HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Special Approval 8/28/1985 own of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Page Two
i 'Notice of Public Hearings
/
APPEAL of James Iacovelli, Appellant, from the decision of the Building
Inspector denying a Building Permit for the construction of a
two-family dwelling, in Residence District R15 , with side yard and W
rear yard deficiencies, at 1474 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
/ Parcel No. 6-58-2-22 . 41 . Permit is denied under Article IV, Section
V 14 , and Article XIV, Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
�I;/°A
Ordinance.
APPEAL of James Iacovelli, Appellant, from the decision of the Building
Inspector denying Building Permits for the construction of two,
two-family dwellings, in Residence District R9 , each with dwelling
units of equal size (up-and-down duplexes , four bedrooms in each unit
of each structure) , and, denying Special Permits to allow four
unrelated persons to occupy each such unit (a total of eight unrelated
persons in each structure) , such Special Permits being applied for
pursuant to Article III, Section 4 , Paragraph 2 , Sub-paragraph 2b, of
' !' the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, at 239-241 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-54-5-40 (Old Ithaca Land Company
kr) %4.5 Parcels No. 126 and 127) and a portion of 6-54-5-38 (Old Ithaca Land
COL
Company Parcel No. 129 , known also as 103 Maryland Avenue) , and, at
146 Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca. Tax Parcels No. 6-54-5-10 (Old
Ithaca Land Company Parcels No. 160 and 161) and a portion of
6-54-5-12 (Old Ithaca Land Company Parcel No. 159 , being a portion of
a parcel presently known as 148 Kendall Avenue) . Permits are denied
under Article III, Section 4 , Paragraph 2; Article III, Section 4,
Paragraph 2 , Sub-paragraph 2b, 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.
Lewis D. Cartee
Building Inspector
Town of Ithaca
Dated: August 13 , 1985
Publish: August 16 , 1985
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 28 , 1985
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in adjourned
regular session (adjourned from August 21 , 1985) , in Town Hall, 126
East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 12 :00 o ' clock, Noon.
PRESENT: Chairman Henry Aron, Jack D. Hewett, Edward W. King, Edward
N. Austen, Lewis D. Cartee (Building Inspector) , Nancy M.
Fuller (Secretary) .
ALSO PRESENT: Edward A. Mazza, Esq. , James Iacovelli.
Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 12 :05 p.m
ADJOURNED APPEAL (FROM AUGUST 21, 1985) OF JAMES IACOVELLI,
APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING
BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO, TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS,
IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 , EACH WITH DWELLING UNITS OF EQUAL SIZE
(UP-AND-DOWN DUPLEXES, FOUR BEDROOMS IN EACH UNIT OF EACH STRUCTURE) ,
AND, DENYING SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS TO
OCCUPY EACH SUCH UNIT (A TOTAL OF EIGHT UNRELATED PERSONS IN EACH
STRUCTURE) , SUCH SPECIAL PERMITS BEING APPLIED ,FOR PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE III, SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 , SUB-PARAGRAPH 2b, OF THE TOWN OF
ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, AT 239-241 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6-54-5-40 (OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY PARCELS NO.
126 AND 127) AND A PORTION OF 6-54-5-38 (OLD ' ITHACA LAND COMPANY
PARCEL NO. 129 , KNOWN ALSO AS 103 MARYLAND AVENUE) , AND, AT 146
KENDALL AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6-54-5-10 (OLD ITHACA
LAND COMPANY PARCELS NO. 160 AND 161) AND A PORTION OF 6-54-5-12 (OLD
ITHACA LAND PARCEL NO. 159 , BEING A PORTION OF A PARCEL PRESENTLY
KNOWN AS 148 KENDALL AVENUE) . PERMITS ARE DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III ,
SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 ; ARTICLE III, SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 ,
SUB-PARAGRAPH 2b, AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING ORDINANCE.
Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above-noted matter duly opened at 12:05 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as previously posted and published and as
noted above. Messrs. Iacovelli and Mazza were present. Chairman
Aron noted the presence of a quorum.
Chairman Aron noted that the Board members had all visited the
site of the projects. Chairman Aron stated that the Board members
had before them a completed Short Environmental Assessment Form, as
signed and submitted by James Iacovelli under date of August 12 ,
1985 , and as reviewed by the Town Planner, Mr. Lovi, under date of
August 13 , 1985 . Chairman Aron declared the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the
James Iacovelli Appeal.
Zoning Board of Appeals 2 August 28 , 1985
Chairman Aron, noting that the review presented by Mr. Lovi was
over four pages in length , stated that he would not read aloud that
review into the record, however, it is, a part of the record.
Chairman Aron stated that he would read aloud the reviewer' s
recommendation in the matter. Chairman Aron read as follows:
"REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATION:
This project is an Unlisted action according to Local Law #3, 1980 .
Given the expected impacts which this project appears to have on the
environment, I recommend that a negative declaration of environmental
significance be made. "
MOTION by Mr. Jack Hewett, seconded by Mr. Edward King:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals accept
and hereby does accept the Environmental Assessment Form as submitted
by James Iacovelli and as reviewed by the Town Planner, Peter M.
Lovi, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals, as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the proposed
construction of two, two-family dwellings , make and hereby does make
a negative declaration of environmental significance.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Aron, Hewett, King, Austen . -
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Aron, noting that there was no one in attendance from
the public, closed the Adjourned Public Hearing at 12 : 10 p.m. and
asked for Board discussion. The Board members had before them those
documents which were before them at their August 21, 1985 meeting.
