etc. . . 203 PINE TREE ROAD" , made by Howard R. Schlieder under date of July 25 , 1981] the southwest corner of the parcel is located about 65 feet north of the Honness Lane inter-section with Pine Tree Road, and the southerly arm of the circular driveway on this parcel is about 110 feet north of that -intersecting roadway, while the c Zoning Board of Appeals 8 April 17 , 1985 : northerly arm of the driveway is about 175 feet north of that highway Intersection. (The survey map is the only evidence which was presented to us on these matters, although we also had reference to the Deed for the property and to Tax Maps, as well as views of the property by some members of the Board. ) The northerly arm of the driveway appears from the tax maps to be located about 350 feet south of the intersection of Pine Tree Road with Snyder Hill Road, the northwest corner of the subject parcel being located about 200 feet south of that intersection. Pine Tree Road is a fairly highly trafficated roadway with narrow shoulders, making roadside parking almost impossible and most undesirable. From the Snyder Hill Road intersection south (viz. largely to the south of the subject parcel) Pine Tree Road is a relatively densely populated residential street. But even so, the direct connection of Pine Tree Road with NYS Highway 79 (The Slaterville Road) to the south, and its indirect second connection with that State Highway via Honness Lane -- and the fact that Pine Tree Road leads to the Cornell Campus to the north of this parcel, make the road a direct avenue of fairly heavy traffic to and from Cornell University past the subject property. ZONING: R-15 RESIDENTIAL: The parcel is located in an R-15 Residential Zone. Under §14 of the Zoning Ordinance, such zoning requires a minimum lot width of 100 feet and a depth of 150 feet, and further requires that the principal use building be so sited upon the lot as to provide side yards of at least 15 feet each, a rear yard at least 30 feet deep, and a front yard set-back at least equal to the average set-back of buildings in the neighborhood -- but with a minimum of 25 feet in any event, yet not requiring a set-back greater than 50 feet. PROPOSAL: Petitioner proposes to adapt the front (westerly) 361 square feet [19 ' x 19 ' ] -- viz. the westerly 2 bays of the 3-bay garage on the premises , for use as a CHURCH. This would be classified as a SPACE OF ASSEMBLY under the State Building Code. (Making allowance for permanent fixtures, that area ' would seem sufficient to provide room for no more than 40 people at one time. ) The Petitioner has also mentioned the possibility of at some time expanding the use into the 3rd bay of the garage. The congregation is presently relatively small, consisting of about a dozen members. - - The 'Site Plan' presented consists of a copy of the aforesaid Survey Map from Liber 587 of Deeds at page 765 , upon which two cross-hatched sites for parking are depicted (extending west and north from the garage, into the vacant lot area, plus an area south of the east bay of the garage) ; an "Enclosed Garbage Shed" 8 ' x 4 ' is depicted adjacent west of the barn; and a "Sign" location is indicated at the roadside, centered on the 2-story frame dwelling. An additional "Detail" sheet indicates that the circular. driveway is paved with asphalt and that additional parking will be paved with gravel, bordered by railroad ties. Existing or proposed shrubbery has 9 Zoning Board of Appeals 9 April 17 , 1985 _also been indicated on the survey site plan and detail sheet, and a proposed sign 4 ° x 6 ' (or x 5 ' ) is also shown on the Detail sheet. Upon the prior request of this Zoning Board of Appeals, referring this matter to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for site plan and other review and recommendations, the Planning Board reviewed and approved this site plan at its meetings on February 19 , 1985 and ,March 5, 1985 . - MORE THAN ONE (PRINCIPAL USE) BUILDING ON A SINGLE LOT:- §68-: - The subject parcel has long been devoted to, and remains devoted to residential use, the principal improvement thereon being the 2-story frame dwelling. The proposal to adapt the garage for use as a church or religious meeting house would constitute another principal use of the premises. Use of the property for a Church is a permitted use in this R-15 district per our Ordinance §11 (3) -- as indeed, are other possible uses such as for a Library, School, Museum, Fire Station, etc. But it is implicit that the ordinance does not contemplate multiple principal uses upon the same lot without further consideration. §68 of the Ordinance requires that where there are two or more principal buildings on one lot, the spaces ( ' separation° ) between the buildings shall be at least equal to the distance of 2 side yards combined, or equal to the depth of a front yard plus a rear yard, "as the case may be" , the language of the ordinance being: SECTION 68 . More than One Building on a Lot. When - there is more than one principal building on a lot in any district the space between such buildings must be at least equal to the sum of the side yards required by such buildings or the sum of the rear and the front yards as the case may be. We interpret this section to require that frontal and lateral separation must be maintained just as though the principal buildings were buildings upon separate but adjacent lots, fully conforming with the front, rear and side yard requirements of the Zone in which they are located. In other words, the size of the lot and the siting of the buildings must be such that a minor subdivision of them could be achieved by drawing a line or lines of separation which would leave each building upon a lot conforming to all the requirements of the particular Zone. THE LATERAL separation of the garage from the house on this property appears to be somewhere between 20 and 25 feet, measured from the north wall of the house to the south wall of the garage, judging from the scale and depiction of the buildings on the survey map presented to us. Side yards in R-15 [Ord. §14] must be at least 15 -feet wide, so 30 feet of lateral separation is required here to meet the §68 criterion. The separation here appears to be 5 to 10 feet short of that. THE FRONTAL separation of these two buildings , (east or rear wall of house to west or front wall of garage) is -- again judging from the survey -- about 45 feet, rather than the 55 feet [25 ft + 30 ft] which §68 might seem literally to require: yet if there were sufficient lateral separation, the Zoning Board of Appeals 10 April 17 , 1985 135 foot set-back of the garage from the highway, and the 45 foot rear yard from the barn (which lies to the rear or east of this garage) to the east line of the property, is seen to be more than adequate to meet the yard requirements in this district. Thus, since there is a significant amount of lateral separation here, it seems unnecessary and . logically inappropriate to also apply the frontal separation requirement to this particular situation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The Zoning Board of Appeals is the lead agency. The Reviewer, Town Planner Lovi, recommended a Negative Declaration based upon his reasoning [Opinion Dec. 13 , 1984 (Part III of the Statement) ] that the matter could handled by way of a Minor Re-Subdivision of the lot so that the garage-meeting place would become a single principal church building on its own lot, rather than a second principal use building on the same lot with the residence; and that thus the "environmental impacts" could be MITIGATED simply and completly by such a legal minor subdivision of the property into two parcels. HOWEVER, in view of the fact that the ZBA is now required, under Local Law No. 4 of 1985 to review applications for uses under Subdivisions (3) , (5) , (6) , and (7) of the Residential Use Sections 4, 11 , and 18 of the Zoning Ordinance, and to grant or withold SPECIAL APPROVAL in accordance with the Criteria specified in Section 77 Subdivision (7) of the ordinance, it would seem that the Board can, by imposing reasonable conditions, mitigate any negative environmental impacts which might be caused by the operation of a church in this particular building upon this property. With this consideration in view, the Zoning Board of Appeals adopted a resolution finding no Environmental Significance in the proposal -- i. e, it duly made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance at its meeting held on March 20 , 1985. SPECIAL APPROVAL: Section 77 (7) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance requires that, in considering whether to grant or deny Special Approval , the Zoning Board of Appeals must determine: (a) Whether the proposal will promote the health, safety and general welfare. (b) That the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use; and that such use will fill a neighborhood or community need. (c) The location and design of any structure shall be consistent with the character of the District in which it is located; and the proposed use will also be consistent with the character of that District. (d) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity - or to the neighborhood character - in 'amounts' , sufficient to devaluate neighboring property - or to seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants. Zoning Board of Appeals 11 April 17 , 1985 (e) Access and egress for all structures and uses shall be safely designed. (f) General effect upon community as a whole [including items such as traffic load and demand upon water and sewer] will not be detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare of the community. and (8) the ZBA may impose such reasonable conditions as it . deems - necessary to protect the general welfare of the community. ' FINDINGS: In addition to our adopting the findings of fact implicit and explicit in the foregoing statements of this situation, we further find the location and topography of this land to present no great problems to or hazards in the proposed additional use, particularly so long as ample off-street parking is provided and so long as access and egress for congregational meetings is directed primarily over the northerly arm of the existin§ - - driveway, well separated from the immediate highway intersections. We further find that while the garage may conceivably provide an adequate meeting place for a relatively small congregation, and while the proximity of garage to the dwelling would not seem to pose any particular problem in the proposed use by such a - small congregation,- any considerable extension of the church use -- e.g. by a congregation whose numbers would make likely the occupancy of the garage facilities by more than 35 to 40 people at one time, would be better directed toward an expansion to the north, into the 'vacant lot' area, rather than by an expansion into the remaining portion of the garage. And further, expansion of the church ' facility and activities toward the south -- viz . behind [east of] the dwelling, would constitute a much further departure from the separation of uses envisaged by §68 of the Zoning Ordinance, and is therefore to be avoided. CONCLUSIONS:(A) . Subject to the Conditions following, the proposed" use .should be given - a Special Permit so long as the intensity of the, use in the particular building and location is within the limits contemplated by the application, such use not to be extended beyond the limits indicated without further consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals. (B) . The site plan approval previously given by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board upon the request of this Board is deemed to constitute adequate - compliance with the provisions of Town of Ithaca Local Law #4-1985 , ' despite such approval having been given prior to the Decision of this Zoning Board of Appeals. ' CONDITIONS: Assuming that the intensity of use of the premises for church purposeswill be as contemplated by the Petition and the presentations to the -Boards, and that only the two westerly bays of the garage will be renovated for these purposes, no extensions of that proposal nor exterior modifications to the Zoning Board of Appeals 12 April 17 , 1985 building being contemplated, the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grants Special Approval for such use of the subject parcel and its improvements, upon the following conditions: 1 . The church structure as remodelled is not to be occupied by more than 40 people at any one time (or to such lesser number as any other applicable Code or Ordinance might dictate) , and it is to be used only for usual church and congregational purposes, viz. excluding its use as a dwelling, school , nursery , place of public assembly, etc. etc. 2 . The church structure must be made to comply with the Fire Safety Code and other Codes and Ordinances applicable to such a space of assembly. 3 . Ingress and egress to and from the premises and Pine Tree Road will be had primarily (if not exclusively) over the northerly arm of the loop driveway shown on the map. No parking is to be permitted in the driveway during services , both arms of the driveway to remain open and traversable by emergency vehicles. 4 . Off-street parking is to be provided in and limited to the areas shown on the site plan, viz . to the west (extending northerly) of the garage site, with a small area immediately south of the easterly end of the garage -- none of such areas to be so located as to block or impede the free movement of emergency vehicles in the driveway. The parking areas shall be prepared and maintained in suitable condition for such parking, viz . adequately based and surfaced with gravel or a 'macadam type° material, suitably drained, and adequately delineated and reasonably landscaped with shrubbery as proposed by Petitioner in presentations to the Boards. A reasonable time will be allowed the Petitioner or the Fellowship to prepare such parking areas. 5 . The existing outdoor lighting of limited intensity, is approved. No additional outdoor electric lights or other illumination is permissible except upon approval of the Board of Appeals after the filing of a specific application with the Building Inspector. 6 . The siting of the proposed single exterior sign is approved, but the particular sign and its size must be presented for approval upon a proper application under the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance. However, only one sign is ,to be placed upon the premises. 7 . The grounds shall, of course, be maintained and utilized in accordance with Local Law #4-1979 regulating the maintenance of real property in the Town. 8 . Before any expansion of the building (or expansion of the church use into the 3rd bay) , and before any new construction, or any intensification of use may be undertaken, a Special Permit therefor must be obtained. [Secretary' s Note: Mr. Delli-Carpini was given a copy of the heretofore described document at 9 : 30 a.m. , April 18 , 1985 . ] , TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20 , 1985 7: 00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, March 20 , 1985 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side) , Ithaca, N.Y. , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P.M. , on the following matters : ADJOURNED APPEAL (from December 12 , ' 1984 , January 23 , 1985 , February 27 , 1985) of R. Delli-Carpini, J. Fairchild, and J. Saroka, Appellants, in re the conversion of an existing garage on a developed lot in a Residence District R15 to a place of worship (public place of assembly) at 203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. ' 6-57-1-1 . APPEAL of John W. and Ruth H. DeWire, Appellants, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit for the construction of an addition (porch) to an existing residential structure, located in Residence District R15 , creating a side yard with a deficiency of 2 feet, at 148 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2-8. Permit is denied under Article IV, Section 14 , and Article XIV, Section 75 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Robert A. Boehlecke Jr. , Lawrence Hull, Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission to use an existing structure (barn) , located in Residence District R9 , for an office, shop, and storage of plumbing supplies , with three employees, at 611 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2-2 . 1 . Permission is denied under Article III, Section 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of William Topley and Samuel Bonanni, Appellants, Kenneth Ash , Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit for the construction of a two-family dwelling in Residence District R9 with each dwelling unit of equal size (three bedrooms in each unit) and with a rear yard deficiency of 5 feet, and further denying a Special Permit to allow three unrelated persons to occupy (continued on Page 2) TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 20 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday, March 20 , 1985 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7 :00 p.m. PRESENT: Vice Chairman Jack D . Hewett, 'Joan G. Reuning, Edward N. Austen, Edward W. King, Lewis D . Cartee (Building Inspector) , Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary) . ALSO PRESENT: Howard Fuller, -Kenneth Ash , Isabella Spencer, Betty Turco, Adolph Turco, John L. Camilli, Clara Camilli , Raymond Delli-Carpini, Ruth DeWire, Edith Cassel , Brad Hull, Lawrence Hull, Dirk Galbraith, Esq. , Paul Gries, Heinz P. Riederer, Anna H. Riederer, John R. Stevenson, Debbie Stevenson, Velma Jackson, Daniel J. Aneshansley, Constance E. Cook, Edward A. Mazza, Esq. , James Iacovelli, Robert A. Boehlecke Jr. , Lawrence Hoffman, Bonnie ' Howell, Scott Perra, S . J. Madden (Ithaca Journal) . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the meeting duly opened at 7: 05 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings, for each of the matters before the Board, in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on March 12 , 1985 and March 15 , 1985 , respectively, together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties in question* , as appropriate, upon each of the owners of such properties and/or agent, if any, upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca, and upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, on March 15 , 1985 [*4 mailed on March 18 , 1985] . ADJOURNED APPEAL (FROM DECEMBER 12 , 1984 , JANUARY 23 , 1985 , FEBRUARY 27 , 1985) OF R. DELLI-CARPINI, J. FAIRCHILD, AND J. SAROKA, APPELLANTS, IN RE THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE ON A DEVELOPED LOT IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP (PUBLIC PLACE OF ASSEMBLY) AT 203 PINE TREE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-57-1-1 . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7 :06 p.m. and read aloud ' from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Delli-Carpini was present. Vice Chairman Hewett asked Mr. Delli-Carpini if he had anything which he wished to add to the discussion. Mr. Delli-Carpini responded that he had nothing to add at this point. Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who Zoning Board of Appeals 2 March 20, 1985 wished to speak to the matter of the Delli-Carpini et al Appeal . No one spoke. Mr. King noted that discussion of the Environmental Assessment Form, as presented by Mr. Delli-Carpini under date of December 4, 1984 , and as reviewed by Peter M. Lovi, Town Planner, under date of December 13 , 1984 , was the first order of business. Mr. King also noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the lead agency in the matter of environmental review and further, that the Board has received from the Planner a recommendation of a negative declaration of environmental significance, in part because of the property involved having 280 feet of frontage on Pine Tree Road and a depth of approximately 250 feet and also . because there could be a residence on one parcel and the church or place of worship on the second parcel and both would be . permitted uses under the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. King noted that , in the meantime, since that recommendation was made, the Town has enacted a Local Law -- Local Law #4-1985 -- _which requires the Zoning Board of Appeals to pass on applications such as this under Section 11 , paragraph 3 , for the siting of a church. Mr. King commented that the Board has to pass on that anyway in accordance with Section 77 of the Ordinance. Mr. King stated that the Board of Appeals does have control of the situation, adding that the Board has to consider a special permit situation and the EAF which has indicated that the impact is rathef-minimal as far as topo features are concerned. MOTION by Mr. Edward W. King, seconded by Mrs. Joan G. Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , with respect to the matter of the proposed conversion of an existing garage located at 203 Pine Tree Road to a place of _ worship, make and hereby does make a finding of negative impact upon the environment. There being no further discussion, the Vice Chair called for a vote. Aye - Hewett, Reuning, Austen, King. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr . King stated that he would like to comment a little further. Mr. King stated that, again, the Board has not had very much time since it got papers from the Planning Board to even digest them much less react to them. Mr. King stated that, however, the Planning Board has approved the site plan for this project on two different occasions and has made some recommendations to the Board of Appeals . Mr. King stated that he, personally, was of the opinion that Section 68 of the Ordinance applies where you have one parcel and two principal uses desired and that would require a separation of the buildings Zoning Board of Appeals 3 March 20, 1985 as though you had enough land to subdivide, in other words, had enough for rear yard set back and side yard setback. Mr. King stated that, as this proposal is viewed, he did not believe it meets these minimum requirements of Section 68 , adding that, - of - - course, he had to make that judgment from the survey of lands as submitted by the applicant and pointing out that it is not an in-place survey of the buildings, so the Board has to guess at the separations , but they would seem to come out within 70% of the requirements. Mr . King stated that, this being a rather unique situation in which the ' applicants are, projecting no more than 36-38-40 people, he would think the Board should grant the special permit for the use of this garage as a place of worship under their proposal and taking into consideration all the facts they have submitted in their EAF, with the understanding that it is a special permit and there would be conditions attached and, if the projected size of the operation is going to be larger than what is permitted under the place of assembly code, this special permit should be reviewed and the Board would encourage any further construction to the north on the so-called "vacant lot" . . Mr. King stated that he would note, for the record; that there are two parcels here [6-57-1-1 and 6-57 -1-7. 12] , but the Board is treating them as one parcel. Mr. King pointed out that parcel 57-1-1 is the southerly parcel with the house and buildings on it and parcel 57-1-7. 12 is the northerly portion. Mr. King stated that, as far as laying out the specific conditions for the grant- of the permit, he did not think the Board was ready to do it, but the Board can have it at the next meeting of this , Board and further, he thought it would behoove the Board members to put their heads together and be ready for that meeting. Mrs . Reuning suggested that the Board could issue the special permit at this time. Mr. King commented that he did not think the Board should do that, adding that, frankly, he thought some of the recommendations for conditions were rather picky and went a little too far. Mr. King stated that he thought the Board could more properly attend to the conditions by its next meeting if this did not bother any construction plans of the applicants. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that at this point it would. ' Mr. King - , wondered if Mr. Delli-Carpini 'were ready to start construction and asked Mr. Cartee if construction plans were before him for permit. Mr. Cartee responded that he had no application for building permit. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that they had not submitted an application for building permit because they were - waiting for the approval which they expected at - this meeting. Mr. King offered that an adjournment until the April meeting would not hinder Mr. Delli-Carpini and he could get his plans to the Building Inspector. Mr. Delli-Carpini .stated that they could go ahead and file the application for permit and go ahead and start the work which is all inside work. Mr. Delli-Carpini commented that he was hearing the Board saying that they will get the special permit. Mr. Delli-Carpini further commented that it was his understanding that they were changing the use to a place of worship and he understood that a place of worship does not . need a sign permit. Mr. Cartee suggested to Mr. Delli-Carpini that he come into his office tomorrow morning and file an T Zoning Board of Appeals 4 March 20, 1985 application for building permit and they can talk about the sign at that time. MOTION by Mr. Edward W. King, seconded by Mrs . Joan G. Reuning: RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, that the Adjourned Public Hearing in the Delli-Carpini et al matter be and hereby is further adjourned until Wednesday, April - - 17 , 1985 at 7 : 00 p.m. , at which time certain conditions with ` respect to special approval of the Board of Appeals for a place of worship at 203 Pine Tree Road will be set down. - There being no further discussion, the Vice Chair called for a vote. - Aye - Hewett, Reuning, Austen, King. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the Delli-Carpini et al matter duly adjourned at 7 : 20 . Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that he did not understand what was meant by the discussion of the separation of buildings. Mr. Cartee explained and Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that it was approximately 60 feet from the northeast corner of the house to the southwest corner of the garage. APPEAL OF JOHN W. AND RUTH H. DEWIRE, APPELLANTS, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION (PORCH) TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, LOCATED IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 , CREATING A SIDE YARD WITH A DEFICIENCY OF 2 FEET, AT 148 PINE TREE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-58-2-8 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 14, AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7: 21 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. and Mrs. DeWire were present. The Board members each had received a copy of a portion of a survey of the DeWire and Longsdorf properties on Pine Tree Road which showed - the porch addition to the DeWire house, together with the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Ruth H. DeWire under date of March 5 , 1985 , reading as follows: " . . .Having been denied permission to erect a porch on the north side of our home. . .Our lot is only 92 ' wide although the deed stated it was 100 ' wide. In 1949 three properties were surveyed and the correct dimensions established. (Attached copy of the survey) . Our land slopes sharply downward to the west. In addition, we heat with hot water and the radiators are positioned under the windows . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1985 ' By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an Adjourned Public Hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, February 27, 1985, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side) , Ithaca, N.Y., COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M. , an the following matters: ADJOURNED APPEAL (from January 23, 1985) of R. Delli-Carpini, J. Fairchild, and J. Saroka, Appellants, in re the conversation of an existing garage on a developed lot in a Residence District R15 to a place of worship (public place of asssembly) at 203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-1. - APPEAL of Ides's Enterprises Inc., Appellant, Scott Hamilton, agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector, denying permission to erect a wall sign of 30 sq. ft. at 10-12 Judd Falls Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-62-1-3.2. Permission is denied under Section 4.02-2(1) , Town of Ithaca Sign Law, Local Law No. 6-1980. APPEAL of Cornell University Appellant, Stewart Knowlton agent, from the decision of' the Building Inspector denying permission to erect a frcc standing sign, Tompkins County Trust Co. Bank Branch, of 21.2 sq. ft. at East Hill Plaza. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-62-2-1.2. Permission is denied under Section 4.02-2 Town of Ithaca Sign Law-Local Law No. 6-1980. APPEAL of Roger Battistella, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a permit to operate a "farm winery" in an existing structure, 35' in height, in an R-15 residential district at 1551 Slaterville Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-56-2-1.1. Permit is denied under Article IV, Section 11, and Article IV Section 11 (10) Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of City of Ithaca Appellant, Jonathan Meigs agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit to erect two structures to accommodate the Ithaca City Youth Bureau with an apartment, and a maintenance facility- at 1701 North Cayuga Street Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels Numbers 6-18-2-11 and 6-18-3-1. Permission is denied under Article IV Section 11 and 12 and Article XIV, Section 75, Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. - APPEAL of Security Trust Co., Executor Estate of A. Camenron Goff, Richard Thaler, Esq. agent, from the -decision of the Building Inspector, denying permission to convert an existing residential structure to office space , to accommodate no less than two physicians at 1290 Trumansburg-Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-4-14.2. Permission is denied under Article IV, Section 11 and Article XIV, Section 75, Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Planning Board 15 _ " March 5 , 1985 thinking about coming ,before the Board to discuss purchasing this property for use as a bed and breakfast- Ann. Mrs . Langhans commented that she assumed the property in question to be the Palmer's home which is situated just before the "S-curve" . Mr. Lovi stated that Mrs. Garrison had telephoned him last night to tell him that they could not come this evening but that they would like to make a presentation in person to the Board. Mrs . Langhans wondered if a "bed and breakfast" did not have the owner living in it and commented that Mrs. Garrison would be running back and forth between the one in their house and this - proposed separate one. After a brief discussion, Mr. Lovi stated that he would report to the Garrisons that it •was the sense of the Board that - the proposal seemed to be more like a motel. :INFORMAL DISCUSSION: TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL - PROPOSED EXTENSION. ' No one was present from the Tompkins Community Hospital. Mr. Lovi stated" that he wanted to inform the Board that the Tompkins Community Hospital, represented by Ms. Bonnie Howell, Administrator, and Mr. Scott Perra, Assistant Director of Fiscal Services, is working with a group of - physicians , two of whom are affiliated with Cornell but will be leaving in August and will have their own offices . Mr. . Lovi stated that the group of doctors have proposed to build offices connected to the Hospital which would have shared services with the Hospital, would be administered by the Hospital, but would be owned by the doctors ' corporation. Mr. Lovi stated that the Hospital -and the doctors have two locations for this facility in mind -- one, their preferred choice, being attached to the Hospital but on the Biggs property site -- the , other, not-preferred choice, but one that does not involve working with the County, being in the parking lot. - Mr. Mazza inquired as to what services this facility would provide and what the intent behind this proposal was. Mr. Lovi replied that they have not gotten into what services would be provided nor what the intent behind the proposal was, adding that he will be getting together ' with Ms . Howell and Mr. Perra later in the month . Mr. Lovi mentioned that they are also working with the County because they would like to obtain the "D" wing. Mr. Lovi stated that their preference, basically, - is to put this new building in the open area- between the two wings, i.e. , in the "courtyard" between the east wing and the west wing." Mr. Stanton wondered why the doctors- were considering a new building, asking why they would not use one that is " there. Mr. Lovi commented that, as he understood it, they would use the- east wing for storage. Vice Chairman Grigorov inquired if this group were related to - the Professional Building to which Mr. Lovi replied, no. , The Informal Discussion portion of the Agenda ended at ,'9:50 p.m. FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF THE ZONING BOARD OF . APPEALS FOR COMMENT AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MAYBE GRANTED IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ITHACA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP TO CONVERT A PORTION OF A GARAGE TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP AT 203 PINE ,TREE ROAD, TOWN ' OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6-57-1-1 AND 5-57-1-7.12 . Planning Board 16 March 5 , 1985 ' [Secretary ' s Note: For the record, following is that portion of the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of February 19, 1985 , pertaining to the matter of a proposed place of worship at 203 Pine Tree Road. ] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONVERSION OF A GARAGE TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP AT 203 PINE TREE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-57-1-1 , ITHACA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, RAYMOND DELLI-CARPINI, AS AGENT. Vice-Chairman Grigorov declared the Public. Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 8 :25 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Delli-Carpini presented the Board with a final site plan as requested at the informal meeting of February 5, 1985. Vice-Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone wished to speak to this matter. Mr. Lovi informed her that all members of the audience were here on other matters. Mr. Lovi recounted the specific information requested by the Planning Board at its informal discussion. This information was presented by Mr. Delli-Carpini in the present plan including the sign detail and location, the location and specifications of the parking area, all required dimensions and a schematic description of landscaping and the garbage shed. Mrs . Langhans asked if a second driveway was to be constructed or whether it already existed. Mr. Lovi stated that it already exists. - Mr. Stanton asked if the cross-hatched area was the proposed parking lot. Mr. Delli-Carpini said that it was and added that an area was cross-hatched in front of the garage because ' they can park cars there as well. Mr. Stanton asked whether this parking lot would be stone; Mr. Delli-Carpini said it would be graveled and defined by railroad ties. Mr. Stanton asked whether the driveway was presently blacktopped. Mr. Delli-Carpini said that it was and there would be no change to the driveway other than normal - maintenance . Vice-Chairman Grigorov asked whether there was an environmental review on this site plan. Mr. Lovi indicated - that the Zoning Board of Appeals would be the Lead Agency for this action. He then stated that there are two separate , ' Planning Board 17 March 5 , 1985 matters before the Board; first, a site plan review on the place of worship, second, a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on whether a Special Approval should be granted for this use. As staff to the Board, Mr. Lovi stated that he could not give an opinion as to whether the site plan review conducted by the Planning Board would be sufficient according to our recently passed Local Laws. However, the Board has , been asked to give a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals as to whether this use should be permitted. It is free to make a resolution on the sufficiency of the site plan if it wishes. Mrs . Langhans made the following motion: ' RESOLVED, that the Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the site plan for the Ithaca Christian Fellowship as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Stanton and passed unanimously. Vice-Chairman Grigorov then asked if anyone would make a motion on the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Mazza commented that, when he read the Zoning Ordinance, he wasn't sure that this wasn ' t already a permitted use. With that in mind, Mr. Mazza offered the following motion: RESOLVED, that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend that the Zoning Board Appeals grant Special Approval for a place of worship at 203 Pine Tree Road with the condition that the membership remain less than forty persons . This motion was seconded ,by Mrs . Langhans and passed unanimously. " * * * * * * * * * * * * * [Secretary ' s Note: For the record, the proposed conditions being reviewed by the Planning Board follow: ] "1 . USE OF THE PREMISES. ' A. The two west bays of the garage shown on the map will be remodeled to provide a place of worship for the communicants of the Fellowship. Services will be held two nights a week beginning at 7 p.m. and continuing until 9 p.m. , now scheduled for Monday and Wednesday of each week and also on Sunday from 11 a.m. All services will be held inside the structure. • No change to the exterior of the structure. Structure must comply with Fire Safety Code and any other applicable codes governing the use of the building. According to such codes occupancy would - be restricted to 36 people. No -amplifying sound, system within the building. No organ. Planning Board 18 March 5 , 1985 • A piano will be used. Also trio or quartet of guitar , flute, violin and similar instruments. 2 . ACCESS. A. Ingress and egress to and from the premises and Pine Tree Road will be over the ' loop' driveway shown on the map. No parking will be permitted on the driveway except that at such times as no church activities are being held or conducted in any degree, parking may be permitted on a temporary basis for the owners and occupants of the residential dwelling on the premises. This would be no different than what is permitted to any other residential owner in the vicinity in this residential district. 3 . PARKING. A. Parking will be limited to and permitted only on the area north of the driveway. A portion of the area north of the driveway and the 'vacant lot' so called will be used for that purpose. Land will be prepared so that it will be suitable for parking either by use of gravel or any other 'macadam type ' material as the Fellowship may choose. A reasonable time will be allowed to the Fellowship to prepare the land for such purpose. No parking, in any event, will be permitted on Pine Tree Road or Snyder Hill Road or any other public highway which may be established or constructed in the vicinity. 4 . OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES. A. These will be permitted on a limited and infrequent basis. B. No church services will be held outside of the structure. Picnics will be permitted provided that they are held on the 'vacant lot' . These activities will not be permitted prior to 11 :30 a.m. and will not continue beyond sunset of any day. C. No cooking over a fire will be permitted except over metal receptacles commonly known as charcoal grills. No fires will be unattended. On termination of outdoor picnics, fires will be doused and disposed of in metal containers or in other ways to prevent spread of fire. D. Garbage will be disposed of in plastic bags and deposited in plastic or metal containers. All of these activities, including outdoor activities will be held on the vacant lot north of the garage structure . Consideration will be given to placing garbage in a - wooden box. Planning Board '- 19 March 5 , 1985 E. All outdoor activities, and indoor activities, for that matter, will be conducted in such a manner that they . will not constitute a trespass or a nuisance and will not interfere unreasonably with the use, occupancy and , enjoyment of other properties by the occupants of other properties in the neighborhood. 5 . OUTDOOR ELECTRIC LIGHTS . A. No additional electric lights or other illumination will be permitted except with the , approval of the Board of Appeals upon filing application to the Building - Inspector. 6. SIGNS. A. All signs must comply with the requirements of the Town Sign Regulations. No more than one sign will be permitted. f- • 7. Grounds will be policed and kept free from accumulations of debris, unsightly matters and the like. If it is required that garbage cans be stored in a wooden box, the religious group itself would undoubtedly wish to have the box looking attractive. " The Board members commenced further discussion of the above-noted Agenda item at 9 :51 p.m. with several opinions being offered with respect to the tentative conditions about which the Zoning Board of Appeals had requested Planning Board comment, and, with respect to the Planning Board' s role in the establishing of conditions which the Board of Appeals imposed. Mr. Mazza commented that any thing or any matter may be a concern of the Planning Board if the Board of Appeals asks the Planning Board to consider such things, adding that the Planning Board does not have to do so, but if they ask for recommendations it does not have to be something that the Planning Board "normally" considers. The Board members indicated that it was unfortunate that their approval of the site plan, together with their recommendation that the Board of Appeals grant special approval with the condition that the membership remain less than forty persons, did not provide enough information for the Board of Appeals. Mr. Lovi suggested that the Board members work . their way through the tentative conditions and comment as they do so. ' Further discussion followed, commencing with Item 1 . USE OF THE PREMISES , with the Board indicating that a good deal - of the text proposed was either unnecessary or overly restrictive. The Secretary suggested that a preliminary statement, somewhat like a "preamble" could be set down followed by more particularized comments with respect to the various 'conditions proposed. - MOTION by Mr. Bernard Stanton, seconded by Mr . James Baker: WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted approval of the site plan, presented at public hearing held February 19, 1985 by Raymond Delli-Carpini, Pastor of the Ithaca Christian Fellowship, with respect Planning Board 20 March 5 , 1985 to their application to convert a portion of a garage, located at 203 Pine Tree Road, into a place of religious worship, and WHEREAS, said Planning Board also recommended at said public hearing that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant special approval for a place of worship at 203 Pine Tree Road with the condition that the membership remain less than forty persons , and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has requested the Planning Board to comment upon and make recommendations about proposed conditions which the Board of Appeals is considering as part of its special approval process, and WHEREAS, said Planning Board, at its regular meeting held March 5, 1985 reviewed in detail said proposed conditions, as requested; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board that the following comments and/or recommendations, with respect to proposed conditions pertaining to the Appeal of the Ithaca Christian Fellowship, be forwarded to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals: 1 . Occupancy should be restricted to 40 people. (Item #1 -- USE OF THE PREMISES . ) 2 . Reference to amplified sound systems and types of instruments is unnecessary. (Item #1 -- USE OF THE PREMISES . ) 3 . Length of services need not be so specifically designated and frequency of services need not be noted. (Item #1 -- USE OF THE PREMISES. ) 4. The last sentence in Item #2 -- ACCESS -- is unnecessary. ["This would be no different than what is permitted to any other residential owner in the vicinity in this residential district.] 5 . The second paragraph in Item #3 -- PARKING -- can be omitted because all parking must be on-site. ["No parking, in any event, will be permitted on Pine Tree Road or Snyder Hill Road or any other public highway which may be established or constructed in the vicinity. " ] 6 . Item #4 -- OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES . All of Item #4 is unnecessary and is either covered by existing ordinance or is unenforceable. 7 . Item #5 -- OUTDOOR ELECTRIC LIGHTS -- is appropriate. 8 . Item #6 -- SIGNS -- is not needed because signs are regulated by the Town of Ithaca Sign Law. 9 . Item #7 -- "Grounds, etc. " -- is unnecessary because such matters are covered by Local Law #4-1979 Regulating the Maintenance of Real Property in the Town of Ithaca. - c Planning Board 21 March 5 , 1985 There being no further discussion, the Vice Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Klein, Mazza, Schultz, Stanton, Baker, Langhans. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the March 3 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 :23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. , TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27,, 1985 By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an Adjourned Public Hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, February 27, 1985, in Town Hall, 126. East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side) , Ithaca, N.Y. , COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M. , on the following matters: ADJOURN) APPEAL (from January 23, 1985) of R. Delli-Carpini, J. _ Fairchild, and J. Saroka, Appellants, in re the conversation of an existing garage on a developed lot in a Residence District R15' to a place of worship (public place of asssembly) at 203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-1. APPEAL of Ides's Enterprises Inc., Appellant, Scott Hamilton, agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector, denying permission to erect a wall sign of 30 sq. ft. at 10-12 Judd Falls Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-62-1-3.2. Permission is denied under Section 4.02-2(1) Town of Ithaca Sign Law, Local Law No. 6-1980. APPEAL of Cornell University Appellant, Stewart Knowlton agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission to erect a free- standing sign, Tompkins County Trust Co. Bank Branch, of 21.2 sq. ft. at East Hill Plaza. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-62-2-1.2. Permission is denied under Section 4.02-2 Town of Ithaca Sign Law-Local Law No. 6-1980. • APPEAL of Roger Battistella, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a permit to operate a "farm winery" in an existing structure, 35' in height, in an R-15 residential district at 1551 Slaterville Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-56-2-1.1. Permit is denied under Article IV, Section 11, and Article IV Section 11 (10) Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of City of Ithaca Appellant, Jonathan Meigs agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit to erect two structures to accommodate the Ithaca City Youth Bureau with an apartment, and a maintenance facility- at 1701 North Cayuga Street Town of Ithaca Tax - Parcels Numbers 6-18-2-11 and 6-18-3-1. Permission is denied-under Article IV Section 11 and 12 and Article XIV, Section 75, Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Security Trust Co., .Executor Estate of A. Camenron Goff, Richard Thaler, -Esq. agent, fran the decision of the Building Inspector, denying permission to convert ,an existing residential structure to office space to .accommodate no less than two physicians at 1290 Trumansburg Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-4-14:2. Permission is denied under Article IV, Section 11 and Article XIV, Section 75, Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. - TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 27, 1985 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday,--February 27 , 1985 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Vice Chairman Edward N. Austen, Edward W. King, Joan G. Reuning, Lewis D . Cartee (Building Inspector) , Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary) . ALSO PRESENT: Stewart D. Knowlton, Susan Hamilton, Ray Delli-Carpini, Attorney Laura H. Holmberg, Roger M. Battistella, James Iacovelli, Douglas Hoffman, Richard J. Correnti, Jonathan C. Meigs, Kate Whidden (WTKO News) , Jim Forman (WHCU News) . Vice Chairman Austen declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 10 and accepted for the record the Clerk' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings (7) in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 19 , 1985 and February 22 , 1985, respectively, together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties in question, as appropriate, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and upon each of the Appellants and/or Agent, as party to the action, on February 20 , 1985 . ADJOURNED APPEAL (FROM JANUARY 23 , 1985) OF R. DELLI-CARPINI , J. FAIRCHILD, AND J. SAROKA, APPELLANTS, IN RE THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE ON A DEVELOPED LOT IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP (PUBLIC PLACE OF ASSEMBLY) AT 203 PINE TREE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-57-1-1 . Vice Chairman Austen declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7 : 11 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Delli-Carpini was present. For the record, • it was noted by the Board that the members had before them a copy of the Minutes of the February 19 , 1985 Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board where the following Resolutions were duly adopted: (1) "RESOLVED, that the Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the site plan for the Ithaca Christian Fellowship as presented. " ; (2) "RESOLVED, that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant Special Approval for a place of worship at 203 Pine Tree Road with the condition that the membership remain less than forty persons. " It was further noted that the members had a copy of the marked up survey map which had been reviewed by the Planning Board. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that, as for the number of "40" , he and the Board had talked about a table and a wood stove in the garage area which is 19 ' x 19 ' and which equals 361 square feet, and from that you subtract 30 square feet for the wood stove, which is the only permanent fixture, and Zoning Board of Appeals 2 February 27 , 1985 then you divide by 7 square feet per person. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that hi had guessed at 40 , but in reality, it could be 47 . Mr. Cartee stated to the Board that he thought he would like to reserve the numbers of people, adding that he would request that the Board not put any definite numbers inasmuch as we do not have an accurate drawing for the inside of this building which he [Cartee] will have at the time he [Delli-Carpini] applies for building permit, and, at that time, it will be evaluated pursuant to the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Construction Code. Referring to the "site plan" , Mr. King observed that the Board is talking about the building labelled as garage, Mr. King inquired if the Planning Board made any stipulation with respect to Snyder Hill Road. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that they do not have access to Snyder Hill Road. Mr. King asked Mr. Delli-Carpini what his plans were for construction of the renovations. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that they had no immediate plans for construction except for some sheet rock and maybe some carpet. Mr. Cartee stated that, if the Board approves this use which they are operating now, then the Code will require that they meet certain requirements whether they have funds or not, adding that the meeting place must be as close to Code as it can be. Mr. King wondered if Mr. Cartee were saying that the Board is considering the use for approval but it is not approving any particular construction plan. Mr. Cartee concurred. Discussion followed with respect to the "loop" driveway shown on the survey map and whether ingress and egress should be in one way and out another or both. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that, generally, his parishioners come in one and out the other. Mr. King stated that he felt very uncomfortable without having anything from the Town Attorney and with having very little from the Planning Board. Mr. King stated to Mr. Delli-Carpini that if he were not anxious for an approval as to the use which is at present occuring, he would consider adjourning so that more information could be received. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that he thought that after all the meetings that they had specified what the Planning Board wanted, adding that they thought after the Planning Board the matter came back to this Board for a decision tonight. Mr. King expressed his concern that the Planning Board had not spoken to any of the proposed conditions which they had been asked to do. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, that the Adjourned Public Hearing in the matter of the Delli-Carpini et al Appeal, be and hereby is further adjourned until March 20 , 1985 , at 7:00 p.m. There being no further discussion, the Vice Chair called for a - vote. Aye - Austen, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23 , 1985 7: 00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman ofv;the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an Adjourned Public Hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, January 23, 1985, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side) , Ithaca, N.Y. , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P.M. , on the following matter: ADJOURNED APPEAL (from December 12 , 1984) of R. Delli-Carpini, J. Fairchild, and J. Saroka, Appellants , in re the conversion of an existing garage on a developed lot in a Residence District R15 to a place of worship (public place of assembly) at 203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-1 . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7:00 p.m. , and said place, hear all persons in support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Lewis D. Cartee Building Inspector Town of Ithaca Dated: January 15 , 1985 Publish: January 18 , 1985 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday, January 23 , 1985 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7 :00 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Henry Aron, Edward W. King, Edward N. Austen, Joan G. Reuning, James V. Buyoucos (Town Attorney) , Lewis D. Cartee (Building Inspector) , Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary) . • ALSO PRESENT: Ray Delli-Carpini, James M. Saroka, Joanne George, Danney Spain, Art Yaple, Monte May, Bruce Ryan (WHCU News) . Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 15 p.m. For the record the following documents were in hand: the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Adjourned Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on January 15 , 1985 and January 18 , 1985, respectively, and, the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the property in question, upon the Associate Counsel of Cornell University, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and upon the Appellant on January 18 , 1985. ADJOURNED APPEAL (FROM DECEMBER 12 , 1984) OF R. DELLI-CARPINI , J. FAIRCHILD, AND J. SAROKA, APPELLANTS, IN RE THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE ON A DEVELOPED LOT IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP (PUBLIC PLACE OF ASSEMBLY) AT 203 PINE TREE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-57-1-1 . Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7 :17 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Adjourned Public Hearing as posted and published and as noted above. Messrs. Delli-Carpini and Saroka were present. Chairman Aron stated that the Board of Appeals has in hand a Long Form Environmental Assessment Form completed and signed by Raymond Delli-Carpini under date of December 4 , 1984 . Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca the Lead Agency in the matter of environmental review. Chairman Aron noted that at the December 12th Public Hearing with respect to this matter a petition had been entered into the record, adding that, since that time, the Board had received , another Petition which he would read into the record as he hadpreviously done. Chairman Aron read: - "J-anuary 14 , 1984 [sic. ] We are not opposed to the efforts of Ray Delli-Carpini and the Ithaca Christian Fellowship to convert the existing garage at 203 Pine Tree n _ Zoning Board of Appeals 2 January 23 , 1985 ' Road, to a place of worship. We believe the Zoning Board of Appeals should grant them the necessary building permit to complete the project . (sgd. ) James Van Every, 206 Pine Tree Road (sgd. ) Eileen G. Grant, 101 Snyder Hill Rd. - (sgd. ) Thomas J. Grant, 101 Snyder Hill Rd . (sgd. ) Jacqueline Wakula, 204 Pine Tree Road (sgd. ) Tom Wakula, 204 Pine Tree Road" Chairman Aron stated that a lot of questions and answers occurred at the last meeting and he would ask those present whether there would be anyone who would like to speak to add only additional, or new, information to this Board. Chairman Aron asked if there were anybody here who would like to speak for or against the granting of this Appeal. No one spoke. Chairman Aron stated that in that case he would close the Adjourned Public Hearing at 7: 30 p.m. Chairman Aron asked if there were any questions from the Board. Mr . Austen asked if Mr. Delli-Carpini had any more plans as to where his parking might be. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that they are using land adjacent to the driveway, on the north side of the driveway, for parking now. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that, beyond that, they have land to the north and so they could park farther into the vacant lot. Mr . Buyoucos stated that he thought that Mr. Austen wanted to know that no portion of the driveway, south , is being used and, if that northerly part in not sufficient, parking might go to the north. Mr. Austen agreed. Chairman Aron appended a copy of the Survey Map of the property known as 203 Pine' Tree Road to the bulletin board and indicated on that Map for those present the location of the looped driveway under discussion. Chairman Aron stated that he assumed Mr. Austen was concerned that fire trucks , ambulances, and the like, could get through and with keeping the driveway loop clear for that . . Chairman Aron read aloud the following letter, dated December 12 , 1984 , from Frank R. Liguori , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, to Mr. Cartee. I' Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. Case : Use variance appeal of R. Delli-Carpini, J. Fairchild, and J. Saroka at 203 Pine Ti e Road (county highway) This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239-m. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant , deleterious impact on intercommunity, county, or state interest. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you - -are free to act without prejudice . " Zoning Board of Appeals 3 January 23 , 1985 Mr. King stated that he was not present at the last meeting, but , he had read the Minutes of the last meeting and the petitions and documents that have come in, so he had some familiarity with the matter. Mr. King stated that, as he understood it, Mr. Delli-Carpini proposes the use of the building marked on his Survey as "garage" for the purposes of this church and school. Mr. Cartee pointed out that it is the westerly two-bays of the three-bay garage that are being used as a • place of worship. Mr. King asked Mr. Delli-Carpini what size the congregation was going to be. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that they have twelve members at the present time, adding that they can accommodate 50 persons. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that if they grow beyond that, they would have to make a decision about moving to another location, or expanding, or using the barn . Mr. King wondered if Mr. Delli-Carpini meant the barn shown on the Survey to the east. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that that was correct and added that they wish - to use the property for the total it will accommodate but if it comes to a point beyond that they would have to find other land. Mr. King stated that there are some rules on places of assembly, under Codes, etc. , which is not the Board of Appeals ' problem to deal with. Mr. Buyoucos commented that such rules would be a condition. _ Mr. Cartee stated that he would like to address the size of the present structure that has been partially renovated. Mr. Cartee stated • that the area being used, the two bays of the garage, is 19 feet by 19 feet. Mr. Cartee stated that in that area there are two tables and one wood burning stove, so, that portion of that space that is taken up has to be eliminated so that a square footage can be determined and from that it can be determined how many people can be in that area. Mr. Cartee stated that of that 19 ' x 19 ' there is roughly 16 feet by 16 feet of area with unfixed seating which would allow, right now, with 7 sq. ft. per person required, 36 people to occupy this space. Mr. Cartee asked that the Board be aware that the fifty people mentioned is with , nothing in that area and also that 50 people under the Code is considered a "place" of assembly. Mr. Cartee stated that at present this use is less than that and is a "space" of assembly with the same _ general requirement of 7 sq.ft. per person but the requirements are less stringent when you consider a space of assembly rather than a place of assembly. Mr. King thanked Mr. Cartee for his explanation and asked, as to the - use of the property in other respects, it he understood it correctly that there will be a school. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that they were thinking eventually of using the room and having a day school in there, but that is in the future. Mr. Buyoucos commented that that is a projected plan and is not part of the application. Mr. , King commented that he understood that there is an effort being made to work out some suggested proposals between attorneys that are going to be -presented . to this Board. Mr. Buyoucos stated that some conditions have :been discussed which the Board of Appeals has the right to impose. Chairman Aron stated that the staff is working diligently on getting -all the information or conditions together which the Board does not have at -this time. -Chairman Aron stated that the .law also says that the -applicant has to have a site plan approval through the Planning _ Board. Chairman Aron stated that the Planning Board will take care of Zoning Board of Appeals 4 January 23 , 1985 - that and so he would say that Mr. Delli-Carpini will be in contact with the Town Planner and he will advise him what materials he will need. Chairman Aron stated that the Planner will help Mr. Delli-Carpini and then the Planning Board recommends certain things to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Buyoucos commented that one of the reasons the conditions are not ready is that we waited until we met today to discuss them and ' that after the conference there may be further embellishments made to what was spoken about. Mr. Buyoucos stated that he explained to Mr. _ Delli-Carpini that he would have to talk with the Planner to make sure of any materials he wanted. Mr. King stated that, as ' he looked at this matter last month _ preparatory to coming to the meeting, which, it turned out, he was unable to do, he was bothered by the question of what is a principal building on a lot. Mr. King stated that there is a Section 68 in the Town Zoning Ordinance which says one may have more than one building on a lot but with more than one principal building on a lot there are certain requirements akin to a subdivision. Mr. King stated that this seems to imply that the Board is faced with a subdivision situation and a problem which must be addressed. Mr. King stated that you cannot utilize a residential lot without a proper ' subdivision ' separation under the ordinance between them. Mr. King stated that in looking at the Survey Map accompanying the application he was a little confused because of the lot to the north which seems to be a separate lot but • the whole thing is owned by the applicant. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that they bought the two lots both - , together at the same time, adding that there is one deed and one description. Mr. King stated that this is an ideal kind of situation for the Board of Appeals to make use of Section 78 of the Ordinance where it has the right to refer matters to the Planning Board since they are much more erudite in dealing with subdivisions and the Board of Appeals is not particularly equipped to do it. Mr. King stated that he thought it would be good to proceed in this manner although he understood that the Board of Appeals is given the specific authority to give a special approval, but, the Board of Appeals does not know how this will stack up to other criteria such as parking spaces, parking areas, etc. Mr. King stated that it would be a good idea to have a detailed presentation to the Planning Board before it comes back to the Board of Appeals for final approval . Mr. Buyoucos asked if he would be correct in saying that Mr. King was interpreting this law as saying that the Board of Appeals can refer this matter to the Planning Board for review and recommendation. Mr. King stated that Mr. Buyoucos was correct. Mr . Buyoucos commented that that was very interesting, adding that he had had that interpretation at the beginning of the conference. Mr. King commented that the Board of Appeals has previously interpreted Section 78 as permitting referrals to the Planning Board. Mr. Buyoucos asked if the Planning Board renders its recommendations in the form of a report to the Board of Appeals . Mr. King responded that that was correct, adding that the Board of Appeals may incorporate those as it sees appropriate. Zoning Board of Appeals 5 January 23 , 1985 Chairman Aron asked if anyone had anything more to add. Mr. Austen stated that the approach suggested by Mr . King was okay with him. Mrs. Reuning indicated her agreement. Mr. King stated that he wondered if the Chairman of Planning Board, who was present, would be in such agreement. Mr. Montgomery May commented that if • it were being looked at under Section 78 , he thought it appropriate. Chairman Aron stated that if there were no more questions, he would entertain a motion. MOTION by Mr. Edward King: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals refer and hereby does refer the matter of the Appeal of •R. Delli-Carpini, J. Fairchild, and J. Saroka, in re the conversion of an existing garage to a place of worship at 203 Pine Tree Road, to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for its consideration, and for its expertise in making recommendations back to the Board of Appeals for, what could be termed, site plan approval and recommendation of conditions for the grant of a Special Approval by said Board of -Appeals. • Mr. Buyoucos asked if Mr. King would mind considering adding to his Motion that the Board of Appeals may also send a statement of what it is doing and a statement of conditions . Mr. King stated that he would accept that as an addition to his .MOTION. The MOTION was seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron, King, Austen, Reuning. . Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. King asked if it would not be appropriate for the applicants to get together with the Town Planner and make a presentation and he could help them. Mr. Buyoucos stated that it would be appropriate to do that, adding that the important thing is to find out what would be needed by the Planning Board. Mr. King offered that information . such as the .separation of the buildings should be included. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Edward Austen, seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning: 'RESOLVED, that the .January 23 , 1985 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca -- , Zoning Board of Appeals be and hereby is adjourned. There being no further- discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Aron , ;-King, Austen, Reuning. 'Nay - None . Zoning Board of Appeals 6 January 23 , 1985 ' The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly adjourned at 8 :05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Henry Aron, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals 7 December 12 , 1984 FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Sign Permit be issued for such signs on a year-round basis which exceed those covered under Sign Permit #144. There being no 'further discussion, the Chair called for vote. Aye - Aron, Reuning, Hewett, Austen. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Bell/Bryant Appeal duly closed at 7 :59 p.m. APPEAL OF R. DELLI-CARPINI , J. FAIRCHILD, AND J. SAROKA, APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR .THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE ON A DEVELOPED LOT IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP (PUBLIC PLACE OF ASSEMBLY) AT 203 PINE TREE ROAD, " TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6-57.-1-1 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER-ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 3 , AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 8 : 00 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Delli-Carpini and Mr. Saroka were present. Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Raymond Delli-Carpini under date of December 3, 1984 , as follows : " . . .Having been denied permission to - renovate an existing garage into a place of worship (public place of assembly) at 203 Pine Tree Road. . .We purchased this property with the understanding we were able to use the property and existing buildings for church purposes. This was established on our part by a call to the zoning office, which informed us our intended use was permissible under the zoning law. We believe there • is nothing in the current zoning ordinance which would prohibit our use of , our property for our stated purpose. We are not seeking a variance. We are asking the Board of Appeals to reverse the decision of the building inspector in denying us a building permit to renovate the garage. ¶The unnecessary hardship on our part, is that we are being denied the use of our property for a permitted use under zoning law. g[Under this ruling we are restricted from enjoying the same benefits under the zoning law that is accorded to other property owners. The Ithaca Christian Fellowship of which I am an ordained Pastor, depends upon the availability of the aforementioned property as a place of worship. Without which at least, presents a practical difficulty in the scheduling of meetings. " Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak. Mrs. Mary Yaple, 151 Pine- Tree Road, spoke from the floor and stated that her property is adjacent to 203 Pine Tree Road. Mrs. Yapie stated " that she was not aware that a church or .place of assembly would be allowed there, then she got a Notice and it .came to her attention that there was going to be an assembly meeting there . Mrs . Yaple stated that what she did on short notice was collect signatures on a petition because a lot of neighbors could not come to this hearing. Mrs . Yaple stated that a lot of the neighbors are skeptical. because of the size of the lot and _its location Zoning Board of Appeals 8 December 12 , 1984 ' and the configuration of the building beside a small two=bedroom home and also because of the lack of parking and concern about high density on Pine Tree Road. Mrs. Yaple stated that the building, in fact, is in an area which has been long established as residential and not ever proposed as a church site. Mrs . Yaple stated that the site is no4L suitable for a place of assembly, a church, or a school . Mr. Arthur Yaple, 151 Pine Tree Road, presented the Petition to the Board, which read as follows : "December 11 , 1984 To the Board of Zoning Appeals : We feel that, because of the size of the lot at 203 Pine Tree Road, its location, the configuration of the proposed building, the lack of ample parking facilities , the density of traffic, and the fact that the building is adjacent to a long-established residential area, the aforementioned dwelling is unsuitable for a public meeting place anchor school. (Signed by) Mary A. Yapfe _- Edith Cassel Mrs . Helen Longsdorf Leslie L. Longsdorf Joan E. Longsdorf John DeWire Ruth DeWire Judy Mauk Steve Mauk Susan H. Shefter - Martin Shefter Howard Kramer Arthur G. Yaple" Mrs. Yaple also read aloud the following letter signed by Blythe C. Baldwin, 149 Pine Tree Road, dated December 12, 1984 : To the Board: I am opposed to granting any zoning variance to Mr. Delli-Carpini at 203 Pine Tree Road at this time. Traditionally, people who want zoning variances explain their project to the neighbors and enlist their support. Mr. Delli-Carpini has not done this. I don ' t know what "a place of worship" involves. Among the churches already established as "places of worship" in Ithaca,, some are used just on Sundary mornings, whereas others run day care centers, schools, or in one case a soup kitchen every day, so evidently there is a wide range of possibilities for "places of worship" . One of the residents at 203 Pine Tree Road told me that they plan to operate a Christian day school. I 'd like to see this neighborhood remain` essentially a middle class residential neighborhood. At 203 Pine Tree Road, although the number of people is in compliance with the zoning regulations, they live in conditions that are more crowded and below the general standard of the neighborhood. The basement apartment, entirely below ground level except for small windows near its ceiling, is below the standards of other - Zoning Board of Appeals 9 December 12 , 1984 basement apartments in the neighborhood, including the student housing on Snyder Hill Road. On the first floor, two unrelated young women share a bedroom without enough floor space for more than one single - bed. (They have bunkbeds. ) There is no zoning violation here, but since their standards do seem to be different than those of other neighborhood, residents , I wouldn ' t want the board to grant them a zoning variance sanctioning uses different from the use of the rest of the neighborhood, until we know what they ' re planning to do. " - Chairman Aron asked Mr. Delli-Carpini to speak _to his proposal . Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that when they purchased the property and when they looked at it there was no secret as to what their stated use for the property was . Mr . Delli-Carpini stated that they called the zoning office and they said is was permissible. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that they purchased the property and went and fixed it up. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that it was an adequate facility, adding that their fellowship only has 15 members. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that there is adequate parking and there _ ,is no inconvenience for the cars presently coming to the meeting. Mr. Delli-Carpirrs stated--that- they• fel-t that; in checking- the- zoning- ordinance- and consulting their lawyer, there is no problem in using the building for worship and Bible study. Mr.. Delli-Carpini stated that they felt they have done everything in the open and that they are within their rights under the zoning ordinance. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated again that the property and buildings are adequate. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that, in the future, if they grow, then they would have to look elsewhere for a place for meetings but, right now, the place is adequate. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that there is no hardship on the neighborhood; the facility is used on Sundays at 11 : 00 a.m. , on Mondays at 7 : 00 p.m. , and on Wednesdays at 7 :00 p.m. - Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that at this present time there is no undue hardhsip on the neighborhood as far as their use of the property, adding that they have had cars parked on their side lot on Sundays and noting that it is a vacant lot adjacent which they own.. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that from there on it is Cornell land, adding that there is a wooded lot adjacent - owned by Dr. Baldwin and the Yaples are on the other side of .the wooded lot. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that they have had no complaints from the neighbors. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that their being there is an asset to the neighborhood and a benefit to ,the area. , Mrs. Shirley Raffensperger, 139 Pine Tree Road, spoke from the floor and stated that she would like to raise the question as to there being unrestricted right for -permitted uses in R15 zones . Mrs. Raffensperger stated that she could not turn her house into a fire• station or a golf course and she could guarantee that . ' - The Secretary distributed to each of the Board members a copy of a Survey of the property in question dated July 25 , 1981 and prepared by Howard R. Schlieder. Mr. Delli-Carpini also had five colored photographs of the property which were given to the Board. Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak. Mr. Arthur Yaple stated that one point that was brought up was that there have been no complaints to this point. Mr. Yaple stated that with regard to meetings and like that and size of -groups- like that on a regular • Zoning Board of Appeals 10 December 12', '1 basis, it might be a problem. Mr. Yaple stated that he did not mind people having people come over from time to time, but this is sort of like a business in a residence area and should be regulated. Mr. Delli-Carpini pointed out that there are two churches in the area -- Hillside Alliance and Trinity Lutheran -- within eyesight of his house. Chairman Aron commented that Trinity Lutheran Church had a review by the Board of Appeals in 1962 and 1964 and there is a church on Burleigh Drive which was reviewed by the Planning Board in 1974 and also a church on the Trumansburg Road was reviewed by the Planning Board. Chairman Aron noted that these churches went through a system of review by the Town and proceeded to describe the function of the Planning Board and the manner in which recommendations are made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by the Planning Board. The Secretary noted that the Board had received a packet with respect to SEQR from Mr. Lovi, the Town Planner. Mr. Delli-Carpini stated that he had completed the Long Form Environmental Assessment _Form. Mr. Austen stated that he would like to personally look at this area before he made any type of decision, adding that he was not that familiar with this particular piece of property. Mrs. Reuning stated that she thought that that would be fine and Mr. Hewett stated that he would like to visit the particular site too. MOTION by Mr. Edward Austen, seconded by Mr. Jack Hewett : RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, that the Public Hearing in the matter of the Delli-Carpini/Fairchild/Saroka Appeal be and hereby is adjourned until the next meeting of said Board of _Appeals which is January 23 , 1985 commencing at 7 :00 p.m. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron, Reuning, Hewett, Austen. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. - Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Delli-Carpini/Fairchild/Saroka Appeal duly adjourned at 8 :25 p.m. ADJOURNMENT - Upon Motion, Chairman Aron declared the December 12 , 1984 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 8 :26 p.m_ Respectfully submitted, - Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Henry Aron, Chairman TOWN of ITHACA : .BOARD of ZONING APPEALS ' Re: Application of Delli-Carpini ITHACA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP Church & Residence on Same Lot - 203 Pine Tree Road SUBJECT PROPERTY: - The property consists of a CONSOLIDATED PARCEL composed of Town of Ithaca Tax 2( Parcels 57-1-1 a:d 57-1-7.12, being the property conveyed by ROBERT & SARAH LILLIE to RAYMOND DETT,I-CARPINI, JEFFREY E. FAIRCHILD, AND JAMES SAROKA as ,tenants in common, by deed dated June 29, 1984 and recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office in Book 602 of Deeds at page 466. 'This parcel has a frontage of 280 feet on the easterly side of Pine Tree Road and an irregular, average depth of about 250 feet. The northerly 125 feet or so of the parcel width is unimproved (being sometimes referred to in our proceeding's as "the vacant lot"), and the southerly 140 to 155 feet or so of the parcel width is improved with several buildings, including a single family dwelling, the garage here cohcerned as the;SPACE OF ASSEMBLY, and a barn. Judging from the survey map presented to us and the Planning Board by Petitioners [viz. the map entitled "SURVEY of LANDS_ of Robert J. & Sarah R. Lillie & of Lands to be conveyed . . .etc. etc. . . 203 PINE TREE ROAD", made by Howard R. Schlieder under date of July 25, 1981] , the southwest corner of the parcel is located about 65 feet north of the Honness Lane intersection with Pine-Tree Road, and the southerly arm of the circular driveway on this parcel is about 110 feet north of that intersecting roadway, while the northerly arm of the driveway is- about 175 feet north of that highway intersection. (The • survey map is the only evidence which was presented to us on these matters, although we also had reference to the Deed for the property and to Tax Maps, as well as 'views of the property by- some members of the Board. ) The northerly arm of the driveway appears from the tax maps to be located n about 350• feet-south of the instersection of Pine ,"`ree Road with Snyder Hill Road, the northwest corner of the subject parcel being located about 200 feet south of that intersection. Pine Tree Road is a fairly highly trafficated - roadway with narrow shoulders, making roadside parking almost impossible and most undesirable. From the Snyder Hill Road- intersection south (viz. largely to the south of the subject parcel) Pine Tree Road is a relatively densely populated residential street. But even so, the direct connection of Pine Tree Road with NYS Highway 79 (The Slaterville Road) -to the south, -and its indirect second connection with that State Highway via Honness Lane -- and the fact that Pine-Tree Road leads to the Cornell Campus to the north of this parcel, make the road a direct avenue of fairly heavy traffic- to and from Cornell University past the subject property. ZONING: R-15 RESIDENTIAL: - - The parcel is located in an R-15 Residential Zone. Under §14 of the Zoning Ordinance, such zoning requires a minimum lot width of 100 feet and a depth of 150 feet, and further requires that the principal use building be so sited upon the lot as to provide side yards of at least 15 feet each, a rear yard at least 30 feet deep, and a front yard set back at least equal to the average set-back of buildings in the neighborhood -- but with a minimum of 25 feet in any event, yet not requiring a set back greater than 50 feet. PROPOSAL: ,Petitioner proposes to adapt the front (westerly) 361 square feet [19' x 19' ] -- viz. the westerly 2 bays of the 3 bay garage on the premises, for use as a CHURCH. This would be classified as a,°=DACE OF ASSEMBLY under the State Building Code. (Making allowance for permanent fixtures, that area would seem sufficient to provide room for no more than 40 people at one time. ) The Petitioner has also mentioned the possibility of at some time expanding the use into the 3rd bay of the garage. The congregation is presently relatively small, consisting of about a dozen members. - The 'Site Plan' presented consists of a copy of the aforesaid Survey-Map from Liber 587 of Deeds at page 765, upon which two cross hatched sites for parking are depicted (extending west and north from the garage, into the vacant lot area, plus an area south of the east bay of the garage); an "Enclosed Garbage Shed" 8' x 4' is depicted adjacent west of the barn; and a "Sign" location is indicated at the roadside, centered on the 2-story framedwelling. An additional "Detail" sheet indicates that the circular driveway is paved with asphalt and that additional parking will be paved with gravel, bordered by railroad ties. Existing or proposed shrubbery has also been indicated on the survey site plan and detail sheet, and a proposed sign 4' x 6' (or x5' ) is also shown on the Detail sheet. -Upon the prior request of this Zoning Board of_ Appeals, referring this matter to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for site plan and other review and recommendations, the Planning Board reviewed and approved this site plan at its meetings on February 19, 1985 and March 5, 1985. - MORE THAN ONE (PRINCIPAL USE) BUILDING ON A SINGLE LOT: §68: The subject parcel has long been devoted to, and remains devoted to residential use, the principal improvement thereon being the 2-story frame ' dwelling. The proposal to adapt the garage for use-as a church or religious meeting house would constitute another principal use of the premises. Use of the property for a Church is a permitted use in this R-15 district per our Ordinance §11(3) -- as indeed, are other possible uses such as for a' Library, School, Museum, Fire Station, etc. But it is implicit that the ordinance does not contemplate multiple principal uses upon the same lot without further consideration. - §68 of the Ordinance requires that where there are two or more principal buildings on one lot, the spaces ( 'separation' ) between the-buildings shall be at least equal to the distance of 2 side yards combined, or equal to the depth of a front yard plus a rear yard, "as the case maybe", the language of the ordinance being: 2 SECTION 68. More than One Building on a Lot. _When there is more- than one principal building on a lot-in any district the space between such buildings must be at least equal to the sum of the side yards required by such- buildings or-the sum of the rear and the ' front yards as the case may be. We interpret this section to require that frontal and lateral separation must be maintained just ,as though the principal buildings were buildings upon separate but adjacent lots; fully conforming with the front,: rear and side yard requirements of the Zone in which they are located. In other words, the - size of the lot and the siting of the buildings must be such that a minor subdivision of them could be achieved by drawing a line or lines of separation which would leave each building upon a lot conforming to all the requirements - of the �-~= particular Zone. ' THE LATERAL separation of the garage from the house-on this property appears to-be somewhere between 20 and 25 feet, measured from the north wall of the house to the south wall of the garage, judging from the scale and depiction of 'the buildings on the survey map" presented= to us. Side yards in R-15 [Ord. §14] must be at least 15 feet wide, so 30 feet of lateral separation is required here- to meet the §68 criterion. ' The separation here appears to be 5 - to 10 feet short of that. THE FRONTAL separation of these two buildings (east-or rear wall of house to west or front wall of garage) is -- again judging from the survey --about 45 feet, rather than the 55 feet [25 ft +30 ft] which §68 might seem literally to require: yet if there were sufficient lateral separation, the 135 foot set-back of the garage from,the highway,- and the 45 foot rear yard from the barn (which lies to the rear or east of this garage) to the east line of the - property, is seen to be more than adequate to Meet-the yard requirements ip this district. Thus, since there is a significant amount of lateral separation here, it seems unnecessaryarid logically (ina xo Mate to also apply og Y _pP i� P Y the frontal separation' requirement .to this particular situation. - ENVIRONMFNTAL IMPACT: The Zoning Board of Appeals is the lead agency. The Reviewer, Town Planner Lovi, recommended a Negative Declaration based upon his reasoning [Opinion Dec 13, 1984 (Part III of the Statement)] that the matter ' - - could be handled by way of a Minor Re-Subdivision of the lot so-that the garage-meeting place would become a single-principal church building on- its - own lot, rather than a second principal use building on the same lot with the residence; and that thus the _"environmental impacts" could be MITIGAT'ED_simply and completely by such a legal minor subdivision of- the property into two parcels. - - . ' 3 HOWEVER in view of the fact -that the ZBA is now required, under Local Law No. 4 of 1985 to review applications for uses under Subdivisions (3) , (5), (6) , and (7) of the Residential Use Sections 4, 11, and 18 of the Zoning Ordinance, and to grant or withold SPECIAL APPROVAL in accordance with the Criteria specified in Section 77 Subdivision (7) of the ordinance, it would seem that the board can, by imposing reasonable conditions, mitigate, any negative environmental impacts which might be caused by the operation of a church in this particular building upon this property. With this consideration, in view, the Zoning Board of Appeals adopted a resolution finding no Environmental Significance in the proposal -- i.e. it duly made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance at its meeting held on March 20, 1985. SPECIAL APPROVAL: . Section 77(7) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance requires that, in considering whether to grant or deny Special Approval, the Zoning Board of Appeals must determine: - (a) Whether the proposal will promote the health, saftey and general welfare. (b) That the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use And that such use will fill a neighborhood or community need. (c) The location and design of any structure shall be consistent with the character of the District in which it is located; and the proposed use will also be consistent with the-character of that District. - (d) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity -onto the neighborhood character - -in 'amounts' sufficient to devaluate neighboring property -or to seriously inconvenience'neighboring inhabitants. (e) Access and egress for all strucures and uses shall be safely designed.- (f) Genl effect upon community as a whole [incl items such as traffic load and demand upon water and sewer] will not be detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare of the community And (8) the ZBA may impose such reasonable conditions as it deems necessary to protect the general welfare of the community. _ FINDINGS: In addition to our adopting the findings of fact implicit and explicit in the foregoing statements of this situation, we further find the location and topography of this land to present no great problems to or hazards in the proposed additional use, particularly so long, as ample offstreet parking is provided and so long as access and egress for congregational meetings is directed primarily over the northerly arm of the existing driveway, well separated from the immediate highway intersections. 4 - - - • We further find that while the garage may conceivably provide. an adequate meeting place for a relatively small congregation, and while the proximity of garage to the dwelling would not seem to pose any particular problem in the - proposed use by such a small congregation, any considerable extension of, the church use -- e.g. 'by a congregation whose numbers would make likely the - occupancy'of the garage facilities by.more than-35 to 40 people at one time, . would-be better directed toward an expansion to the north, into the 'vacant lot' area, rather than by an expansion into the remaining portion-of the - garage. And further, expansion of the church facilityand activites'toward . - - the south -- viz. behind [east -of] the dwelling, would constitute a much - further departure from the separation of uses envisaged by §68 of the Zoning Ordinance, and is therefore to be avoided. CONCLUSIONS: ,-, (A) . Subject to the Conditions following, the proposed use should be given a_ - - Special Permit so long as the intensity of the use in the particular building • and location is within the limits contemplated by the-application, 'such use - - - , . - not to be "extended,beyond- the;limits indicated without further consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals. •" .(B) . - The site plan approval previously given by .the Town Of-Ithaca_ Planning - Board upon the request of thisBoard is deemed to constitute-`adequate . , • compliance with the provisions of Town of -Ithaca Local Law #4-1985, despite " - - such approval having been_ given prior to the Decision-of this',Zonil g Board of Appeals. - CONDITIONS: - Assuming that the intensity of use of the premises for churr_'h purposes will be . , - as contemplated'by the Petition-arid the presentations- to the Boards, and that only-the two_ westerly bays of the garage will be renovated for these purposes, I. • - no extensions of that proposal nor exterior modifications to the building - being contemplated; the Zoning Board of Appeals.hereby,grants Special- Approval :for such use of the subject parcel and its improvements, upon the following - conditions: - -' 1. The church structure as remodelled is not to be occupied by more than 40 -- people at any one time (or'to such lesser number as,any other applicable.Code - or Ordinance might dictate) ,' and it is-to be used only for -usual,-church and " - congregational purposes, viz. excluding its use as a- dwelling,. school, - nursery, place of public assembly, etc. etc. _ 2. The church structure must made `to comply with the Fire Safety Code and ' other Codes and Ordinances-applicableto such a: spade .of assembly:- 3: Ingress and egress;to and from`.the premises and Pine. Tree 'bad will be had, ' - primarily (if not exclusively) over the northerly arm of the loop driveway - - shown on the map.- •No parking is to be permitted in the driveway during services, both arms of the driveway to remain open and traversable by - - emergency vehicles. 4. Off-street parking is to be provided in and limited to the areas shbwwn on • - -- the site plan,, viz. to the west (extending northerly) of the garage site, with a small area imrnediatly south of the easterly end of the garage =--none of " - 5 • ` such areas to be so located as to block or impede the free movement of emergency vehicles in the driveway. The parking areas shall be prepared and maintained in suitable condition for such parking, viz. adequately based and surfaced with gravel or a 'macadam type' material, suitably drained, and adequately delineated and reasonably landscapped with shrubbery as proposed by Petitioner in presentations to the Boards. A reasonable time will be allowed the Petitioner or the Fellowship to prepare such parking areas. 5. The existing outdoor lighting of limited intensity, is approved. No additional outdoor electric lights or other illumination is permissible except upon approval of the Board of Appeals after the filing of a specific application with the li—ling Inspector. 6. The siting of the proposed single exterior sign is approved, but the particular sign and its size must be presented for approval upon a proper application under the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance. However, only one sign is to be placed upon the premises. 7. The grounds shall, of course, be maintained and utilized in accordance with Local Law #4-109 regulating the maintenance of real property in the Town. 8. Before any expansion of the building (or expansion of the church use into the 3rd bay), and before any new construction, or any intensification of use maybe undertaken, a Special Permit therefor must be obtained. Duly adopted by Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals on April /7 , 1985. Given to Mr. Delli-Carpini, in this form, this date, April 18, 1985. Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. 6 Town okays garage'' con version By STEPHEN MADDEN Special to The Journal The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals did not ap- ,prove plans of a Pine Tree Road— man to convert his garage into a place of worship, but members did tell him they probably would grant him a building permit. ' "We're given permission to do what we want to do, which•is convert the garage to a place of worship," said Ray Delli-Carpi- ni' or 203 Pine Tree Road. "What they(the board) want to do is get together and put the j wording together on it,.the fin print." At the board's regular month- ly meeting Wednesday night in the Ithaca Town Hall, 126 E. Seneca St., Delli-Carpini was Mold he was free to continue ren- ovations to his two-car garage. Delli-Carpini said he wants -to turn the garage into a place of worship for the Ithaca Christian Fellowship, of which he is-pas- tor. Lewis Cartee, town building inspector, said Delli-Carpini has been,given "special verbal ap- proval" to renovate his garage without deceiving a building per- mit. _ The zoning board of appeals continued the matter to its April meeting. Cartee said`Delli-Car- pini would have an official building' permit before that meeting: The congregation, according to Delli-Carpini, has 15 mem- bers.