Said documents are:
1 . Appeal Form as signed and submitted by James Iacovelli under
date of August 12 , 1985 , and reading as follows: "Having been
denied permission to construct two, two family dwellings at 241
Pennsylvania Avenue and 146 Kendall Avenue. . . (1) It' s
impractical to build 6 small houses. (2) Building larger houses
allows for better quality construction . (3) There are
precedents in the neighborhood. (4 ) Density of occupancy is no
greater though less buildings are used. (5) This provides for
more committed open space. (6) Six 50 ' lots are dedicated to
these two structures . "
2 . Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part I , as signed and
submitted by James Iacovelli under date of August 12 , 1985 , and
as reviewed, Parts II and III, by the Town Planner, Peter M.
Lovi , under date of August 13 , 1985 , and reading as follows:
Zoning Board of Appeals 3 August 28, 1985
"TOWN OF ITHACA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
•
PART II: Project Impacts and Their Magnitudes
'RE: James Iacovelli , Pennsylvania Avenue, two-family houses
Impacts on Land
1. There will be no adverse environmental impact as a result
of physical changes to the project site. This conclusion
is based upon the fact that the two houses to be
constructed will be built on six adjacent lots with a total
area in excess of 53 ,400 square feet. Each of the two
buildings is 68 ' long (including an attached deck) and 30 '
wide, for a total lot coverage of 2 ,040 square feet. The
total coverage for both houses is 4 , 080 square feet, or
less than 8% of the gross lot area. As a maximum lot
coverage of 25% is permitted in an R9 district, I believe
that the physical changes to the site as a result of
construction will be minimal.
2 . There are no unusual landforms on the site which would be
adversely affected by this project. This conclusion is
based upon an examination of a Townwide map of unique
physiographic formations prepared by the Tompkins County
Planning Department and referred to as part of our Town
Comprehensive Plan.
Impact on Water
3 . There are no protected water bodies which would be affected
by this project. This conclusion is based upon an exami-
nation of a Townwide map of watersheds and surface drainage
prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department. There
are no streams on the site and excess surface drainage will.
be intercepted by the roadside ditch along Kendall Avenue
and carried off in the regular drainage system.
4 . There are no non-protected water bodies which would be
affected as a result of this project. This conclusion is
also based upon an examination of the watersheds and
surface drainage map cited above.
5 . This project will have no effect on groundwater quality.
This conclusion is based upon the fact that both buildings
will be connected to the Town ' s sanitary sewer system.
6. This project has a small potential impact on drainage flow
and surface water runoff. The construction of the common
parking lot -between the two buildings will concentrate
surface runoff. The total surface area of this parking
area will be (44 ' x 56 ' ) 2 ,464 square feet, exclusive of
Zoning Board of Appeals 4 August 28 , 1985
the driveway from Pennsylvania Avenue and the turnaround at
the north end of the lot (estimated additional area based
on 128 ' length and 12 ' width of pavement: 1 ,536 square
feet) . The driveway and the parking area will be paved ( .9
runoff coefficient) . Adding the roof coverage of 4 ,080
square feet gives a total impervious surface of 8 ,080
square feet with an average runoff coefficient of 95
percent. This amount of impervious surface is
approximately 15% of the gross lot area. The time of
concentration is assumed to be 15 minutes. In order to
accommodate a five-year storm of 1 .5 inches of rainfall per
hour, the site should be graded so that the drainageway to
Kendall Avenue can handle a minimum flow of . 12 ft3/second.
Impact on Air
7 . This project will not have an adverse environmental impact
on air quality. This conclusion is based upon the fact
that these new houses will be built to State Code
insulation requirements and should be more thermally
efficient than the average home in the Town of Ithaca. Air
pollutants from the home furnaces should be below average
when computed on a per capita basis.
Impact on Plants and Animals
8 . There are no known threatened or endangered species of
plant or animal which will be adversely affected by this
project. This conclusion is based on an examination of
maps prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department
describing Game Habitats, Unique Wildlife Habitats, and
Forest Land and Unique Floral Regions . '
9 . There will be no adverse environmental impact on
non-endangered or non-threatened species of plants and
animals. This conclusion is also based on an examination
of maps prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department
describing Game Habitats , Unique Wildlife Habitats, and
Forest Land and Unique Floral Regions .
Impact on Visual Resources
10 . The project will have no adverse impact on views, vistas,
or other aspects of the neighborhood or community visual
character. This conclusion is based upon the fact that in
this area, the present R9 zoning designation and the
approved Ithaca Land Company subdivision would permit a one
or two-family home with as much as 2, 250 square feet of lot
coverage to be built on each of the six affected lots. In
addition, a public street known as Maryland Avenue would
have to be constructed to serve that portion of tax parcel
number 54-5-38 which is designated as #129 on the Ithaca
Land Company plat. A development of this sort would be
considerably more disruptive of the neighborhood character
Zoning Board of Appeals 5 August 28 , 1985
and aesthetics than the proposed buildings. In addition,
the old, unattractive house presently located on tax parcel
number 54-5-40 (#241 Pennsylvania Avenue) will be torn down
as part of this action.
Impact on Historical Resources
11 . This project will not impact upon any site or structure of
historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance. This
conclusion in based on the fact that five of the six
parcels included as part of this action are presently open
land and that the sixth parcel contains a house of no
historic value. It is unlikely that the land itself
contains any artifacts of pre-historic or paleontological
importance. This judgment is based upon the evidence that
a considerable amount of building and development in this
area has not produced evidence of any artifacts at this
time.
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
12 . This project will have no negative impact on the quality or
quantity of existing and future open spaces or recreational
opportunities in the community. Neither the Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan nor the Ithaca Land
. Company plat provide for any dedicated recreation area on
this site. To the extent that the proposed development
reduces that mass of buildings which would otherwise be
permitted, it will have a positive effect on the preser-
vation of open space in the neighborhood. -
Impact on Transportation
13 . This project will have an impact on the existing
transportation system. Based upon traffic counts for
similar residential neighborhoods in the Town, it is esti-
mated that traffic flow on Pennsylvania Avenue is less than
500 cars per day. The parking area for the two buildings
provides space for 14 cars. Based upon an assumption of 14
cars each making 4 trips per day, these two buildings may
add more than 55+ trips per day to Pennsylvania Avenue.
This would represent an increase of approximately 10
percent to the estimated daily traffic flow. This increase
may be considered significant but is well within standards
for residential neighborhoods elsewhere in the Town.
Impact on Energy
14 . This project will have no significant effect on the
community' s sources of fuel and energy. This conclusion is
based upon the fact that these houses are typical
two-family homes which, even if built to the most
energy-efficient insulation standards, could have only a
marginal effect on the community' s overall energy use.
Zoning Board of Appeals 6 August 28 , 1985
Impact on Noise
15 . There will be no significant odors, glare, vibration or
electrical disturbances as a result of this project. This
conclusion is based upon the fact that glare, vibration and
electrical disturbances are not associated with residential
construction of this type. The increase in traffic flow
along Pennsylvania Avenue has been described and considered
above. However, since the resulting traffic flow is consi-
dered to be well within neighborhood standards and the
increase in traffic will be private cars and not trucks,
the increase in noise is not considered to be significant.
Impact on Health and Hazards
16 . This project will have no significant impact on public
health and safety. This conclusion is based upon the fact
` that the construction of one and two family houses has been
determined by the Town Board to be a permitted use which
will not adversely affect the public health , safety and
welfare. The two buildings will be constructed in confor-
mance with the New York State Life Safety Code and will be
inspected by our Building Inspector before a Certificate of
Occupancy may be issued .
Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
17 . This project will have no adverse impact on the growth and
character of the existing community. This conclusion is
based upon the fact that on March 20 , 1985 the Zoning Board
of Appeals approved a variance for the construction of a
pair of two-family homes at 145 and 147 Kendall Avenue.
These homes are substantially identical to the buildings
proposed to be constructed in the present action and were
permitted to be occupied by no more than seven unrelated
persons in each building. Two parcels of land, #130 and
#131 of the Ithaca Land Company plat, were dedicated as
open space to accompany this variance.
The present action is extremely similar to the variance
already approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Six
parcels rather than five are proposed to be dedicated, and
these parcels to be dedicated are contiguous to the two
parcels previously reserved as open space. The
construction of these buildings and others by Mr. Iacovelli
and others in the past five years is establishing a
standard of construction quality and lot coverage which is
more characteristic of R15 residential neighborhoods
elsewhere in the Town. The standards of residential
occupancy are somewhat lower than would be permitted
according to the R9 standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
18 . There is no public controversy concerning the project at
this time. This conclusion is based upon comments received
Zoning Board of Appeals 7 August 28 , 1985
by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department as of August 13 ,
1985 . It is possible that negative comments may be
received prior to, or at the time of, the Public Hearing on
August 21 , 1985 .
REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATION: -
This project is an Unlisted action according to Local Law #3 ,
1980 . Given the expected impacts which this project appears to
have on the environment, I recommend that a negative declaration
of environmental significance be made. "
3. A portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Map No. 54 showing the six lots
involved in the Iacovelli Appeal.
4. Site Plan of proposal for two dwelling structures at 241
Pennsylvania Avenue, signed by James Iacovelli, drawn by Chad
Hoover, dated August 12, 1985 .
Mr. King, commenting that he had visited the properties in
question, pointed out that this proposal would involve the
consolidation of six lots and, again, with restrictive covenants as
in other projects. Mr. King stated that the yards setbacks present
no problem that he knew of and noted .that the side yard for the
proposed northerly house is 15 feet and there is open field next to
it. Mr. King pointed out that there are no other structures nearby
and stated that he saw no problem with the proposal as presented.-
Mr. King stated that generally, in his opinion, Mr. Iacovelli' s plan
is a good plan.
Chairman Aron wished the record to show that the Board members
had all been up there and walked the land. Each Board member stated
that, yes, they had been there. Chairman Aron stated that he too had
visited the site. Chairman Aron asked the Board members if they had
seen the other structures that Mr. Iacovelli has completed. The
Board members each stated that they had inspected one of the
completed structures inside, and both from the outside. Chairman
Aron stated that it was his understanding that Mr. Iacovelli intended
to duplicate those structures. Mr. Iacovelli stated that that was
correct, adding that they will be brick with nice decks just like the
other two. Mr. Hewett stated that he had been very impressed by the
work done by Mr. Iacovelli. Mrs. Reuning stated that the completed
houses were very beautiful.
Mr. King wished to make sure of the occupancy requested in this
case. Mr. Iacovelli stated that there were proposed to be eight
persons in each house, that is , four in each apartment. Chairman
Aron observed that that is what was approved in the other case in
March. Mr. Iacovelli stated that it was just about the same.
Attorney Mazza pointed out that in that case the request was for and
the Board approved of seven persons in each structure with a total of
five lots dedicated to the two structures. Mr. Iacovelli stated
that, also, they are taking the old existing house down in 1986,
adding that the lease expires at the end of May and it is an old
Zoning Board of Appeals 8 August 28 , 1985
structure. Chairman Aron asked Attorney Mazza if he would note that
in the covenants, with Attorney Mazza responding, yes.