` T - MEMORANDUM: TO: Members, Zoning Board of Appeals Members, Planning Board - Members, Town Board Lewis Cartee, Building Inspector - James V. Buyoucos, Town Attorney FROM: Peter M. Lovi, Town Planner DATE: December 13 , 1984 - , • - RE: Ithaca Christian Fellowship, - 203 Pine Tree Road _ Enclosed please find a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Mr. Delli-Carpini for the proposed Ithaca Christian - Fellowship. I have prepared a Part II, and III review. - In. - addition, I have included a copy of my return cover letter to Mr. Delli-Carpini, as it contains a complete explanation- of the the - ` ' - • scope of my environmental review. I have copied these documents to all three Boards because I am . ' certain that before this matter is resolved, all of you will be , involved. As I have explained to Mr. Delli-Carpini, this issue before the ZBA is a matter of Zoning Ordinance interpretation, not whether the proposed use is or is not allowed. If, as suggested in the proposed mitigation measures, a resubdivision . is proposed, - the moving of the present lot line will put the proposed place of _ • worship on a separate parcel and will render moot the issue before the ZBA. The Planning Board would then be the lead agency in the environmental review of the minor subdivision. - - - The Town Board may be considering an amendment to , the Zoning. Ordinance which would require uses such as this to have ZBA and Planning Board approval. As part of the SEQR review of such an , amendment, an impact which I will need to know it whether or not - the Town is likely to lose a lawsuit should it attempt to retroactively apply „ these proposed standards to the present proposal, or whether this project is, in a sense, "grandfathered" . I hope this information assists all three `-Boards - in their deliberations. Please call me if you have any -questions on this matter. - , • 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK - ' 14850 December 13, 1984 Mr. Raymond Delli-Carpini • 203 Pine Tree Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Environmental Review of Zoning Board of Appeals action _ - Dear Mr. Delli-Carpini: - Enclosed please find a copy of your Environmental Assessment Form, Parts I, II, and III . This review is somewhat different from • others that I am accustomed to preparing. Typically, an environ- mental review is required for projects which - are to be funded, permitted, or reviewed by an affected agency. However, it appears that the use for which you require a building permit is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance, and furthermore, the issuance of building permits is an administrative action for which no environ- mental review is required. In your case, however, the question is whether two permitted uses (i.e. a residence and a place of worship) can be permitted on the same lot. It is this matter which should be decided by the Zoning Board of Appeals . My review has focused exclusively on the town- • wide environmental impact of this particular issue. I have not reviewed the merits or demerits of your proposal, since churches - and places of worship are permitted in R15 districts. - If the ZBA decides in your favor, you may get your building per mit; if not, you could subdivide the garage from the lot on which the house stands and" merge this parcel with the adjacent property which you own. If you resubdivide your property, it appears to be quite clear that you would be entitled to a building permit, since your place of worship is a permitted use and would be the only such use on this property. - The Planning Board is the agency responsible for subdivisions and resubdivisions. If you prepare a minor subdivision proposal and submit it to this office prior to January 4th, I could schedule a Public Hearing to consider your subdivision plan for January 15th. Typically, minor subdivisions such as this one have taken no more . . WO `1s - ' ✓ '3;-1 . Pvod1 f !v f ,1'c, p J?pa pq i/ ?AV-f - m ,y�?A 9 9 /11M . ‘U!_y_i pd /m/o( PPpv �� byds� yfrkiq--n2d• f S 4'a}bij&S Co on, a`l-- 1 1-e° "'PI" - �(vlbAp M JjH-1S '°e 7�'1 M �.c0 j-P-i-�J� . . _// ' laL _Abpi-�� - - j1 ' * tdL - 'PW, , - . kW 11 -/,bpu s . - I P? arL ' urd 0pZ - �� Sr101� ( b1�S1 � 7� / 2 , _ . , _ , , ,. I . . , , .. -- U � S 9X S ., / / . Mr. Raymond Delli-Carpini -2- December 12, 1984 than one or two meetings to be resolved. I 'have included a copy . of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , for your infor- mation. I would be happy to speak with you or your -attorney if you require additional assistance. - . Sincere - , /2 ' _ . - t/b1;4,' . , . ., , . . Peter M. Lovi Town Planner - encl. - Town of Ithaca Environmental Assessment Form, Parts- I. , II. , III. - - - - Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations - - cc: Members, Zoning Board of Appeals , Members, Planning Board - Members, Town Board , Lewis Cartee, Building Inspector " • - ' - - - , , James V. Buyoucos, Town Attorney , . - 41•••••••mamom . . . .. , . . •• n:5,-4_ : „ ,•, . I - . ,, :, . , - - Attth 587 (ACE 765 , , . ..- ,- . . 0..-. , .. _ . . - J... . it. -Iwo ,. . • 9 . - . It% : • vv/Re - eir,,,fe . tt r _ - ,_ ._ •, sr ' Iv XI 1 • : , . - - - - I ' 1 % . . _ , , •, - --P13127- .00r ...CANPS cyr - . . -. '. '• -- 1 to.,. , - .57=1-7.2 - ( i Z—.71 52 - Z.+)I _ 4 .7)e";-' cAePhl-ii - .•rf?i i e cps,/1_0, ,- „Lle.'0107.- - . 4 •- - .1;: - _.• _ , . • . , . ." - . .__ . ... . r:3 lit -,4ro- 4,4,4411 , — ,J . k , __ .___ , _,. 600on - i t k Wit illy 1 . (ICON a . , . , I ISN4-t).;>%%%--1-.'"--'4-1. 4 , , , EActc.„eii • /30 In, L..,,,...-•-,, ! :'4 Pft•k***111$Plet .4 : -Gayloaoe-, Shed_ T. :. t‘a h ; , ' - littlwiwi7t4 - •""' - - ' i . - -- 3 - t) ? 4••••...............• i.31 1.. S 3 ql , 74111 .---- , . , . *- t•rj....-....---....-- -.... - - I, 04- 14 0 .F247 )-eWilIn:''.---;----4‘;'---ll'' : t4-1 , ' -- j ----- . Deiet_terva • ,.? I :':,(:1,..... _ - 0 - •• §...W. =e..203 . 1111 ' . , . , .‘ A.- ._ ‘ , _ , - . tal, el : ) ' - $ • I. Z4- ' , - ' • '- % -' ' CC _ 4-.. .-. ' .0 0 (S, i I'' ' • -- - - '- __ - - tl - . - - • i•----- L---_. , _, , _.- i. - .- - , -- " k-----1-----? =---- -L---QIVID -0. c1-7--00.5- ---‘),*- -Adillere-41-- Cr i , 8 • • :, - r - ) - - , ,--.- . _ ..... , .„ , , .gi • , ••• b _ II_ -33 _ . . .- -.57-'1/-.:- (.479-52G). ! _ a. : - • jr• 4-/3'A -g.--- iirl.; ...-......-.... - - .a•millh...-. • • I • . , . i • #(4,-.:- "\Nr 1°S )‘. , , . . •. . - I Co ' 1-4 . - RE/31/1/iVING 401/V495 OF- •' ' - Jr . ,. ' ' :.11 - - . . , , - Aivat- C. 131.Y771E C. Bilzp w i/44i R. . . .. , ,. • In . , • •' .,,_ _ .. . . . . , -• . . , . . - .. . CERTIFICATE OF ,APPROVAL,_ onfivEs14 Appioved-by Ficnni;),,-2; t3oard of Tovin •-lii,VE . . . - . - •- ' • , .- .- , , - 5of:lii-N-,A. .. , • . , _ . , .- „ _ _ . • ,G2, '/(. 7 1-9_16 • .: - - ' ''_ Vi*ce-Chairpian, . ._ - - . - - • . _ . _. - - =--- -:- . ,-.• -- • •. , , • ' ' - . . . . • . - SURVEY--of- LANDS ' ---- -_ : : .. OF RoseRT J. 8r.SARA ii R. zy a is de ,o,' , . - . zgiv.11„5- ro 8 6 /CON v E Y • -• _ _.„..0., %%% 00000, lir( ' :13't F'Ri)/ye.c._,SE• BLYTHE c.,130 a,:c r wirl.J R. _ tr. , „zo3 P1 Ne--TR E-E ROAD- _ .: - - . - . . .i:,,... ,,p .r...--•.: .:0.s- :- Toivivo.F./rwfi.c.7,-ToniP?cemis coc/ivrY ' - - ',.--41,-----: -.", - , ' z I • - ^ t•. •I es V- t - tv4 vet yORX' , - __ ' iA it i: ' ;1 - *- 5 ' - - • JUAY t.5'; i9 8 i - -„ -. -i+irsivAirtrp• #3,,, • - ' . • .• ‘: ' • .77:.-%'-` ' •-• ' ' ' 1 ' ' Scil -4-4 fox•yo• - ievi/Fel)%1E'. S.-CM/EDF R • :As. 1.:'. '-----•:' #1:1- - - - ' ' - L c ' , _ , •.-. - e4111 sc',:*.4r , _ -_ - ' - • .-..P.E4 il.S.04/3780 , --94.;--•- . . .- s-• zix[t L k '. ..• - _ , _ •• - —:-• -. . ' :. _ . _ - -.. _ . oo............. . _ 1 , . ' • . ' " , , . ,. . . - - SCHEDULE ' A-- --- • - -- - - - - . �• TOWN OF ITHACA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM APPL I CANT My/7?0A.)d DP/(/ ` Carp)/1 l ,( :Gai afr sy,„9 DATE AC__ )9 f PROJECT , c)//d/Y), ,&401✓c(710/1 LOCATION aQ 3 P,,1 e. . To be completed and submitted by the applicant. Comments may be written next to the question or on additional paper. GENERAL INFORMATION - 1 . Applicant /(89y)/1/0, JL' 2 i/ - Car/obi/ Phone 7-5<X0--7 Address ao 3 Pi► - /ems Ed. Property Owner//nat/.O J) i/a Co:Vp►ri J fiv cf/JL6%J .�'".oX6J Phone kZ?7-141-/?--7 Address $? a /n� ` ,o- /Rd 2. Location of Proposed Action. (Write Address/Tax Lot; Attach USGS topographic map with affected lands outlined.) O 3 Phi- . 3. Proposed Action. Pe.Ad ,-f 1--) az Ira P -' J Kdo Gt_ pk!ue-- Gt/O-S 11 ",O 4. Activities and /types of operation resulting from_ the completion of the proposed action. P�le.�.> f J w4 SA ip off- 2Zilia r� C/1/-iS)%c< 03A IDENTIFICATION OF PROPOSED ACTION -- Site Plan and USGS Map - 5. State the time schedules for the proposed action:/JaT /`"W/cfJ%Gc - - Planning Construction Design, Documents Finished Site Work/Grading Preliminary Site Work 6. Describe the proposed construction techniques to be used if building or site development is involved. Show locations and routes to be used on the site plan. Grading and excavation including equipment vehicles and explosives to be used. Transportation of mat/er'ials to site. - - , Disposal of waste materials. Proposed chemical treatments, such as herbicides, dust control , etc. /Jd&� Special techniques to overcome unusual conditions. .Jo c • 7. Describe the C/o/0 of proposed building and site materials to be used. Foundation VU/0C2E77, c- c t,r Atot2A Structure w 0Q 0 , HVAC Energy Sources C,t/dOD S 70VE Siding 5N{ Er' /Pack Insulation CO3CA)/iJG /2-1f Windows and Glass `f Z x 3 (0 wi,ocat.,l Roofing /VON Pavement Pc)/0 : Vegetative Cover /U O/J E 8. Total area directly modified by proposed action. -7 5ci acres. 9. Total area covered by impervious surfaces. Roofs b 07y sq.ft. Parking acres. Roads acres. 10. Gross building sizes: Present Total 7 .0 sq.ft. No. of Bldgs. • / . No. of Floors/Bldg. `2-- • Proposed Total —0 sq.ft. No. of Bldgs. / . No. of Floors/Bldg. Z Future Total ?cry sq.ft. No. of Bldgs. / . No. of Floors/Bldg 11 . Number of proposed Dwelling Units 0 . Number of proposed Commercial Units Sizes of Units . Sizes of Units 12. Parking: (6.) Existing J'1/ spaces. Proposed /Z spaces. Traffic generated/day ./vat (Note: Indirect Contamination Source Permit may be required if 1 ,000 spaces provided. 13. Show proposed Signs on Site Plan. - -.5 .�. a Size 12- --7-- sq.ft. Height above ground: Top ft. ; Bottom 1_ ft. Wording C1//-,51/cyi f%/font) p f/In)^.i -- q : oo u) t ').o oap4 14. Show proposed Lights and other Poles on Site Plan. . I -=7.6) Height above ground ft. Total Lumens • 15. Name potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives to be used or disposed of during or after proposed action. - /U • 'Purpose of materials L1O LF a1-7/,vg GA/QPCc• (Note: Permits are required from DEC and Tompkins County Health Department.) 16. If the resulting activities are either commercial or industrial use, write the materials to be transferred to/from the site, their frequency, and the mode of transportation. /v Imported materials . Frequency Mode Exported materials . Frequency . Mode 17. Describe project history, including controversy perceived by the developer, litigation, - court decisions, etc. C n11. /CCCc,(i / 9 2 3"-`( 1A.•, 04;_ 6;,C i rm_a , ?/.G—,G,tt 2 3 Y.� 2°-"-7 �,n - -G- %z�e-.�.- COMMUNITY FACTORS AND IMPACTS jP'" 18. Designated Zoning of the Site of the proposed action ( NU,2c/f f PL,9CEnt- alog SVP g15 19. Zoning changes or variances being requested 20. Check if the Site of the proposed action is within or next to the following Districts or Areas: - 'Agricultural District Historic Preservation District p) /; Floodplain (HUD designated) Unique Natural Area Freshwater Wetland 21. Check which land uses describe the neighborhood character. - * U Single-unit Residential Recreation " Z IPS Multi-unit Residential V---"-Agriculture - Commercial Forestry Woodland - - Industrial Wildlife/Conservation = Institutional Inactive - - Transportation ,Other - 22. Check which public services are being requested or provided. Sanitary Sewage 1 i7' as_ Water 1/ lectricity Storm Drainage - elephone (Note: Permits may be required from municipality for hook-up.) • 23. Check which transportation facilities will serve the site of the proposed action. State Highway Sidewalks V 16n-street Parking 4 County Highway /One-way Traffic ✓, 0/ff-street Parking i Town Highway L.,/ Two-way Traffic j/ Bus systems City/Village Street Traffic Lights V 24. Number of existing buildings affected by the proposed action: V / Show on the Site Plan. • - 25. Name affected buildings or districts known to be historically or archeologically important or which are listed on the Register of Historic Buildings: Show on the Site Plan. -3- . ' NATURAL FACTORS AND IMPACTS ` 26. Depth to bedrock at Site of proposed action. (Check more than one if necessary.) Up to four feet depth • Four feet to ten feet NAGreater than ten feet 27. If bedrock depth is less than ten feet, check type of bedrock existing at Site of proposed action. Shale A Thinly bedded shale and siltstone , Siltstone or sandstone Limestone 28. Check Opes of topographic features which describe or are found on the Site. Level or gently rolling plains � Hilltop Hummocks with small ponds IIIIIHillside Glens and gorges Valley bottom 29. Name the soils as identified in the Soil Survey of Tompkins County which are found on the part of the Site pro osed to be modified. Initials may be used. r� •°.'.''� P M A... -t C r1-E..-. c:a,_1- t ,.",i_..i-,-,fia 2- ,r14•, 30. Briefly de tribe the nature and extent of proposed modification of existing slopes or soils or drainage: A/t),.cl - , NA YES NO 31 . i i ,-j Will any wetlands or adjacent areas be modified by the proposed action? If so .fl designate on the Site Plan the wetlands which will be affected. , • (Note: "Wetlands" permit from administering agency required for alteration.) 32. 1 I i/ Will any streams be modified by the proposed action? If so, designateaon the Site Plan which streams will be modified. (Note: "Dam" or "Disturbance" permit from DEC is required for modifications.) 33e .-1-7( Will any waste materials or effluent be discharged into a stream or ground- waters? If so, designate on the Site Plan the streams which will be affected. (Note: SPDES permit from DEC is required for discharges.) 34. Do any of the following types of vegetation exist on the Site of the proposed action? - Nu Stands of mature trees greater than 30 feet tall . NMI Young tree species less than 30 feet tall . Ink Shrubs. limilm Terrestrial plants up to two feet high. -_ �� = Ferns, grasses, sedges, rushes. rpm Aquatic plants. t Crops. - 11 35. Are any vegetative management techniques currently being-practiced on the Site of the proposed action? —4— YES NO -36.` Will any trees or shrubs be removed by the proposed action? If so, designate on the Site Plan the area that is to be affected. - 37. Are there any plans for revegetation? If so, briefly explain. 1==i. 38. To your knowledge, are there any rare, endangered, or unusual vegetative species which are located on or near the Site of the proposed action? If so, how are they distributed? 39. t I l Will activity cause a change in- or affect visual character of natural or f cultural landscape features? . - 40. To your knowledge, are there any significant wildlife habitats, migration routes, or breeding areas located on or near the Site that might be affected by the proposed action? 41. To your knowledge, are there any rare, endangered, endemic, or unusual wild- life species which are located on the Site of the proposed action? If so, how are they distributed? 42. To your knowledge, are there any known unique natural features on or near the Site of the proposed action? If so, briefly explain. 43. Will any of the following emissions be produced by the proposed action or its . resulting activities? If so, describe the cause. Ashes Dust V Fumes l VI Odors - - ,/ Smoke W OO/O STOVE _ // Other emissions (Note: Air Quality Permits from DEC or Tompkins County Health Department may be required.)[:=2:11Z1 _.- 44. Will there be changes to existing noise or vibration •levels due to the pro- posed action or its resulting activities? If so, describe the cause. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS AND IMPACTS 45• Number of employees during construction: O • Maximum number of employees present at the Site at one time: - , 46. - Number of employees during activities after completion: - 47. If resulting activities are for either Industrial or Commercial use, state the employment shifts and number of employees in each shift. Shift Employees Shift Employees Shift Employees Shift Employees 48. If the resulting activities are for residential use, state the number of planned resident Permanent - - - Seasonal - 49. Briefly describe the nature and amount of indirect growth anticipated as a result 4f the proposed action or resulting activities. Mrrvi jn /11 Q�Oc Ps a fZ£s(1(,?' 50. Existing community or business or facilities or residential structures requiring relocation. 0 51. If the focus of resulting activities is for residential use, check if residence is intended for: Low Income Segment High Income Segment - Families Medium Income Segment Students Elderly - 52. Will proposed activity substantially change the following socio-economic population • distribution? NO Income Ethnic Background - Race 'Age COMMENTS 53. In your judgment, will the proposed action result in a significant environmental impact during construction and/or during use after completion? d O GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES - 54. Check the levels of government and name the agencies having jurisdiction over the pro- posed action. Indicate the required permits by stating "YES" or "NO" if permit has been approved. - (The following pages will advise on the types of actions which require parti- cular permits.) ` FEDERAL PERMITS -National . Pollution Discharge Elimination System: EPA, Region II, New York City. Activities in navigable waters: Corps of Engineers, Buffalo. Other - -6- STATE PERMITS Certificate of Compatibility and Public Need: PSC, DEC Albany (Public Utilities) . Dam/Impoundment Construction or Repair: DEC, Environmental Quality Unit, Cortland. Disturbance of Stream Bed/Fill of Navigable Waters: DEC-EQ Unit, Cortland. Incinerator Construction or Operation: DEC-EQ Unit, Syracuse. Indirect Air Contamination Source: DEC-EQ Unit, Syracuse. Mining: DEC-Mineral Resources Bureau, Albany. - Pesticide Purchase, Use, (7 Permits) : DEC, Pesticides , Bureau, Albany. Process, Exhaust, Ventilation System Construction or Operation: DEC-EQ, Syracuse. Public Water Supply: DEC, Environmental Analysis, Albany (Tompkins County Health Department review) . - SPDES: DEC, Environmental Quality Unit, Syracuse (Tompkins County Health Departmen review) . - - Stationary Combustion Installation: DEC-EQ Unit, Syracuse. Wetlands/Adjacent Areas Alterations: DEC-EQ Unit, Cortland. Other - - COUNTY OF TOMPKINS - Driveways, Culverts: Highway Department. - = Hazardous Wastes: Health Department. - Institutional Use: Health Department. Mass Gatherings: Health Department. . Offensive Materials (Scavenger Wastes) : Health Department. • - Public Utility Line Extension: Health Department. Restaurant Use: Health Department. Restricted Burning: Health Department (DEC-EQ Unit review) . Sanitary Facilities for Realty Subdivisions: Health Department, (DEC-EQ Unit review Septic Tank Cleaner/Industrial Waste Collection: Health Department (DEC-EQ review) Sewage Disposal System: Health Department. Solid Waste Management Facility: Health Department (DEC-EQ Unit review) . SPDES (Pollution Discharge) : Health Department (DEC-EQ Unit review). Swimming Use: Health Department. - - Temporary Residence (Boarding House, Camp, Day Care, Hotel , Motel, Mobile Home Park Health Department. Water Supply (Public) : Health Department, Wetlands/Alterations: Wetlands Commission/County Clerk. Other ' TOWN OF ITHACA _Blasting P blic Utility Connection Building Permit lipm Signs - - Street Opening _ Subdivision Extraction of Natural, Materials _ Streets and Drainage Land Use Variance Wetlands Alteration Mobile Home Park _ Zoning Variance Multiple Residence - Other Planned Unit Development - 55. Sources of Public Funds (if any) for proposed action. /LOAJE7 _ 56. If Federal review under NEPA is required, name Agency: /112(.4fry- 9-A,049 Signa re of Applicant ��. • REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATIONS: Type of Action: The action which in.;_t ated this review is ministerial granting of a building permit . Such an action is exempt from environ- mental review. However , the ZBA' s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as requested by the Building Inspector is an Unlisted action with Townwide potential environmental impacts . There are mitigation measures available in this case; specifically, the resubdivision of the property to put the garage on a separate , legal building lot upon which the construction of a church or place of worship is a permitted action. Given the mitigation measures available in this case, I recommend the declaration of negative environmental significance. For further information, see Part III , mitigation measures . • Sig ature of Revie r Town Planner Title Town of Ithaca Agency December 13, 1984 Date Reviewed • DETERMINATION BY TOWN OF ITHACA BOARD: • Negative Declaration -- Determination of -Non-Significance. Positive Declaration -- Action may be of Significant Environmental Impact. D/EIS Required. - Signature of Chairperson - Date • -8- _ l•/4 _ _ . 1 24 19 �L� , 4 � '•.,,t-A—/'t—r7•— -..G l >e'...••--: i-, 1-, ,:-f t,..4( , ,,, •1_,t, r r-.": -s i • , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II - - - - - . • - _ Project Impacts and Their Magnitude j ' , , General Information (Read .Careful ly)- - . ` , '_ -- •- t _ - - In completing the form'the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions'and determinations ' been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. - Identifying that an effect will be potentially ,large (column 2) does not,mean that it is also necessarily . significant. Any large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance—',By identifying an - ' effect in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further: . . - - The Examples provided are to assist,the reviewer by'showing types of effects and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. -The examples are generally applicable throughout the • -- ' - - - State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds ' . ' 'may be-more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating: - _„ - Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as-guidance. They,do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. : - . ' - The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. - - ' INSTRUCTIONS` (Read Carefully) - ` . ' - a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will_be Any effect, - - - - b. - Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. - ` - - - ` ' c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column for 2) to indicate the potential , size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. - If - - ' impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1_ . • - , d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and - • proceed to PART 3. • - , - • - - - - e. If a potentially large impact or'effect can'be reduced by a change in the project -to a less than,large magnitude, place a Yes in column 3. A No response indicates that such a, reduction is not possible: , = '�. 2.. 