Mr. Cartee wondered, if this Appeal should be granted, if he
could issue building permits while that existing house is still
there. Mr. King replied that he saw no problem as long as it is in
the covenants that it is to be removed. Mr. Iacovelli stated that it
will be removed. Mr. Cartee wondered, as far as equipment, etc. ,
being on the site, if this would interfere with the present
occupants . Mr. Iacovelli stated that it would not. Mr. Hewett asked
Mr. Iacovelli if the occupants of the existing house were aware of
the plans, with Mr. Iacovelli responding, yes. Mr. Austen stated
that he had a question with respect to how this gets recorded, or,
will there still he six lots on the tax map. Mr. King asked Attorney
Mazza if he will consolidate the six lots such that they should show
up on the tax map as one lot. Attorney Mazza stated that they will
have these six lots consolidated into one parcel . Mr. Cartee stated
that he would need a tax parcel number. Mr. Cartee pointed out that
the Appeal refers to 241 Pennsylvania Avenue and 146 Kendall Avenue,
however, the plan shows that there will be no exit onto Kendall
Avenue. Mr. Cartee stated that he would suggest that the Board call
the proposal 241 Pennsylvania Avenue. Chairman Aron requested that
the covenants show one address. Mr. King stated that Pennsylvania
Avenue is the most logical .
Chairman Aron asked if there were any further questions. There
were none.
MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant
and hereby does grant the variances requested by the Owner/Appellant,
James Iacovelli, permitting the construction of two residential
structures , each containing two, four-bedroom, apartment units of
equal size in an upstairs and downstairs configuration, on six lots .
shown on the Ithaca Land Company Tract as numbers 126 , 127 , 129 , 159 ,
160 , and 161 , with said six lots to be consolidated into one parcel
to be known as 241 Pennsylvania Avenue, and with said residential
structures and parking arrangements to be as delineated on the Sketch
submitted with the application dated August 12 , 1985 , and drawn by
Chad Hoover, and with there being two conditions to the grant here:
1 . That the Town of Ithaca be given a restrictive covenant whereby
the six lots hereinabove cited are consolidated into one parcel
and that such covenant contain an agreement not to construct any
other buildings on these lots without the obtaining of a
building permit;
2. That the existing structure, which is a single family house on
the southeast corner of Old Ithaca Land Company Parcel No. 127 ,
is to be demolished as soon as the current tenancy expires at
the end of May 1986 , the foundation to be removed and the land
levelled, and further, that that undertaking is also to be
contained in the restrictive covenant
Zoning Board of Appeals 9 August 28 , 1985
which will be given to the Town of Ithaca and if not done by
August 15 , 1986 , any Certificate of Occupancy for the new
./ structures which may have been issued may be revoked until the
demolition requirements have been completed , and further, that
the Town of Ithaca shall be empowered to accomplish such
demolition, removal , and levelling should this not be done and
to charge the owner of the property for same;
3 . That each of the four units involved shall be occupied by no
more than four unrelated persons and each of the two structures
by no more than eight unrelated persons.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Aron, Hewett, King, Austen.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal
with respect to 241 Pennsylvania Avenue duly closed at 12 :30 p.m.
Attorney Mazza and Mr. Iacovelli thanked the Board for its time
and consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairman Aron declared the August 28 , 1985 meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 12 :30
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy M. Fuller, . Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals.
Henry Aron, Chairman,
Zoning Board of Appeals 26 August 21 , 1985 '
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Attorney Mazza asked if he might suggest that both addresses be
listed so that the Slaterville Road people do not appear saying the
same thing. Mr. King suggested that the Secretary prepare the Notice
in terms of a clarified notice. Mr. King asked Mr. Iacovelli if there
were plans for the house he wished to construct. Mr. Iacovelli stated
that there were and presented a plan to Mr. King.
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of
the James Iacovelli Appeal duly adjourned at 8 :45 p.m.
APPEAL OF JAMES IACOVELLI, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
TWO, TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 , EACH WITH
DWELLING UNITS OF EQUAL SIZE (UP-AND-DOWN DUPLEXES, FOUR BEDROOMS IN
EACH UNIT OF EACH STRUCTURE) , AND, -DENYING SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW
FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS TO OCCUPY EACH SUCH UNIT (A TOTAL OF EIGHT
UNRELATED PERSONS IN EACH STRUCTURE) , SUCH SPECIAL PERMITS BEING
APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III, SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 ,
SUB-PARAGRAPH 2b, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, AT 239-241
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6-54-5-40 (OLD
ITHACA LAND COMPANY PARCELS NO . 126 AND 127) AND A PORTION OF
6-54-5-38 (OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY PARCEL NO. 129 , KNOWN ALSO AS 103
MARYLAND AVENUE) , AND, AT 146 KENDALL AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCELS NO. 6-54-5-10 (OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY PARCELS NO. 160 AND
161) AND A PORTION OF 6-54-5-12 (OLD ITHACA LAND PARCEL NO. 159, BEING
A PORTION OF A PARCEL PRESENTLY KNOWN AS 148 KENDALL AVENUE) . PERMITS
ARE DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2; ARTICLE III ,
SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2, SUB-PARAGRAPH 2b, 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 : 46 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Messrs.
Iacovelli and Mazza were present. Chairman Aron read aloud from the
Appeal Form as signed and submitted by James Iacovelli under date of
August 12 , 1985 , as follows: " . . .Having been denied permission to
construct two, two family dwellings at 241 Pennsylvania Avenue and 146
Kendall Avenue. . . 1 . It' s impractical to build 6 small houses. 2 .
Building larger houses allows for better quality construction. 3 .
There are precedents in the neighborhood. 4 . Density of occupancy is
no greater though less buildings are used. 5 . This provides for more
committed open space. 6 . Six 50 ' lots are dedicated to these two
structures . "
For the record, in addition to the Appeal Form, the Board members
each had before him/her copies of the following documents .
1 . A completed Short Environmental Assessment Form, as completed,
signed, and submitted by James Iacovelli under date of August 12 ,
1985 [Part I] , indicating the project name as Pennsylvania Avenue
and Kendall Ave. , and describing the project as 2 - two family
. Zoning Board of Appeals 25 August 21 , 1985 .
to be brought in to do that, and also a longer driveway would be
required to get to it. Attorney Mazza stated that the ideal place is
probably "here" [indicating] but the sewer line is there, noting,
again, that you cannot build over a sewer line or too close to it.
Mr. Rosenberg asked if there were no possibility of moving the sewer
line. Mr. Iacovelli stated that he was told, no. Mr. Rosenberg
wondered what the cost would be. Mr. Iacovelli replied that there
would be extra costs for fill, longer driveways, utilities , and so on,
but, really, the most cost would be the view.
Mrs . Krook wondered what Mr . Iacovelli will have done to the
neighbor, David Badner, and his view from the balcony. Mr. Iacovelli
stated that he will not interfere with his balcony in any way.
Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 8 :40 p.m.
Mr. Cartee recalled that about 12 or 15 months ago, the Board had
a similar request for this barn which was denied. Mr. King pointed
out that that request was to actually use the barn and rehabilitate it
as a dwelling. Mr. King asked what the present height of the barn is.
Mr. Iacovelli stated that the barn is going down , but, to the peak it
is about 22 feet. Mr. King asked how high the proposed house is to
be, to which Mr. Iacovelli responded, almost the same, adding that it
will be two-storied with a basement.
Mrs . Reuning stated that she felt that, since there has been some
confusion as to this address and where it is, and also, she felt that
she would like to walk the property and see precisely what is being
talked about, she would suggest adjourning the matter. Mr. King
stated that he was inclined to agree with Mrs. Reuning, adding that,
also, he would like to have an opportunity to have more members of the
Board present. Mr. King stated that he would also suggest that the
Appeal be re-advertised to show the Pine Tree Road location in
addition.
Attorney Mazza allowed as how he was somewhat confused, and asked
Mr. King if he [Mazza] understood correctly that the matter is to be
re-advertised to have more public here after the Public Hearing has
been closed. Mr. King stated that that was correct. Attorney Mazza
inquired of the Chair if he were going to re-open the hearing, with
Chairman Aron responding, yes.
MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning, seconded by Mr. Edward King:
RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, that the
Public Hearing in the matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal be and
hereby is adjourned to the next meeting of said Board, September 18 ,
1985 , commencing at 7:00 p.m.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Aron , Reuning, King.
Nay - None.
Zoning Board of Appeals 27 August 21 , 1985
houses , and, as reviewed by the Town Planner, Mr. ,Lovi, under
date of August 13 , 1985 [Parts II and III] , as follows :
"TOWN OF ITHACA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PART II: Project Impacts and Their Magnitudes
RE: James Iacovelli , Pennsylvania Avenue, two-family houses
Impacts on Land
1. There will be no adverse environmental impact as a result of
physical changes to the project site. This conclusion is
based upon the fact that the two houses to be constructed
will be built on six adjacent lots with a total area in
excess of 53 ,400 square feet. Each of the two -buildings is
68 ' long (including an attached deck) and 30 ' wide, for, a
total lot coverage of 2 , 040 square feet. The total coverage
for both houses is 4, 080 square feet, or less than 8% of the
gross lot area. As a maximum lot coverage of 25% is per-
mitted in an R9 district, I believe that the physical
changes to the site as a result of construction will be
minimal.
2. There are no unusual landforms on the site which would be
adversely affected by this project. This - conclusion is
based upon an examination of a Townwide map of unique
physiographic formations prepared by the Tompkins County
Planning Department and referred to as part of our Town
Comprehensive Plan.
• Impact on Water
3 . There are no protected water bodies which would be affected
by this project. This conclusion is based upon an exami-
nation of a Townwide map of watersheds and surface drainage
prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department. There
are no streams on the site and excess surface drainage will
be intercepted by the roadside ditch along Kendall Avenue
and carried off in the regular drainage system.
4 . There are no non-protected water bodies which would be
affected as a result of this project. This conclusion is _
also based upon an examination of the watersheds and surface
drainage map cited above .
5. This project will have no effect on groundwater quality.
This conclusion is based upon the fact that both buildings
will be connected to the Town ' s sanitary sewer system.
6 . This project has a small potential impact on drainage flow
and surface water runoff. The construction of the common
Zoning Board of Appeals 28 August 21 , 1985 '
parking lot between the two buildings will concentrate
surface runoff. The total surface area of this parking area
will be (44 ' x 56 ' ) 2 ,464 square feet , exclusive of the
driveway from Pennsylvania Avenue and the turnaround at the
north end of the lot (estimated additional area based on
128 ' length and 12 ' width of pavement: 1 ,536 square feet) .
The driveway and the parking area will be paved ( .9 runoff
coefficient) . Adding the roof coverage of 4,080 square feet
gives a total impervious surface of 8 , 080 square feet with
an average runoff coefficient of 95 percent. This amount of
impervious surface is approximately 15% of the gross lot
area. The time of concentration is assumed to be 15
minutes. In order to accommodate a five-year storm of 1 .5
inches of rainfall per hour, the site should be graded so
that the drainageway to Kendall Avenue can handle a minimum
flow of . 12 ft3/second.
Impact on Air
7 . This project will not have an adverse environmental impact
on air quality. This conclusion is based upon the fact that
these new houses will be built to State Code insulation
requirements and should be more thermally efficient than the
average home in the Town of Ithaca. Air pollutants from the
home furnaces should be below average when computed on a per
capita basis.