3. '. ' - _ ', - SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE • , - , - - - - . - . - MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY = ' - " - ' ' IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE ' IMPACT ON LAND :- . ' , .' NO ' YES 1, WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A,PHYSICAL CHANGE TO >X 0 ' PROJECT SITE? , Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 . - Any construction on slopes of"15% or greater, (15 foot rise per -, , ' '— 100 foot of=length), or where the general slopes in the project— , , ' - area,exceed 10%. - _ - - - Construction on Land where the depth to the water table is l ess -` - than 3 feet. - - ` - F' ronstruction-of naved narking area for 1,-11 or more-vehicles., -, - - - - -, , • , . _ 'Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally - _ • - ... within 3 feet-of existing ground surface. -- . - Construction that-will continue for more than 1 %veer or ,involve ' - - more than one phase or stage. -Excavation for-mining-purposes that would remove more-than,L,000 = tons of natural material (i.e. rock or.soil) per year. - _ . x - . - - Construction of any new, sanitary landfill.- ,- . - • - I. 2.. 3. SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN I:1PACT BE = - • DERATE LARGE REDUCED BY . -_ _ IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE ' - , Construction in a designated floodway. ' Other impacts: �� 2. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LA FORMS D YES FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. cliffs, dunes. geological forma- �� - tions, etc.) - - . - ' - : - ' Specific land forms: - - . • ' - IMPACT ON WATER - - . NO YES - - . , 3. WILL PROJECT-AFFECT ANY WATER BODY DESIGNATED AS - - . PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envir- 0 �' onmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.) - • - • Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 1 - Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from -- , channel of a protected stream. - - Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. - _ Other impacts: - - 49 WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NON-PROTECTED EXISTING OR NFH NO YES - . -- BODY OF WATER? ' 400 . a '` Examples, that Would Apply to Column 2 ' _ A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body - of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. - ,- `Construction of a body of water that exceeds in acres of - - surface area. _ • — Other impacts: _^��__!_�_ - NO YES , " - - - . 5. NILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER DUALITY? Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 - , , Project will require a discharge permit. Project requires use of a source of water that does not have r , ___ approval to serve. proposed project. V - = • _ Project requires water supply from wells with greater - than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. - - . . ' - — Construction or operation causing any contamination ' - - V of a public water supply system. _ Project will adversely affect groundwater. ' . -.Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to - facilities which presently do not exist or have - ' - - - . inadequate capacity. _ - _ Project requiring-a facility that would use-water in ' excess of 2(r,000 gallons per day. , , - _ - - __ _ Project will likely cause siltation Or other. discharge. - - ' into an existing body of water to the extent that there • will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. - - - - , • V ' _A_ . ,, - . -„ . • . , . . _ . ' . . , • . • • . , _ , „ , , . . . L t • ' . , . . , . _ . . 1. 2. -- . . • , mALt TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE . , tIDERATE LARGE REDUCED BY 2 ' - IMPACT I"PACT PROJECT CHANGE -. Other Impacts: — ----- — ., - ---- .- - 6. WILL PROJECT ALTER DRAINAGE FLO'', PATTERNS OR SURFACE MATER NO YES - . , . • , • RUNOFF? ...., • . • (2)(:) ,- -- . . ., .,.., . , . .. . Examole that '!ould Anply to Column 2 ' . . . • . , • Project would imeede flood water flows. •. „, _ ----- ----- ----, . .. Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. . , -' ----- --„...- Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ----- .....--- — - . — .Other impacts: • -... - -- . .- , . • ----- ----- . -, , . , - • IMPACT ON AIR . - . NO, YES _ •, . . . , . 7. 1-IILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY' . _ , . , . . . ' •,, . . - Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 , . _ Project will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given, . --m-- .----- ----m , hour. . - - _ . . .Project will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton __ ----- ----- _ _...., , • of refuse per hour. . - • . _ Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 ----- ....--_ , lbs. Per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 . million BTU's per hour. . . . , . . ., , . . , . V . . , , Other impacts: — 5._•—_,. , . ----- ----- . ----_ . _, . -..-.- . . I I IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMAL1 . . - . .,. NO - YES „ 8. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES? ' _ - -„ • "- .,, , Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 , - • . . . . . . _ . ,Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York ----- ----- , or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or , . , V . . found on the site. , , . _ ..• ' . - .. . _ . . Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wild- . . .- - , life habi tat. 5., . . . . „, , • ,,,. . Apnlication of Pesticide or herbicide over more than . ., ---- . --. twice a year other thin forzir:cuitural purposes. . . , . . . - , . , °Vier impacts: . . • . ___-_ . • " , . , , . . . - 9. WILL PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT NON-THREATENED OR NO YES - , , . ENDANGERED SPECIES? - 0 0 ‘ . ,' ,_ : -_- . , - Example that Would Apply to Column 2 . . . • .. '. . _ Project would substantially interfere with any resident -. - .-. _.--_ ._ 4- , , or migratory fish or wildlife species. ., _ , - . - . . . . . . , _ „ Project requires the removal of-more than 10 acres of 1 - __-__ -_____ ... ,. mature forest (over 100 years in ape) or-other locally .:-- • - _ .- - _ , • , important vegetation. V V • - _ -_, V V .. . - - , , . ' , . , . .. . . . . - . . ' . . .. . . , -'-", ." „- -- , "-, - • . „-, - -. - , . , , . -7- . ,, ,, , , ,.,,L. ,I. . 2.. B. .. . ' - • • •SMALL TO °OTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE •- - MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY • IMPACT I'+PACT PROJECT CHANGE I"RACT ON VISU'►L RESOURCE ' 10. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT VIEWS, "ISTAS OR THE VISUAL NO YES - ' • ' CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMA N!Tv, ® flit - _ .� Examnles that Would Apply to Column 2 `� ; An incompatible visual affect caused by the introduction `I of new materials, colors and/or forms in contrast to the ' - _ surrounding landscape. - _. __ A oroject easily visible, not easily screened,that is - obviously different from ethers around it. - ` ' -' . Project will result in the elimination or major - ' screening of scenic views or vistas known to be important to the area. _ ' - _ Other impacts: - IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES - 11. WILL PROJECT IMPACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, NO YES - - • - - - - PRE-HISTORIC OR PALEONTOGICAL IfPOPTANCE? . . ® - { • Examples that Would Aooly to Colurm 2 _ Project occurino wholly or partially within or continuous to any facility or site listed on the National Resister of _ historic places. __ Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATION - - - . 12. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE OUANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING NO YES ' - - OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES' y�;1 + Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 1 ► , - The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ' A major reduction of an open space important to the community. , Other impacts: • " IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION ' . 13. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NO YES SYSTEMS? ' C)0 Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of•people - . - and/or goods. - - -- . _ Project will result- in severe traffic problems. _ , _ Other impacts: ------_—_----._ , . _ _ -J .. .4 , - ' - SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT CE _ • MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY - - IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE " ' a/ ' IMPACT ON ENERGY •ati 14. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR NO YES ' ENERGY SUPPLY? - ,.�, 1 • Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 _ Project causing greater than 5% increase in any form of - - . energy used in municipality. . - • Project requiring the creation or extension of an energy _ * transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single • ' or two family residences. , Other im• pacts: . ' _ • ' - - IMPACT ON NOISE v 15. WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBRATION NO YES - - _ - or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? ..,.. -® . • Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other -- _ ' - • sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). , Project will produce operating noise exceeding the - ' - local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. - Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a - . - - noise screen. Other impacts: - _ ' IMPACT ON HEALTH & HAZARO1 _ , • NO YES , - - , _ _ 16. WILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? ... 01*40 -' ' , _. ; Examples, that Would,Apply to Column 2 , Project will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous , substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) . _ . . in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will - - - - • be a chronic low level discharge or emission. a 'Project that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" • - (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, • infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi-solid, " ' ; - , - 1 liquid or contain gases.) V ' • Storaae facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified - • . natural gas or other liquids. ti . - • ___ Other impacts: __ . - - - - • VDSHALL TO ` POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE W ERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHAPACTER nF THE EXISTING NO YES , COMMUNITY? Example that Would Apoly to Column 2 ®0 - J ►) _ The population of the City, Town or Village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% of ,,y i; resident human population. .. ' The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or opera- ting services will increase by more than 5% per year as a , , result of this project. . Will involve any permanent facility of a non-agricultural • use in an agricultural district or remove prime agricultural lands from cultivation. - ` - • - The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities, , — structures-or areas of historic importance to the community. • d Development will induce an influx of a particular age , — group with special needs. - - � r� Project will set an important precedent for future projects. _^ ; ,"'=" Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more - businesses. - Other impacts: r . NO YES 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT? 0 0 1 - ' Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Either government or citizens of adjacent communities - have expressed opposition or rejected the project or have not been contacted. Objections to the project from within the community. - • IF ANY ACTION IN PART 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A - - POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETERMINE - THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. PORTIONS OF EAF COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT: , DETERMINATION PART I - = PART II_____ PART 3 , � Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, 2 . and 3) and considering both the magnitude and importance of each - impact, it is reasonably determined that: PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION - A. The project will result in no major impacts and, therefore, �,�-c: ' is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment. �"� - - I. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION . because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been included as part of the proposed project. 0 - C. The project will result in one or more major adverse impacts -PREPARE POSITIVE DECLARATION PROCEED WITH EIS ' that cannot be reduced and may cause significant damage to /� the environment. / a .y i`J) _ - Date q' ( ,- d 4• - ,7----) 1./ / Signature of Responsible Official in Lead - -- -f° ; - 'Zs. Agency -: , - . . „--Signature of Prenarer (I_f,. ?ffprent from responsible officer) . --` - Y Print or-type oar'e of. responsible official in Lead Agency • 10 • - • .7' 'C - EAF „ - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART III EVALUATION1 OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS _ " . INFORMATION - 1 - Part 3 is prepared if one or more impact or effect is considered to be potentially laroe. - 5_ - - The amount of writing necessary to answer Part '3 may be determined by answering the question:' In briefly ' ' T • completing the instructions below have I placed in this record sufficient information to indicate the , , • b ' reasonableness of my decisions? INSTRUCTIONS - - = , - . ` Complete the following for each impact or effect identified in Column 2 of Part 2: : - - ` - - - 1. Briefly.describe the impact. - 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than laroe impact by a pro- ' ject change. - " ' 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important ' to the minicipality (city, town or village) in 'which the project is located. - - To answer the question of importance, consider: y ' - The probability of the impact or effect occurring -'- - The duration of the impact or effect - _ " - , ' ' _ - Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources or values `,. ' - Whether the impactor effect can be controlled - _ , ' , -% - - The regional consequence of the impact or effect - - Its potential divergence from local ,needs and goals . - , - - _ - • . , - Whether known objections to the project apply to this impact or effect. - ' i -, i DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE . -- , - .An action is considered to be significant if: . - One (Or more) -impact is determined to both laroe,and its (their) consequence, based on the review above; is important. _ PART III STATEMENTS (Continue on Attachments, as needed) - - - ' - F . A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PART III Applicant: Ithaca Christian Fellowship 203 Pine Tree Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Project: Building Renovation #17 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Description of Impacts : - - The outcome of this project' s review could set an important precedent for future projects in the Town. In this case, there is an existing one-family house on - the property which is used as a residence. The applicants have requested a building permit to remodel an existing garage also on the property for use as a place of worship. A church or other place of worship, convent, or parish house is a permitted use in an R-15 zone and does not require approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Planning Board. A zoning issue before the Board of Appeals which could set an important Townwide precedent is whether or not, a land owner may engage in two distinct permitted uses, in two separate structures, on the same parcel of land. - - Section 68 of the Town Zoning Ordinance discusses situations where there are more than one principal buildings on a lot. It determines that for cases in which, "there are more than one principal building on a lot in any district the space, between such buildings must be at least equal to the sum of the side yards or the sum of the front and rear yards, as the - case may be. " A second issue with significant environmental impact is the interpretation of Section 68 . If the present appeal is resolved in the affirmative with respect to these two issues, a further interpretation would then likely be requested by the Planning Department to - determine how this• decision compromises the present requirements , of the Subdivision Regulations. Mitigation Measures: The environmental impacts described above can be mitigated simply and completely by resubdividing the parcel in question, and the adjacent open land owned by the applicants, so that the garage is on its own lot. At this point, there would be no question that the use of the structure as a • church is permitted under Section 11 . All that would be required for mitigation is - that the applicants withdraw their appeal from the Zoning Board of Appeals and apply for a minor subdivision under the Town of Ithaca subdivision regulations . Conclusion: There are two segments to this environmental review. The first part concerns the administrative questions of whether or not a building permit should be granted in this case, given that there appear to be two distinct, though severally - permitted uses, on the lot in question. The second part concerns the merits of the proposal itself. Given that the use of property for churches and other places of worship is permitted in the zone, and the granting of building permits is an exempt, administrative action under SEQRA, an environmental review of the renovation - proposal itself is inappropriate. Should the present application be withdrawn - and - an application for a resubdivision be made instead, a separate environmental assessment , form, with the Planning Board as lead agency, will be prepared and reviewed. Given that this project ' s environmental impact. could - be completely mitigated by changing the project slightly, I do not believe that the present impacts are important in the sense described by the SEQR regulations. I therefore recom- mend that a determination of negative significance be made if this matter remains before the Zoning Board of Appeals as lead agency. _ 'IlAtWN r=IF IT to CA 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 1433® January 28 , 1985 Mr. Montgomery May - Chairman , Town of Ithaca - Planning Board Town Hall 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 148 50 Re : Application of Ithaca Christian Fellowship to convert a portion of garage into a place of religious worship - 203 Pine Tree Road Dear Monty : - As you know, at the meeting of the Board of Appeals on January 23, the application for special approval by the Ithaca ' Christian Fellowship was referred to the Planning Board. The Board of Appeals will make its decision as to the granting of special approval probably at its meeting on February 27. The function of the Board of Appeals is to determine under what conditions it would grant any special approval. For this purpose we are enclosing a statement of some of the conditions which members of the Board have already considered. The Board would like to have your comments and recommendations . • Mr. Raymond Delli-Carpini, who is the pastor of the religious group, has been requested to meet with Peter Lovi to discuss the site plan review. At our meeting with you and Peter we suggested that the present survey map be reviewed by - Peter Lovi and that the applicant submit such additional infor- mation, specifications and: diagrams---as Mr. Lovi may require on separate sheets to be attached to the survey map. Title to all of the lands shown on the survey map was conveyed by Robert & Sarah Lillie to Raymond Delli-Carpini , Jeffrey E. Fairchild and James Saroka as tenants in common on June 29 , 19 84 . Mr. Lillie had acquired these lands by two separate Deeds. However, in the conveyance to the present owners they were transferred as one parcel . .Each of the owners - is a member of the religious group. Mr. Delli-Carpini is the pastor. In answer to our inquiry we were informed that title had been taken in the name of these three persons rather than in the name of the church organization in order to qualify for lower interest rate and, I assume , in order to provide flexi- . bility for transfer of title and for mortgaging the property. Apparently the Ithaca Christian Fellowship has been incorporated as a religious corporation pursuant to the religious corporations -2- law of the State of New York. If you require any further information from me, please let me know. Lewis Cartee can supply any details you may need and Jim Buyoucos will be glad to discuss with you his negotiations with the attorney for the religious group and any other legal matters . When you have reviewed the site plan please return a copy to me with your comments , if any. If a question of any signifi- cance arises in connection with the site plan, please let me know. Incidentally, as to access , a question was raised as to the location and impact of access drive on traffic and possibility of using north loop only for exit, or future relocation of driveway on vacant lot. Also we considered requirement of warning signs referring to "churc entrance," etc. ,f "Very t " ly ours , Ai4/ H nr Y Aron, Chairman - Zoning Board of Appeals HA/bw - 126 EAST SENECA STREET - - ITHACA, NEW YORK 14S.S® TENTATIVE CONDITIONS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AS PART OF GRANTING A SPECIAL APPROVAL TO ITHACA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP "PLACE OF WORSHIP" AT 203 PINE TREE ROAD.- 1. USE OF THE PREMISES . A. The two west bays of the garage shown on the map will be remodeled to provide a place of worship for the communicants of the Fellowship. Services will be held two nights a week beginning at 7 p.m. and continuing until 9 p.m. , now scheduled for Monday and Wednesday of each week and also on Sunday from 11 a-m. All services will be held inside the structure . No change to the exterior of the structure . Structure must comply with Fire Safety . Code and any other applicable codes governing the use of the building. According to such codes occupancy would be restricted to 36 people. No amplifying sound system within the building. No ' organ. A piano will be used. Also trio or quartet of guitar, flute , violin and similar instruments. 2. ACCESS . A. Ingress and egress to and from the premises and Pine Tree Road will be over the "loop" driveway shown on the map. No parking will be permitted on the driveway except that at such times as no church activities are being held or conducted in anv degree, - parking may be permitted on a temporary basis for the owners and occupants of the residential dwelling on the premises. This would- be. no different than what is permitted to any other residential owner in the vicinity in this residential district. 3. PARKING. A. Parking will be limited to and permitted only on the area , north" of the driveway. A portion of the area north of the driveway and the "vacant lot" so called will be used for that purpose. Land will be prepared so that it will be suitable for parking either - by use of gravel or any other "macadam type" material as the Fellowship may choose . A reasonable time will be allowed to the Fellowship to prepare the land for such purpose . No narking, in any event, will be permitted on "Pine Tree Road or Snyder Hill Road or any other public highway which may be established or constructed in the vicinity . 4. OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES. A. These will be permitted on a limited and infrequent basis. B. No church services will be held outside of the structure. Picnics will be permitted provided that they are held on the "vacant lot" . These activities will not be permitted prior to 11 : 30 a. m. and will not continue beyond sunset of any day . . -2- C. No cooking over a fire will be permitted except, over metal receptacles commonly known as charcoal grills . No fires will be unattended. On termination of outdoor picnics, fires will be doused and disposed of in metal containers or in other ' ways to prevent spread of fire. D. Garbage will be disposed of in plastic bags and deposited in plastic or metal containers. All of these activities , - including outdoor activities will be held on the vacant lot north of the garage structure. Consideration will be given to placing garbage cans in a wooden box. E. All outdoor activities , and 'indoor activities , for that matter, will be conducted in such a manner that they will not constitute a trespass or a nuisance and will not interfere _ unreasonably with the use , occupancy and enjoyment of other properties by the occupants of other- properties in the neighbor- hood. 5. OUTDOOR ELECTRIC LIGHTS. - A. No additional electric lights or other illumination will be permitted except with the approval of the Board of Appeals upon filing application to the Building Inspector. 