Impact on Plants and Animals
8 . There are no known threatened or endangered species of plant
or animal which will be adversely affected by this project.
This conclusion is based on an examination of maps prepared
by the Tompkins County Planning Department describing Game
Habitats , Unique Wildlife Habitats, and Forest Land and
Unique Floral Regions.
9 . There will be no adverse environmental impact on
non-endangered or non-threatened species of plants and
animals. This conclusion is also based on an examination of
maps prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department
describing Game Habitats , Unique Wildlife Habitats, and
Forest Land and Unique Floral Regions.
Impact on Visual Resources
10 . The project will have no adverse impact on views , vistas , or
other aspects of the neighborhood or community visual
character. This conclusion is based upon the fact that in
this area, the present R9 zoning designation and the
approved Ithaca Land Company subdivision would permit a one
or two-family home with as much as 2,250 square feet of lot
coverage to be built on each of the six affected lots . In
addition, a public street known as Maryland Avenue would
have to be constructed to serve that portion of tax parcel
Zoning Board of Appeals 29 August 21 , 1985
number 54-5-38 which is designated as #129 on the Ithaca
Land Company plat. A development of this sort would be
considerably more disruptive of the neighborhood character
and aesthetics than the proposed buildings. In addition,
the old, unattractive house presently located on tax parcel
number 54-5-40 (#241 Pennsylvania Avenue) will be torn down
as part of this action.
Impact on Historical Resources
11 . This project will not impact upon any site or structure of
historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance. This
conclusion in based on the fact that five of the six parcels
included as part of this action are presently open land and
that the sixth parcel contains a house of no historic value.
It is unlikely that the land itself contains any artifacts
of pre-historic or paleontological importance. This judg-
ment is based upon the evidence that a considerable amount
of building and development in this area has not produced
evidence of any artifacts at this time .
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
12 . This project will have no negative impact on the quality or
quantity of existing and future open spaces or recreational
opportunities in the community. Neither the Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan nor the Ithaca Land
Company plat provide for any dedicated recreation area on _
this , site. To the extent that the proposed development
reduces that mass of buildings which would otherwise be-
permitted, it will have a positive effect on the preser-
vation of open space in the neighborhood.
Impact on Transportation
13 . This project will have an impact on the existing
transportation system. Based upon traffic counts for
similar residential neighborhoods in the Town, it is esti-
mated that traffic flow on Pennsylvania Avenue is less than
500 cars per day. The parking area for the two buildings
provides space for 14 cars. Based upon an assumption of 14
cars each making 4 trips per day, these two buildings may
add more than 55+ trips per day to Pennsylvania Avenue.
This would represent an increase of approximately 10 percent
to the estimated daily traffic flow. This increase may be
considered significant but is well within standards for
residential neighborhoods elsewhere in the Town.
Impact on Energy
14 . This project will have no significant effect on the
community' s sources of fuel and energy. This conclusion is
based upon the fact that these houses are typical two-family
- homes which, even if built to the most energy-efficient
Zoning Board of Appeals 30 August 21 , 1985
insulation standards , could have only a marginal effect on
the community ' s overall energy use.
Impact on Noise
15 . There will be no significant odors, glare, vibration or
electrical disturbances as a result of this project. This
conclusion is based upon the fact that glare, vibration and
electrical disturbances are not associated with residential
construction of this type. The increase in traffic flow
along Pennsylvania Avenue has been described and considered
above. However, since the resulting traffic flow is consi-
dered to be well within neighborhood standards and the
increase in traffic will be private cars and not trucks, the
increase in noise is not considered to be significant.
Impact on Health and Hazards
16 . This project will have no significant impact on public
health and safety. This conclusion is based upon the fact
that the construction of one and two family houses has been
determined by the Town Board to be a permitted use which
will not adversely affect the public health, safety and
welfare. The two buildings will be constructed in confor-
mance with the New York State Life Safety Code and will be
inspected by our Building Inspector before a Certificate of
Occupancy may be issued .
Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
17 . This project will have no adverse impact on the growth and
character of the existing community. This conclusion is
based upon the fact that on March 20 , 1985 the Zoning Board
of Appeals approved a variance for the construction of a
pair of two-family homes at 145 and 147 Kendall Avenue.
These homes are substantially identical to the buildings
proposed to be constructed in the present action and were
permitted to be occupied by no more than seven unrelated
persons in each building. Two parcels of land, #130 and
#131 of the Ithaca Land Company plat, were dedicated as open
space to accompany this variance .
The present action is extremely similar to the variance
already approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Six
parcels rather than five are proposed to be dedicated, and
these parcels to be dedicated are contiguous to the two
parcels previously reserved as open space. The construction
of these buildings and others by Mr. Iacovelli and others in
the past five years is establishing a standard of construc-
tion quality and lot coverage which is more characteristic
of R15 residential neighborhoods elsewhere in the Town. The
standards of residential occupancy are somewhat lower than
would be permitted according to the R9 standards of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Zoning Board of Appeals 31 August 21 , 1985
•
18 . There is no public controversy concerning the project at
this time. This conclusion is based upon comments received
by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department as of August 13 ,
1985 . It is possible that negative comments may be received
prior to, or at the time of, the Public Hearing on August
21 , 1985 .
REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATION:
This project is an Unlisted action according to Local Law #3,
1980 . Given the expected impacts which this project appears to
have on the environment, I recommend that a negative declaration
of environmental significance be made . "
2 . A portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Map No. 54 showing the six lots
involved in the Iacovelli Appeal.
3 . Site Plan of proposal for two dwelling structures and parking
with 14 spaces on property with frontage on Pennsylvania Avenue
and Kendall Avenue.
Chairman Aron asked Mr. Iacovelli if there were anything he
wished to add to his statement on the Appeal Form. Attorney Mazza,
noting that he was representing Mr. Iacovelli in this matter also,
stated that this is a situation similar to others he [Mazza] has had
before the Board with Mr. Iacovelli and others. Attorney Mazza stated
that the proposal involves "old" Ithaca Land Company lots , 50 feet in
width, which are legal non-conforming lots. Attorney Mazza stated
that, in this case, Mr. Iacovelli actually owns six of them. Attorney
Mazza appended the Site Plan to the bulletin board and, indicating
thereon, stated that there currently is a structure there and Mr.
Iacovelli currently owns that structure. Attorney Mazza stated that
the other five lots are vacant. Attorney Mazza pointed out on his
copy of Tax Map #54 the location of "Maryland Avenue" , which he termed
a "paper street" , ' and which he noted is a street shown on a tax map,
or subdivision map, but which does not exist because it has actually
not been constructed. Attorney Mazza commented that, probably, the
Town would like for it never to be built. Attorney Mazza stated that,
by doing this project in this way, and because one of these old lots
fronts on this "Maryland Avenue" [#129] , it is one more reason not to
build it. Attorney Mazza pointed out that there are other lots to be
dedicated also. Attorney Mazza stated that the zoning ordinance
allows for Mr. Iacovelli to build six single family residences on each
of these six lots , in each of which are permitted three unrelated
persons, pointing out that, therefore, there could be 18 unrelated
persons which would be perfectly legal. Attorney Mazza, indicating on
the tax map, stated that there could be a house and a driveway, a
house and driveway, etc. , on all of these lots. Attorney Mazza stated
that if the Board were to look at the Preamble of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance, it would see that its purpose includes the lessening
of congestion in the streets, the provision of adequate light and air,
the prevention of the overcrowding of land, and so. Attorney Mazza
stated that this project will not increase density; it will not
increase traffic. Attorney Mazza stated that Mr. Iacovelli proposes
16 unrelated persons on all of these lots, less than what is
Zoning Board of Appeals 32 August 21 , 1985 .
permitted, so traffic is not increased, water use is not increased,
sewer use is not increased. Attorney Mazza stated that there is more
open space , more yard space, more light and ventilation, with what Mr.
Iacovelli is proposing to do.
Attorney Mazza, referring to the site plan, described it.
Attorney Mazza pointed out the parking area, stating that the parking
is hidden. Attorney Mazza described the bank that is on this property
and noted that the one house will be almost invisible. Attorney Mazza
stated that, if the Board has looked at Mr. Iacovelli ' s homes on
Kendall Avenue, it knows that they look fantastic -- far better than
some other structures in the area. Attorney Mazza reiterated that
"all of this" [indicating] will be dedicated to these two structures
through the grant of Restrictive Covenant , as they have done before.
Attorney Mazza noted again that the parking is off the road and
pointed out the nice yard space. Attorney •Mazza stated that this will
be a well done project, especially since this is in his [Iacovelli ' s]
back yard . Attorney Mazza pointed out that Mr. Iacovelli lives right
next door at 148 Kendall Avenue .
Attorney Mazza spoke to the logistics of the project, stating
that this project would be built during the occupancy of the existing
house, shown on the site plan by dotted lines, however, there will be
no overlapping occupancy and, so, the density would not be greater.
Attorney Mazza stated that this building, 241 Pennsylvania Avenue,
would be removed by the time of occupancy of the two new structures.
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to the matter of this Iacovelli Appeal .
Mr . Lawrence Rosenberg, 38 Dove Drive, spoke from the floor and
stated that his concern here is, again, with duplexes in nature. Mr.
Rosenberg stated that we have a zoning ordinance which restricts that,
even in R9 as well as R15 . Mr. Rosenberg stated that he thought
having two structures like this and allowing four unrelated persons in
each unit, which would make 16 people, is too dense. Mr. Rosenberg
stated that he did not know either if the parking would be adequate.
Mr. Iacovelli stated that there are 16 spaces. Mr. Rosenberg wondered
about people having two cars, or guests. Mr. Rosenberg stated that he
realized that these are somewhat different lots with different footage
involved, and; although he did have difficulty with really following
the occupancy rules and regulations in this area, there are other
problems involved with over-occupancy. Chairman Aron wondered what
Mr. Rosenberg' s other problems were. Mr. Rosenberg stated that one is
on-street parking. Attorney Mazza wondered how this project would
create an on-street parking problem, noting the parking area shown.
Mrs. Pamela Rosenberg pointed out that the proposal involves 16 units
based on 50-foot lots, adding that if the lots were full-sized, there
could be 9 unrelated persons under the intended character of R9 . Mrs.
Rosenberg stated that, with this proposal, there could be 32 people,
if they were couples. Mrs . Rosenberg expressed her concern about both
cars being on the street in this area all over the place and absentee
ownership. Attorney Mazza stated that if you had a couple in one of
the units , that would be a family, so you could not have a situation
.. Zoning Board of Appeals 33 August 21 , 1985
as Mrs. Rosenberg suggested. Mrs. Rosenberg offered, however, that it
could happen. Attorney Mazza pointed out that anything could happen.
Mrs. Rosenberg stated that in a two-family residence in R9 you could
have a family in each unit, adding that there could be more such that
these four units could have 12 people, 4 less than the 16 requested.