6. SIGNS. A. All signs must comply with the requirements of the Town Sign Regulations . No more than one sign will be permitted. - 7. Grounds will be policed and kept free from accumulations of debris , unsightly matters and the like. If it -is required that garbage cans be stored in a wooden box, the religious group itself would undoubtedly wish to have the box looking attractive. CASEY & KING ATTORNEYS AT LAW 306 N. TIOGA STREET • P. 0. BOX 7B7 ITHACA, N. Y. 14850 - EDWARD J. CASEY (IB99-1957) TELEPHONE AR 3-5577 EDWARD W. KING AREA CODE 607 • February 25, 1985 HAND DELIVER , James V. Buyoucos, Esq. - 315 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, _New York 14850 - Re: Zoning: Church Parcel 57-1-1 and New Ordinance Jim: I write you here as an individual member of the ZBA: I do not presume to speak for the Board, but by copy of this letter to the Chairman, I am informing him of inquiring and the ideas I am entertaining on these subjects. Are the church home parcel and the lot adjacent north consolidated as a unified parcel in their deed? And are they in one tax parcel? And how do we tie our USE CCCNDITIONS etc. to the land title. concerned in each of the possible situations here? [1) Separate parcels in deed and . separate tax parcels; 2) Unified in deed but not as 1 tax parcel; 3) Sep in Deed but unified as 1 tax parcel.] In the Lawrence and Trinna E. Iacovelli cases re 5 lots on Kendall Avenue on which they had built one 4-Apt. house [and another case involving them re a new building on the North side of Kendall] we required they grant to the Town a RESTRICTIVE ODVENANT -- in effect 'consolidating' the lots by such covenant so as to prevent any further building on any lot concerned, and to prevent the separate use of any lot involved without prior ZBA approval upon reconsideration of the Variance given. (See enclosed copy of my 6/12/81 letter to their attorney, Ed Mazza: the two documents were received and recorded on 7/14/81. Sorry, but I don't find a copy in my file.) RE NEW ORDINANCE: To correct what I regard as a serious deficiency in the new Local Law re • siting of churches and public buildings — [viz. ignoring the quasi-judicial, last-resort position of the ZBA (prior to Court access) , and the fact that appeals from Planning Board action lie to the ZBA] the'ZBA.might possibly, by Relosution, recommend to the Town Board a change in that Ordinance to make it require that such cases 'first go to the Planning Board for its consideration and its then passing the case on to the -ZBA with a "recommended" (mat 'approved') specific site plan -- thus giving the ZBA. the task of turning that -into a final, "Approved" [and recorded ??] -site plan. m ' And/or in the meantime, the ZBA might also/instead be persuaded to adopt an appropriate interpretation resolution of that Local Law, and/or a RULE requiring that all relevant applications be immediately referred by the Enforcement Officer to the Planning Board for such prior evaluation and recommendation, without his even having to first present the matter to (or even advise the ZBA of) the application. A continuing Resolution might accomplish that without Ordinance Interpretation - whether or ,not we call that a Rule. [Note the Separation of Powers case of Carmco, Inc. v Amelkin 476 NY2d 775, on last page [p8] of NY Planning Federation [NYPF] "Planning News" letter Jan-Feb 1985 = Vol. 49 No. 1, copy of that page herewith.] Your consideration and advice on these matters would be most appreciated. • W. King EWK:sef xc Henry Aron, Chairman enc 1 .11 TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Frank R. Liguori PE Commissioner of Planning imm%rt) Ith.T.84-27 December 12, 1984 ; �_ al757----m—rt71 � To: Lewis D. Cartee, Building Inspector DEC ,I 4 1984 Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street TOWN OF ITHACA New York 14850 A Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York ' State General Municipal Law. Case: Use variance appeal of R. Delli-Carpini, J, Fairchild, and J. Saroka at 203 Pine Tree Road (county highway) This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239-m. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity,rcounty, or state interest. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice. Respec fully submitted, Frank R. Liguor , Commissioner Tompkins County Planning Department 128 East-Buffalo Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 Telephone(607)274=5286/274-5287 _ '= - • • , . ' ,. • • - . - I.le,ck 587 fL 765 `V, l% - N/F CORN ELL.L. UN/V R 5/7Y • • • a —z. . '', - Zis k.fV- _ ' -. GO-i-9 r 'vb...�c....r,. w/rt� �d \ 1Mc i IN h Co - ?ART of .(ANDS of • CJ/2^ 7I 81 •, '.1 Ect i- c✓�1!�p/Av% /=/4/l'cn/n.0, r Si'leoli{! - n LT Z h 1 i K/OOD f - O STAA'a: (d E'1'jl i. ; Nh k-X Q ._. �.,� — - e., Ilic°6-P1111 Ai ) aR1VE I yC 0 _ c t n,�Fc i.,Na J , • ) la . - .., , • ,,' • n 1 0 3 . - ),i • 'A : . v -,7 , - ..L_______(_,cy) I c.:,-). . t; c .., bI,-,,. -:- ,i --___ _._____. r. i fi h i j i ,, 21 ! . . . ..________._______ D Rive-- --- jam• -. � it .57-/-/ (S,9-5-ea) ' ll - WOOD I 250' t. I 57111rP. I• . ..--0-0(„ X , D RE/Y1A/N/NG LANDS Or 1- 1 . :'.� h'ANK C,8r 8L YTNE C. BAD W L /N,J/e, 1 • T •,'..9 • --,- . . f/owES� - j LANE } . I - . SURVEY op LAA/DS - . o, ROBERr J. &SAR,9 N R. 1/LL/E Sr OF • . ..4 ANDS TO Fri E CONVEY•e,D i . ,� ,r c.e,, $c.YrNE c.'BAhn�.,//r�i fin. _,°0` 4'oft' N �frog Z03 P/NE TR E E RGAD Qj;',, op= 7OWNof irf//c.i, Tonr!'nJin/S cc/ _ s . 1' • 1 * - JULY IS;/98/ ' - .o,PwnnRea 03V - il f.. - SCAcA£•r ja, 4'O' NOPV//T'A /P SC// /EPFR • ' QS17?P ems• r �` N•YS P•ei&l. S.Oy3290 . - SCHEDULE A - • • f . BRADSTREET, STAHR 8G CURRAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 22 LIBERTY STREET _ POST OFFICE BOX 728 PETER C. BRADSTREET BATH, NEW YORK 14810-0728 , THOMAS J. STAHR FRANCIS E. CURRAN. 11 607 776-7658 - GROVER C.BRADSTREET 607 776-6952 . COUNSEL December 5, 1984 Raymond Delli-Carpini 203 Pine Tree Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Building Permit Application . • .. . , Dear Ray: This letter is in connection with your application for a per- mit under the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for the conversion of a pre-existing• building on your property at Pine Tree Road for use as a Christian meeting house. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, a "church, or other place of worship" is a permitted use (Article 4, Section 11, Paragraph 3) . Therefore, you are entitled to establish 'a church or other place of worship on your property. : • I understand that your application for a permit has been turned down pursuant to the above quoted section, and Article 14, - Section 75 of the Zoning Ordinance. This is clearly an error of judgment by the zoning officer. Since a church or other place of worship is a permitted use on your property, Section 11 of Article • 4 is not applicable. In order for Section 75 of Article 14 to be - • grounds for a denial of your application, some other provision of . :the zoning ordinance would have to be violated by your proposed use. Since no other provision of the zoning ordinance was mentioned except Article 4, Section 11, Paragraph 3, which merely states that your proposal is permitted in your district, you are entitled to a - . permit. A - The fact that you are converting a pre-existing building to a permitted use, and not building a new structure for a permitted use, is totally irrelevant to the validity of your application. _. - I am sure that the Zoning Board of Appeals will reverse the decision of the zoning officer and recognize that you are entitled to a permit for your proposed use. -At any rate, it is necessary for you to exhaust your administrative remedies before seeking the w Raymond Delli-Carpini Page 2 of 2 December 5, 1984 aid of the court in an Article 78 proceeding. One final thought: it occurs to me as I write this letter that the action of the zoning officer may constitute a violation of the Civil Rights Law of 1964 and subsequent statutes. Perhaps we should pursue this particular possibility in the event that the Board of Appeals does not correct the above error of the zon- ing officer. Please contact me after you receive the decision of the Board of Appeals.• Very truly yours, - BRADSTREET, STAHR AND CURRAN titer C. Brad reet • PCB:tms Enclosure , - xi7Yf Y .r - ••' - = ' zy • • • ' , •,uca, -.3'4e5 sue -- Lr',;ssYf a -,,.ram _per -� - Y-.y.a� ? . • Natter` ::: tiauznoric9 - War. Deed dated Dec. 10, 1941 , , to Ack. Dec. 10, 1941 I. ' - 1! E. J. Argetsinger Rec. Dec. 10, 1941 at 12:00 AM li . Con. $1. 00,• etc. X : ' Parcel I conveys the same premises set forth at Parcel I No. la (232 Deeds, Page 121) . Parcel II conveys other property. "The following covenants are agreed upon by the parties hereto f . as a part of the consideration for this conveyance, it being further' per understood and agreed that the said covenants shall run with the - - land, 1. The said premises shall be used for residential purpose only, and not more than one dwelling house shall be erected or • - maintained on the premises- and not more than a two car garage shall -- be erected or maintained on the premises. - 2. No house shall be built on the premises which costs less than $4500.00. - - - 3. No part of the premises shall be used or occupied for . manufacturing or commercial purposes for a period of twenty five _ years or for the manufacture or sale of intoxicating _liquor. - 4. ' No part of the premises shall be conveyed or leased to r or occupied by any person other than- a white American Citizen. 5. There shall- be no outside toilet facilities and sewage shall be disposed of through septic tanks or cess pools or other modern conveniences. .In addition to the above -covenants- the party of the second part agrees that he will not construct any building on the premis s hereby conveyed-within 150 ' of the east line of the premises last above described.- - ' The party of the second part shall be permitted to raise chickens' on the premises and to erect any necessary buildings for that purpose. " - «. , "CERTIFICATE OF, INCORPORATION • of ITH CA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP We, the undersigned, all being persons 'of full age,�•'at ' least two-thirds of whom are citizens -or' the' United States,,;and . ` • at least one a resident of the State of t:ew York; for. the'purpose of incorporating an unincorporated church' pursuant to Article <' - EIGHT of the Religious Corporation Law of the State of New York, hereby certify as follows:' 1. A meeting of the unincorporated church known as the Ithaca Christian Fellowship was duly called ,and-held in conformity with the aforesaid Article EIGHT of- the Religious Corporation - Law of the State of ITew York on the 7th day of ':a v 1983, at which meeting a majority of the 'duly :tualifiea voters of said church, being nine in number were present in per-on.' ' 2'. At said.meeting,eeting, Rev. Raymond Pe1•ii-•Caf'ninif:rope • _ of the subscribers hereto, was the presiding o`ricer , and- • Judy E_ant and Deal!. Gr_ndahl were elected as inspectors of el•.'re'. election, they being the other subscribers hereto. '- . _ 3.e Said meeting decided that the said church- should ;:` ' •-become incorporat .': ::. ^4. The name of the proro•sed_-corporatior. 'is• to b� ITHACA- Ci IS'^IAN FELLOWSHIP ' rT: 5 . The number, of Trustees .thereon shall be 6. The r:aries• of the persons elected as Trustees and•_:the • term of office, for which they were respectively elected are' as • folloc;s. 'JEFFREY: FAIRCHILD to hold :Office until they Ers annuam it • ; ee tine i :f^r.:t?�e e- ction,zo:E_•_truustees' _hereaf-ter: - _ j _ I`. .3O NN `GEORGE�to held:.tof, ioe; ntil;;Ehv ce�:ari� annu ]. rieeting =for • the -election -of trustees hereafter. - . . i1AYMOND DELLI=C?iPP:.�,NI to hold office until the third annual - meeting for the election of Trustees hereafter, or _until the , ' - respective successors to such Trustees shall be elected. . ' - , 7. The first annual election ,of Trustees sna11 -be. ,' • held on the 1 t}. day of .ice andelections ;: , til � :, � g� �9 -19 g� � µ annual dt for _`�'•r Tri»stee :+ thereafter shall be held on- the 'second Saturday~-of e: the month of '_"_ay each and .every: year thereafter. - - 8 . At said r:teeti._a it ytes decided -by ,tbe c:ualified/ -w _ -,voters present that ,as to- all future meetings', only those' 'persson= admitted into full membership and ingeed- and regular `a-'Ga;1L:7 it;j; shall have the privi l el;e of voting 1 New York« . . - - .• W1TNF.SS WHE,REOF, we have ,e>:�cute_d-"and i acknojtvledl'ed this Ct_rt.ificat , of In'-:orajc.,: t_L;?: this 22nd 'Y of - day,- June 1 983. ' - - . ` - . .RAYMOND DEL, -CARPINI . - - ' _ JUDY BRANT ` , . - - _ DEAN GRINDOHL - 4 , ,' • - - STATE ATE 017 'Tt'.�� _Y�c tc j, j s S. COUNTY OF TO:`_PM: ;S 0 , On the 92nd__dav of dune, 1983; ,betore 'me .came j - . ' - `.•c RAYMOND JELLI-CARS INT , DEAN GRI_NDAHL --.. ! - n- - • ' sr ,.1 � t0 n� known to know'- to 'ic to �' -' e :cnS described _- ): _ �: P D r.; C� SCZ'1fJC� � .'s.Tlt ' c"cY?Cl YIhO��+ executed the foregoii_cj instrument anc they duly and severally . ' acknowledged to i`?e that they execLtzed the same. - LUELLA S . CORBIN - - —•:3tary uh- cr-'__ ------_--_ - Comsniss3csz expi es 3/30/85 _ • ' ,\ = r -- s. i i t N . STATE OF PENNSYLVAN ', e9 7 s s • 6 COUNTJ OF CHESTER On the 12th day of July, 1933 , before me came-- JUDY BR ANT, to me kncun and known to me to be the oerson described inw and who executed the foregoing instrument and she acknowledged to me that she executed the sane. �_� __._ ROBERT C. BOLTON Notary i.:I lic Commission_ ex ties i'ATE OF NEW YORK ss: •t.Z.MPKINS COUNTY CL[ K'S OFFICE . _- i, Rachaet 5. Piyrcu,Clerk of the County of Tompkins,of the County Court of said Co.:nl r and of 'he Suprerr e Court, both Courts being Courts of Record having a ,rmn,TIo", •:a, ,b /HI' r,/ Cc;;:; ii�:7yyat I huva compared the within copy with th© Eii�7tna!(-Meted � Ac 5 ±���G3—� m this office, and that the same d�a correct and 1. copy a said original, and of the whole th'reef. tt Ttr3timon;Whereo<.r 1 h3v; hereunto sel m6_,-2s- 79.(K5 hoad and affixed the seal of said C. -1.:7-y ?,:,,I ly grv� 'o".,of hha�a,1�L w Yank Wear.--4..1. '‘, 134. 1%"-‘44..--&— ,f { "r �i CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ' of ITHACA• CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP . , cerfi�fied copy ( - ' { . , • ADOLPH H. HUTTAR - COUNSELOR AT LAW 1 619 UNIVERSITY SLDO. ' 120 E. WASHINGTON ST. , j SYRACUSE, N. Y. 13202 The Tuttle Law Print, Publishers, Rutland, Vto CERTIFICATE OP INCORPORATION of . ITHACA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP • We, the undersigned, all being persons of full age, bast two--thires of whom are citizens of the United States, ;and at least one a resident of the State of New York, for the ;purpose of incorporating an unincorporated church pursuant to Article EIGET of the Religious Corporation Law of the State of New York, hereby certify as follows : - - 1. A meeting of the unincorporated church known as the- -Ithaca Christian Fellowshio was duly called and held in conformity with she aforesaid Article EIGHT of the Religious Corporation La o the State of New York on the 7th day of May 1933, at ;le C ? mce'- YJ a majority of the duly qualifier', voters of said church, being nine in number were present in per':on. 2. At said meeting, Rev. Raymond Dell.i:`'CHpnxrii:'"tine of tJh subscribers hereto,, was the presiding officer and Judy Eran_t and Dean Grind.ahl were eLected as inspectors of tie:. election, they being the other subscribers hereto. 3. Said meeting decided that the- said church should become incorporated. • 4.. The name of the proposed corporation is to be = _ • ITHACA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP 5 . The number of Trustees thereof shall be THREE. - -'' .. 6 . The names of the persons elected as Trustees and -the tern of office for which they were respectively elected are as follows: - JEFFIEY FAIRCHILD to _hold office -unt l the first annual :*teaeting , -"Tar 1i e .e].-ect-ion of :trUstee`S h-ereaf ter; ' JOANN 'GEORGE_,to ~_hold, office•until..the .-secot'd,-.annual .meeting =tor --2- the election of tiuste•ss •hereafter. ' , 'RAYMOND DEI,LI=CA?2 NI to hold office until the third annual - -- - meeting for the election of Trustees hereafter, or until the - respective successors to such Trustees shall be elected. - ' - , 7. The first annual election of Trustees shall :be-- >° : ,,: ' held on the , 2tn &ay of May 1984, - and annual elections fob ='z' 'a7-: my Ns ee$ . therea f LeM 'shall L held on the seco,rid Ea •,_";';• ` t e month- of�? o L May each and every ,r� ;r thereafter.ter. - f'S . At said meeting it was !decided by , `Elie G1:aLifled ':' Yt voters present that. as, to all futuremeetings, only , those person- • • admitted into full membership and i_ good and ^'Lien r :i C'� ti aP.G r(? St3IC1.di{j voting-. 1: 1all have the p tisil , f r- The place of, worship of Sa]rx, cnurch -is in Ithaca, Y. li f�Ttl 1 Ci.l;k. t . have_ f N Wl T_J:., 5 HER_'.OF, L:re executed andkP s r _�2 43C Qn�. G�`G this C ertiffica of ?n'co:E pC rat?o:? .i s - 22nd � T c _. - s c.a; Q� T__June RAY_MOND RELY-CARPINI - JUDY BRANT . . DEAN GRINDOHL" -- • - . . . 4 ,yam' C01 {`r7v OF TO:Tr'iZ=_.1:.. y - ' n - On the 2Y2nTd__aay o/fnrhine,T 1983, before me Ca�"_te -' = - A-P-1OND DELL'-CAR.[-INI, DE��.N..G1 IND:Sf L ,: „' - to,`me + known and known to me tC )..le' the persons deScr bed in, aril who - executed the c eao ng Instrument and they duly and severally acknowledged Y'.o MP that they executed the same. - LUEL_LA. S . CORBIN --1i, ;'car,i 1- urlic-- -- --- . . Commission expires 3/30/85 s - STATE OF PENNSYLVA'.=?t 7 } ss, COUNTY OF CHESTER On the 12th day of July, 1983 , before me came _ t JUDY BP:iNT, to m= known and known to me to be the person described:An and who executed the foregoing instrument and she acknowledged to me that she executed the same. ROBERT C. BOLTON :-1o .ary Public r , Commission ex:`__rf .s I � � 1 t � 7TATE OF NEW YORK ss: 1- 1°JtPKINS COUNTY C K'S OFFICE I, Rai.hael 5. Pi:r:o, Clcrk of the County of Tompkins,of the County Court of said County,ar:d of .he S,,',reata Court, both Ccars being Courts of Record having a :_t I hav L_-pared :ha within copy with the cfi9inal entered GU r �/ 4-1-- rr. this office, and that the same co Ps a rrect and t: cc?), U said on�inai, and of tha whole thereof. fh Usfirml,Whereof,I have hereumo e ry nd and atlited the seal of said 79/3 art• fx H:� Cnt±rso,of hh tan New Y Y k_ L 4 W4C-44-1" i . ; • • F.• • • CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION `I 'Sr* w' ' i' • • • ITHACA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP - - • i " ' = - certified, copy ,, ' • , e. zt • • • • • • I. • • • • • • • • _ ADDLPH H. HLJTTAR CDUNSELCR AT LAW I,r • 819 UNIVERSITY BLDG. F , ' 120 E. WASHINSTON ST. , ` - - SYRACUSE, N. Y. 13202• I. - • ' - The Tuttle Law Print, Publishers, Rutland, Vt. - ' • i TOWN OF ITHACA FEE:,($i O.04 '` 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: /Z/ L�07 Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH - ( ) (607) 273-1747 y CHECK-- ( A ) APPEAL ZONING: R-/- r to the For Office Use Only Building Inspector and Zoning Board of- Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York * Having been denied permission to /re,y,(nJlliei qn CA'/S-7-m- q Cia ra Q. l i 0 , 0./are GI iON-Sit i (DIA/ ; nitiCe_, 0711 415,5EM110 Li u at ' ?n 3 Pio f.i &e Rd. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. o -.1-7- /- / , as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents , for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of : Article(s) Li -- iV-- , Section(s) ; 1163 )- , _ ____ _ _, _ _ of -the Town of _Ithaca,_Zoning _Ordinance, __ • the ,UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal from such denial and, in support. of the appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : (..-.%..2' -e_fri . -/te', ' (791/TaL,A7:/ ,f-e}"thf-' - ;FE-. ..K.-ecrit--y .�1_,0� .A. -CI a.-v ,G ,/A, . 67 alliteA -yL l/ U�.1_7 a. e4ti,,e, h ;64 4e-r-e„)_/ � . ae-/A ,,t. );_71.-it-dzi, 4.e.,-i_e_ .},0,2 ridiritiatig0 2,e4y1-1A-) V-1_ 36-.44174, ci Jyi im c / t' Z ,cam._ Z }j)--y1) -xe J r,v i ke:.6 ueZ ,...aL - lam -.,( ,.Q- ., by l y e . ,,, l2 4 ,Alt-A/--1 a-/ wd.AA,4271.‹..e.,2, d4ec., ace) AL, Bo.de (,bray, AAt.ZAM..:2-e-) .7.4e) ae,,j0e,at-O7L--) (1"'.,/ ,/& A-ta-1,6:14-ed f(A.e' , -,-(>1--- -:1-400 Dated: ,be,c. 3 , t 9 ,1(��'. i Signed: 'CJ - �1/: ..r c-, ,74.✓-2ued • ,Ai-d-rwvh ro 4 V , (1,-4r&W or-Yrdri) arW7?20i -f_7779-rijn Iferirr Gelir2191Z P-?7-4/' --"V'4-4.21/A) 619-7r1C -r27 .772(..6) 0:27 V7.77 /e - 1 4,4-7-744'8, _ = _ +,,:(222-7a9r7 0 ` TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1982 By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the.Town of Ithaca on Thursday, April 8, 1982, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:30 P.M. Appeal of Robert J. and Sarah -R. Lillie, Appellants, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission to raise goats and chickens at 20.3 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-1. Permission is denied under Article IV, Section 12, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, 7:45 P.M.. Appeal of Cornell University, Appellant, McGuire & Bennett, Inc., as Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying Building Permit to construct an Equipment and Field Testing Facility, Arboretum Expansion Area., on Forest Home Drive (Route 392), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 6-65,1-.4.2. Permission is denied under Article V, Section 18, paragraph 4, of: the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, whereby approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals is required. 8:00 P.M. Appeal of Cornell University,, Appellant, Attorney Shirley K. Egan, as Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector 11 denying permission to place two (2) mobile homes on property on Blue Grass Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-69-1--l... . Permission is denied under Article 17, Section 18, and Article XIV', Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons 1 -flay appear by agent or in person. Lewis D. Cartee Building Inspector Town of Ithaca Dated: March 31, 1982 Publish: April 3, 1982 FA „ TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 8. 1982 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Thursday, April 8, 1982, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Henry Aron, Edward W. King, Jack D. Hewett, Lewis D. Cartee (Building Inspector), Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary). ALSO PRESENT: Sarah Lillie, Robert Lillie, Anton J. Egner, Architect, Richard W. Robertson, McGuire & Bennett, Town Councilwoman Dooley Kiefer, Associate University Counsel Shirley K. Egan, Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7:40 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on March 31, 1982 and April 3, 1982, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon neighboring property owners, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Town Attorney, and upon the Appellants (and Agents, if any), as parties to the actions, on April 2, 1982. APPEAL OF ROBERT J. AND SARAH R. LILLIE, APPELLANTS, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO RAISE GOATS AND CHICKENS AT 203 PINE TREE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-57-1-1. PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 12, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:41 p.m. and read aloud the Notice as published and as noted above. Both Mr. and Mrs. Lillie were present. Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Robert J. Lillie and Sarah R. Lillie under date of March 15, 1982, as follows: "...Having been denied permission to raise goats and chickens at 203 Pine Tree Road...We would like to continue keeping goats & chickens because we enjoy the animals and their products -- fresh eggs, milk & meat. We purchased (in February) the field next to us so the animals would have some space to run in. We also feel that the animals preserve the flavor and spirit of the neighborhood. Our goats & chickens combined with nearby horses, pigs & sheep provide an atmosphere in which our child (now 2z) as well as neighborhood children can grow up to know and appreciate some farm animals.” Chairman Aron noted the Survey, dated July 25, 1981, attached to the Lillie Appeal which indicated, in addition to the Lillie property, the names and locations of neighbors thereof. Zoning Board of Appeals 2 April 8, 1982 Chairman Aron asked if there were any questions. from the public; there were none. Mrs. Lillie presented three letters from neighbors to the Board. Chairman Aron read aloud the letters as follows: 1. "4-5-82 Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals ....This letter is written in support of the appeal of Robert J. and Sarah R. Lillie. As a neighbor'\of the appellants we find no basis in fact for denying them permission to raise goats and chickens at 203 Pine Tree Road. We are not aware of any undue pollution, noise, olfactory, or scenic, associated with the presence of animals on the Lillie property. Consequently we urge members of the Board to support the appeal and grant continued permission to the appellants to practice their chosen avocation. (sgd.) Howard and Geraldine Kramer 202 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, N.Y.." 2. "3/25/82 Mr. Lewis Cartee ...We are writing you to support the petition of Bob & Sarah Lillie to have goats & horses on their land at 203 Pine Tree Road. We own the land adjoining their land to the south & east. We feel that the neighborhood should have goats & horses since this area has maintained a rural character and there have always been farm animals here. (sgd.) Blythe C. Baldwin (sgd.) Frank C. Baldwin 149 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850" 3. "204 Pine Tree Rd. Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 April 7, 1982 Town of Ithaca, Board of Zoning Appeals ...We are neighbors of Robert and Sarah Lilley [sic.], living directly across the street. We have never been inconvenienced in any way by their keeping goats and chickens. Our family has enjoyed watching the animals grow. Our children have found them delightful and for this reason, among others we consider them to be an asset to our neighborhood. (sgd.) V. Thomas Wakula (sgd.) Jacqueline T. Wakula" Chairman Aron asked how many goats were presently being kept by the Lillies. Mrs. Lillie stated that there were five as of this morning. Chairman Aron asked how many chickens were presently being kept. Mrs. Lillie stated that they had eleven. Chairman Aron asked Mrs. Lillie how many goats they would like to maintain, to which Mrs. Lillie replied, three by the Fall, adding that they replace the chicken flock every year. Mrs. Lillie also stated that their baby feeds the chickens and plays .with the goats. Chairman Aron asked how the livestock is housed, to which I Zoning Board of Appeals 3 April 8, 1982 Mrs. Lillie replied, in a barn that was there. Mrs. Lillie described a wire fence 42 feet high for the livestock. Mr. Lillie stated that they had recently acquired 7/10 of an acre of land from Dr. and Mrs. Baldwin which makes their total acreage 1.75 acres. Mr. Lillie stated that the chickens are confined and commented that when they bought the house, two years ago, two or three of the goats came with it. Mr. King, referring to the Survey map, noted that there is one house to the north of the Lillie property. Mr. Lillie stated that that was correct, adding that it is Cornell University property. Mr. King noted that the lot to the south is Baldwins'. Mr. Lillie stated that that was correct, adding that that lot is wooded and also that Baldwin property is to the east. Mr. King asked what the maximum number of goats is expected to be on premises at one time. Mrs. Lillie stated that, after kidding, three permanent, with nine the maximum. Mr. King asked what the maximum number of chickens might be. Mrs. Lillie stated that the maximum would be more than eleven, adding that they buy them in the spring and she would like to end up next year with about 36 until the end of August when they are all of a suitable stewing age. Chairman Aron asked the Lillies if they sell the chickens. Mrs. Lillie stated that they do note they are for their own use. Chairman Aron asked about the goats, wondering if the Lillies sell them for profit. Mrs. Lillie stated that they do not, adding that she does not make enough money to pay for their feed. Chairman Aron wondered if the Lillies kept the livestock primarily for their convenience or for their baby. Mrs. Lillie stated that it is a hobby and their son enjoys it. Mr. Lillie commented that they get fresh eggs and meat from their hobby. Chairman Aron asked how long the Lillies might keep up their hobby. Both Mr. and Mrs. Lillie stated that they did not know. Chairman Aron stated that animals are not allowed in an R15 zone. - Mr. King expressed his opinion that the Lillie property is really more rural and agricultural in nature, but it has been zoned residential with the farm use longstanding. Mr. King pointed out that,.obviously, the neighbors do not mind the small number of animals there. Mr. Lillie pointed out that the property next door is agricultural in use -- Cornell University. Mr. King stated that he would recommend keeping the residential character of the neighborhood and thus giving a special permit, revocable at any time to the Lillies personally. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Jack Hewett: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant to the Appellants, Robert J. and Sarah R. Lillie, a special permit which shall be revocable and personal to them and will not run with the land, to keep no more than 10 goats and no more than 40 chickens on the subject property (203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. Zoning Board of Appeals 0 April 8, 1982 6-57-1-1) in the manner in which they have indicated they are now keeping the animals, namely, that they are fenced in and they are on the northerly part of the property, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that this matter should be reviewed in approximately two years. There being no further, discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Aron, King, Hewett. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Lillie Appeal duly closed at 8:09 p.m. APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY, APPELLANT, McGUIRE & BENNETT, INC., AS AGENT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING BUILDING PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN EQUIPMENT AND FIELD TESTING FACILITY, ARBORETUM EXPANSION AREA, ON FOREST HOME DRIVE (ROUTE 392), TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-65-1-4.2. PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V, SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, WHEREBY APPROVAL OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS REQUIRED. Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:10 p.m. and read aloud the Notice as published and as noted above. Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form, dated March 31, 1982, as signed and submitted by Thomas E. Reiss of Anton J. Egner & Associates, Architects, for McGuire & Bennett, Inc., agents of Cornell University, as follows: "...Having been denied permission to obtain a building permit for construction of a Field Testing and Equipment Storage Facility at The Cornell University Plantations... Area is zoned Residential R30. Article V, Section 18.4 of the Ordinance states, that any use proposed by an institution of higher learning must be approved by the Board of Appeals after Planning Board report thereon. We request Board of Appeals approval for this use in accordance with said Section 18.4 of Article V." Chairman Aron read aloud the following Resolution duly adopted by the Planning Board: "MOTION -by Montgomery May, seconded by Carolyn Grigorov: WHEREAS, Cornell University wishes to build an Equipment and Field Testing Facility fronting on Forest Home Drive in the general vicinity of Flat Rock, and WHEREAS, the area is zoned R-30 requiring approval of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals after receiving a report from the Planning Board, and WHEREAS, the proposed facility is more than 1,500 feet from the nearest private residence, and I C I TOWN OF ITHACA A P P E A L to the Building Inspector and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to ga.(Se. Goa. S at j�% c Zee TOWN OF rrHACA Olt c.ACe'wr Ithaca, New York, as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of Article(s) Section(s) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal from such denial and, in support of the appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: !d vor and I qS o.ell cts 0-etCAor ?e �o/rri,C. �Et� rrn G7r't�vYial.S' .. Dated: Ithaca, New York Fee: $7.50 (2 -an Signe( AC )CnoW uY7& Qw/pPccuZ�. C n 2 N Id 3 Q 0 Cl vo l `Fri G4-/-9 Novi Rr— a ^/ As PART of ,CIQNAP5 0,gr It FRANC C, & ,C �'7'NE Co 844OW11V ped ru;,ry 0782 I � LQ ct I ( � G i �oNN�SSy- ANE i O R i V C .......... ��,, FRAME i•�— x— ✓✓ELL I/vG vc- !-m i r-� J OG 050>w E I _ ML ,.� . ( L/LG/E 2$D' 411VIAIG OF rhRA/V/MC/$/ 4.34 YTNE Ca t54 D w //V j L4 G IW v 2 o' V) I*V000 srfarE (sc,i• It SUR VFYoF LANDS OF ROBFRT J, Or SARs f,' /2, L /zI /E• & of .CA/VDS To r'E COn/VC YEv �YFRANk' C. � IILYTNE C. 8,47[DW/�(1i�, 203 PINL. Tf, r F RRA I 74vv/v of /TN/ C,r{, T� /� /j-��-i:':/S co(fle, :' •" /',/E M/ YOR�v JULY 2S, /98/ ,QRrrz�t,'ac, 5, ScAL.FNUf/Y//rep P Lf!Lrc'a� NYS,P,E, /,S•0L/.d%e NAIL +LoCTzo_uS GF Aje(&vtr3oa2S FNOrJG(J i r-� J OG 050>w E I _ ML ,.� . ( L/LG/E 2$D' 411VIAIG OF rhRA/V/MC/$/ 4.34 YTNE Ca t54 D w //V j L4 G IW v 2 o' V) I*V000 srfarE (sc,i• It SUR VFYoF LANDS OF ROBFRT J, Or SARs f,' /2, L /zI /E• & of .CA/VDS To r'E COn/VC YEv �YFRANk' C. � IILYTNE C. 8,47[DW/�(1i�, 203 PINL. Tf, r F RRA I 74vv/v of /TN/ C,r{, T� /� /j-��-i:':/S co(fle, :' •" /',/E M/ YOR�v JULY 2S, /98/ ,QRrrz�t,'ac, 5, ScAL.FNUf/Y//rep P Lf!Lrc'a� NYS,P,E, /,S•0L/.d%e NAIL +LoCTzo_uS GF Aje(&vtr3oa2S FNOrJG(J 204 Pine Tree Rd. Ithaca, N.y. 14.850 April 7, 1982 Town of Ithaca Board of Zoining Appeals 126 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, N. Y. 14850 Dear Sirs: We are neighbors of Robert and Sarah Lilley, living directly across the street. We have never been inconvienced in any way by their keeping goats and chickens. Our family has enjoyed watch3mg the animals grow. Our children have found them delightful and for this reason, among others we consider them to be an asset to our neighborhood. Sincerly, 1 o; 7yzir,> l"IX L2�w S CA. r-�e ln 5 Leon, n , V/ hoc to c� loo C 9 Z) ot i �4 (Let� t1ii� "W'�Lfc�- 44� t VCR" �� u✓V' j rw� 42' ' YJ • � d , pyo '.(�IVY ✓6/� I 4c 03 7 4h 4a Y $ Y r d 6; TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1976 By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals under the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca, on Thursday, September 23rd, 1976, in the Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street (second floor), Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 8:30 P.M. 9:00 P.M. 9:3.0 P.M. Appeal of Louis R. Webster, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying building permit for conversion of barn to living quarters at 1039 Taughannock Blvd., Parcel No. 6-21-2-17, Ithaca, N.Y. Permission is denied by the Building Inspector under Sections 11, 16, and 67 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Appeal of Thomas J. Lonergan, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying building permit for construction of a second separate dwelling unit and with only five foot side yard at 203 Pine Tree Road, Parcel No. 6-57-1-1, Ithaca, N.Y. Permission is denied by the Building Inspector under Sections 11 and 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Appeal of Howard M. Burrier, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying building permit for construction of a garage less than 15 feet from side lot line at 132 West Haven Road, Parcel No. 69-5-4.2, Ithaca; N.Y. Permissi .2.on is denied by the Building Inspector under Section. 217.of*�the .Town.of Ithaca.' -Zoning Ordinance, Said Board of Appeals will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Lawrence P. Fabbroni Building Inspector Town of Ithaca Dated: September 16, 1976 Publish: September 18, 1976 Zoning Board of Appeals -10- September 23, 1976 Mr. Webster stated that there had been a change in his plans: his .future son-in-law and daughter are now employed in Syracuse. He stated that he has no hardship. He stated that he is renting the house to two persons. He stated that the barn is empty. He stated that he would divide the lot; he would obtain the proper health certificates, etc., from the Tompkins County Health Department. MOTION by Mr. Edward Austen, seconded by Mr. Peter Francese: RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Torn of Ithaca deny and hereby does deny the appeal for variance to allow for the issuance of a building permit to Mr. Louis R. Webster for the conversion of a barn to living quarters on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 6-21-2-17, 1039 Taughannock Blvd., based upon the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the barn does not meet the front yard requirements for a residence. 2. That the lot cannot be subdivided so as to provide 100' of frontage on Taughannock Blvd* for each lot. 3. That the Board of Appeals finds no hardship involved in this matter There being no further discussion, Aye - Francese, King, Ripley, Austen. Abstain - Hewett. Nay - None. the Chair called for a vote. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the Appeal of Louis R. Webster duly closed at 8:37 p.m. APPEAL OF THOMAS J. LONERGAN, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING BUILDING PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND SEPARATE DWELLING UNIT AND WITH ONLY FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD AT 203 PINE TREE ROAD, PARCEL NO. 6-57-171, ITHACA,..N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 14 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. _ The proper Affidavits having been presented and entered into the record, Mr. Francese read the request for variance submitted by Mr. Lonergan and dated September 5, 1976, as follows, and distributed to the Board members three drawings submitted with same entitled (1) Plot Plan (2) Existing Garage Structure (3) Neighborhood Layout. "Request for Variance"(separate page dated 7/5/76) "The item of concern is the approval of a building permit to finish an existing 20' x 20' room over an existing (3) bay garage located on my residential property at 203 Pine Tree Rd. Finishing will include insulation, heating, electrical wiring (which presently exists in rough layout) and plumbing in compliance with the latest Standards of the New York State Building Code. This unit, when finished, will be utilized as a (1) person dwelling. A. The present garage structure which has stood for over 30 years is located 10 feet from the"nearest property boundary and is not attached Zoning Board of Appeals -11- September 23, 1976 to the main house (reference Plot Plan). The residential lots bordering my property on each of (3) sides, ie. north, east,and south, are vacant and are the property of Dr. F. Baldwin, also of Pine Tree Rd. These lots, and my own, were originally one property belonging to Mr. Fred Evans. These were divided at the time of Mr. Evans' death into two properties, my own and Dr. Baldwin's. I am appealing for a variance to Sections 11, 14 of the Zoning Ordinance in view of the fact that the garage structure is an existing one, and it would be impossible to relocate it to comply strictly with the Ordinance. I emphasize that I am appealing to upgrade the value of my own and neighboring properties by improving and finishing a presently vacant unit. (sgd.) Thomas J. Lonergan" Mr. Lonergan stated that he was here not discuss hardship but to enhance and clarify what he is proposing to do. Mr. Lonergan stated that he was in error, but the garage is.in fact ten feet and not five feet from the side yard as noted on the application. Mr. Lonergan said that the garage is an existing structure; it is not one that he is constructing; it is one that he is finishing for occupancy by one individual. Mr. Francese asked Mr. Lonergan how long he had lived there? Mr. Lonergan replied, two years. Mr. Francese asked if this structure were there when he purchased the property? Mr. Lonergan replied, yes. Mr. Lonergan stated that at one time a handyman had lived there. He stated that it is used as storage presently. Mr. Lonergan said that he wished to formalize this application and clarify it. Mr. Fabbroni asked what the feasibility would be of moving this barn and placing it near the home. Mr. Lonergan stated that it would be difficult since it would have to be moved 40'. Mr. Francese asked Mr. Lonergan if Mr. Fabbroni had advised him. that it is not permissable to.have two dwelling structures on one lot under the Town Ordinance? Mr. Lonergan stated that he had. Mr. Francese advised Mr. Lonergan of the Franciamone property and the litigation involved therein because of more than one dwelling struc- ture on one lot. He repeated that two dwelling structures on one lot are not permitted. Mr. Francese pointed out that there can be two dwelling units if they are attached. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the "policing" of two separate structures is very difficult -- two separate structures could become four and then the density concept is shot. FINDINGS OF FACT: Based on the evidence presented to the Board of Appeals at this Public Hearing in the matter of the Appeal of Thomas J. Lonergan, said Board finds: 1. No evidence of unnecessary hardship. 2. The second dwelling -unit -would -not meet-tbe-side-yard-requirements. Zoning Board of Appeals -12- September 23, 1976 3. The granting of such a request for variance would set a dangerous precedent. 4. Dr. Frank Baldwin sent in word of his approval of the proposal presented by Mr. Lonergan. MOTION by Mr. Peter Francese, seconded by Mr. Edward Austen: RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca deny and hereby does deny the appeal for variance.to allow for the issuance of a building permit to Mr. Thomas J. Lonergan for construction of a second separate dwelling unit and with only ten foot side yard on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 6-57-1-1, 203 Pine Tree Road, based upon the hereinabove set forth Findings of Fact which are hereby incorporated in this Resolution. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. -Aye - Francese, Hewett, King,. Ripley, Austen. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the Appeal of Thomas J. Lonergan duly closed. APPEAL OF HOWARD M. BURRIER, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING BUILDING PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE LESS THAN 15 FEET FROM SIDE LOT LINE AT 132 WEST HAVEN ROAD, PARCEL NO. 6-29-5-4.2, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. The proper Affidavits having been presented and entered into the record, the Appeal Form dated September 13, 1976, signed by Howard M. Burrier, reading as follows, was entered into the record. - "...Having been denied permission to erect a garage less than 15 feet from side lot line at 132 West Haven Road....in violation of Section 21.00 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: Due to the slope of the land in the rear of the house it is not practical to build there. I am 68 yrs. old and disabled, and any other than the proposed location would add an unnecessary burden of snow removal." Mrs. Joan Harman appeared before the Board on behalf of her father, not as an attorney. She stated that she was receiving no fee. Mrs. Harman presented a plot plan for the Board's review showing the proposed garage placed 8.2' from the side lot line, the nearest residence being 35' from the lot line. Mr. Francese read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Haven Road, dated September 20, 1976, as follows: "Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals `Y 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Sirs: Robert Knorr,134 West This is to advise that we have no objection to our neighbors, Mr. t TOWN OF ITHACA NEW YORK A P P E A L to the Building Commissioner and the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to 6 el to Q Seeo/4 .3QA0q nq Ce L� el�nq tin wii# ONU � 4SV49' at A903 �Co. ►16 6 �'� "�Ithaca, New York as shown on the accompanying Application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of Section(s) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal from such denial and, in support of the appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows. Signe Dated. Ithaca, N. Y. �S 197 21 Fb cotilcervi rova� `o .q IC� l W( �wk maxis i v OI x 0� howl aver ' w\ ex1!�N I iocc AIZG C)L\ bti\lk fesiC�E'IdQ . � J I , \\ IS �i �� �i ��c.��\c�C' t �tS ���c\ 11 o t� L1 ec '� v, e h c l r i ccs 111 N -Sm .: N% ex 1! is �i yl tt ,V\ �C%o a+nc\ IL\�t ; 114 Gov t►c�ViCe." � .li t� es sit\v�cic�rc\:s VC) r fc\ �oC�e . I �1� l�tit►� �1`e11-��u1i�Utec` ��i �� �2 l,`t� �i eC�5 IVV\ °S*oc\ �c1s'S - :lS )DC(3�pcvie�res ib tot-\wkc\cix t v1a n c`c e c. 11U�c` V�Ic<A [fie -�� 'fie s i c�e ►l d 10 D Ir6V�f'* 0 "vt ens �1 -0 s (Q. X10 t'`�`�1) "�aSl . cz,�:ic\ S o �` I �'� , � �'� U G�cc� �i � .. auc� GZ CC • I'��� �b e � � 1 � t' . AC C a �o, ��\�..: ree'' �Se [OS arc. tidy O�JV ire C) `iv1c� �: ��\F ?rb e� lie lo > -t.. `t C1�4U1C`('c c;. 1. e 1' 1�'eC3c� 1� `I -U` tVo a, ` uc rtnitce Sec�1��� Ii; ►`I � ��e. J�.t;\_►�`y � t'e�i 4�c�\tC� � �r6� Vie �� a _ \�� is ay QXtSouk �C'C'\ Uc�k\e vtiNI Ot�ti) :.ck Vkc � \. U1ei b� �Or�l. I it\),tY hC\ �It\1S `1 V1 0. �QS��I �jC\Ccti� i1lY1( --,� KLOT F. Trn*4� r fid. /'Zo� 50, House 6 101 q 6 Cao 200, �• . '28 _ . PI NE TREE ROAD CO 6 t3 T 7 c 17 6 CO C y r &U40 Vj iYli�/YVi Lw 5,000 S 10,000 10,001— 20,000. 20;001— 30,000 30,001— 40,E 40,001— 50,000 50,001— 100,000 10091 500,0/y0y0� 5001001— 100009000 i1 001 & Over 1d.t,. riieY�f 1 E 1-60 230 5:00 10.00 15.00 20.00 2S.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 150.00 IIIIIIIIIIh TOWN OF. tTHACA - /1pPLIG�lT1018 FOR, BUILDING PERMIT ' %�� vr17 `�. • �}p3 � CJ /�% �� Application Dstc .. .• _ ��'�'' .f 6 �© permut Nunnbcr• — Dmtc ,lrt�,8ira1 Number ��• -- Zoning Dlstr$d e MM—or use Jed 3 0 0.0 rnasd Zonin Ordinance drums that al I. A Landowner. �i7d Q, extend U, convert U, Ithaca, N. Ye a stru ..! - �V\C0\Ak AiPvt �Ovei' a cat- QaM! _ At a Dost of To be used for ,�� 6 19 -! % Structure is to be mplctcd on or before Owner of land ' V1��Itc\S \ • o�l� n.vI ' _Builder c�vti1 P Land Ownces mailing address. �0 3 "e Free �c� c c� If building is being built for a person other than prI land owner, show name The structurcjs)• Will be'as follows: Square Feet Floor Arca: �fc�wt 40 1W � — -- Basement Type of construction., ` ... Number of stories a Fust Floor Second Floor - 4ns) Numbcr."amiily Units `S Perocntagc Of Lotto be oecupied�rI=w: t Over Second by am structures Plot Plan oar Back oTgermTt . -- ..or Attached Dalt •I The required permits have been obtained as follows: - FROM TOMPKINs COUNTY Hr.AI.TH DEPARTMENT Approval of septic system and/or well : -_ - '. - • . • • Faom TOWN C:.rjes: -= i. _ StrI mpcning jif toad. must be opened II,for pipe) �.; - - •' • --- Blasting pcirnll iif blastl ig nxcsszrIm i - - - _ • Faom 2SUPERvraosr�.ree Wates -Tap - Sewes_T-Up= �-.`' - Dia to d' -.i:-. �: �- • •- -- • .. Fjwm Noprit HIGHWAY DLPAATHEN? C.ilvcrts and driveways • : • _ _ . .0 • Faoml TOWN ZON m O>•Pica Multiple residence permit . . . _ • • • • - • • . - - • Zlie Undersigned hereby appplica for permission to do the above, in accordance with. provisions of tioq and and 'othcr Laws and Rep ations of the Town of Ithaca, New Yor or thers ha . - statancnts and information given herein arc correct to the beat of ,ledg`c� p 19? Date: Building permit ( ) approved by J the ") denied under Section Zoning Ordinance by Appeal action:. Date of appeal Date of bearing Date of advertising Board members notified --- -- ,s0 - Appeal, advertising cxpensea. Progrrss of work.. Checked on: Foundation Framing Trim Completion Order to refill excavation' iisucd on i ACID �%ke ,1�l�Ded� 0 VPf" CXiS11I1�(al�nr qh�c� `�pr 0.f i����'tA� ��\J PLOT PLAN INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN: Dimensions of lot. 1M x a 8 0 Distance of Structures from: Road, SDS ac�0 Both shle lot lines, C65', G -SI CSS,1BO', Rear of lot." a0o 1 So' 901 a00 I �s �o Dimensions of structures. [;Lr)/X Names of neighbors who bound lot. Set -back of neighbors, al`Surep���►t�1,�t 16'M Vacna� North arrow. Street name and number. Q03 P`�e Show existing structures in contrasting lines. 65l� ro —1So� N hereby certify that the structure for which this •_ ;, issued (will be) :'!r!built ac� cording to the latest Standards of the New York SigneT • :r�i C, �x m .�p