Mr. Rosenberg asked Mr. Iacovelli if he would be owning these units or
will they be for sale. Mr. Iacovelli responded that he does not sell
his houses . Attorney Mazza stated that he would point out that at
some point in time properties get sold. Mr. Rosenberg pointed out
that Mr. Iacovelli lives there in the area. Attorney Mazza noted that
Mr. Iacovelli has six daughters whose futures he is thinking about.
Attorney Mazza stated that they do this in various parts of the Town
and, someday, his daughters can live upstairs and rent the downstairs .
Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 05 p.m.
Chairman Aron stated that he went out to the property in question
and looked at it, and walked it, and he has seen Mr. Iacovelli' s house
which is on Kendall Avenue and behind his own real property. Chairman
Aron stated that he would suggest for the Board, before making any
decisions, to go down and look over the property and see what is
behind it, in front of it, and so on. Chairman Aron stated that
across the road from this project are two buildings that Mr. Iacovelli
has built which are quality type buildings . Attorney Mazza asked if
Chairman Aron were referring to the two duplexes that were built in
accordance with a previous request that was granted in March with 14
unrelated persons, with Chairman Aron responding, yes. Mr. King.
stated that he would agree with the Chairman ' s suggestion. Attorney
Mazza asked Mr. Iacovelli when he wanted to start building. Mr.
Iacovelli responded that we are getting into a time of difficult
weather conditions and winter will be here before we know it.
Attorney Mazza asked when the Board might take up the matter again
after visiting the site. Chairman Aron stated that the Board meets
next on September 18th. Mr. Iacovelli stated that it is getting late ,
that is the only thing, and with two houses and winter construction,
time is a problem. Mr. King stated that, personally, he wanted to see
it, commenting that he had trouble envisioning it without being on the
site. Attorney Mazza stated that he was not suggesting that Mr. King
or the Board not go; he was suggesting an adjournment to a date not a
month away. Attorney Mazza stated that Mr. Iacovelli would like to
get the project going, and suggested that the Board might consider a
Special Meeting, commenting that that has been done at the Planning
Board. Chairman Aron stated that he had no problem with a special
meeting. The Board members indicating no problem either, Chairman
Aron stated that the Board members , excluding him since he had already
been there , together with the Secretary , would meet at 9 :00 a.m. ,
Saturday morning, [August 24 , 1985] , at 241 Pennsylvania Avenue, to
look over the situation. Chairman Aron asked the Secretary to notify
Mr. Austen and Mr. Hewett of this meeting to visit the site.
MOTION by Mr. Henry Aron, seconded by Mr. Edward King :
RESOLVED, that the matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal with
respect to property on Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenues be and hereby
Zoning Board of Appeals 34 August 21 , 1985
is adjourned until Wednesday, August 28 , 1985 , at 12 :00 o' clock, Noon,
Town Hall Meeting Room.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Aron, Reuning, King.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Iacovelli Appeal duly
adjourned at 9: 15 p.m.
Mr. King submitted into the record, the Restrictive Covenant,
which had been recorded in the County Clerk' s Office, with respect to
Mr. Iacovelli' s Appeal on his property at 145-149 Kendall Avenue
[March 20 , 19851 .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairman Aron declared the August 21 , 1985 meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9 : 20
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals.
Henry Aron, Chairman
:7.
,
..c.,............,
•
..-
TLZj . j f / // A
` Y /J O!e /,/IR+K.
'�-` f • 1
... r. /ii i
f a .
-1- 1 '• i
1 '-.1. , • i •
/ ,, / .•
,
/4 k Miipto ssC
i
/ / r ,alp • X/ - ___ I .. II37
/ _` / �•
/ � z-.i i
/ r : ,. Af
•
S
• am 0
/2- g/ 5 lam, jag N. 1w ' ~ II DO �+ ; — MDIw lMS •MI alrl.lIl r/ w 1w mg
I 1
I I / _�
+� '�1441, tn•+caR �r / / ;/ % , ?.�
I
• .�`- ' ,• // / \\ 4,0, I I + ., / /', ` �`
/ / t ___ ~ +P ' / `\ // / ♦ /�
-.• 1♦ / j ` / 1 / \ / % / ,/
. y � / / ♦ / / / t\ / / /ram
.44
.416 11'. iiir
..4.
. / / \ / / -1.-` / / /' ,'
\\ /'' •�C,� / \` , , '''' ; may/ \*46 , , , \
/ /
.....4
--- ....z....---,At./ ‘4741. .. , i iliti. .......,,
\/ + / I.�\ ,• ' • \ / '• t \ I \
2f
/ a •
\fi \ \
',,"f \�\\ �: /S \\`\\` /ai / `• •r ! 0.a �`+L I . 1 //
r
/- / f \ /.
oft
• • \ It \ _ 21 1
SO t \d\ r �I ♦ • \ \ \ I f .b I •,
LIS AG �\ w / _ ' - `\ — I I 1 A
/' . ' • 4300;\\\ + I \� \ '
• •�, • A
I + \� \ '
1.
• 1 •\\< /• , -.moue
\\\ • •1 , \ ,II , 1 I
,
\\\ / ye 1•1• \ W n 1 + I�oft. 8 ifa ; 41. / 4. i
rw r
\1 ru \\ as
1,.. I '• - -- swain
\\\ 4Oas
, I 1 /� Y •
\\ 1 ( ' 1031
V ]4 33 sl 70 !f tf
1 ' 1 1 ; 1 I '} 1 1
\\\ w w 1 •. r sr w 1 • • 1 M I -, - • L I - I - r - 1 - 1 • .r
\ \ (tire --��- �Y I I N' I '
\ \ -1
53 .
-SPECIAL DISTRICT DIFICRIACION - LEGEND
/!o•CrQI IPMAGA COMEN.14ATCD
w▪ wu►u•I_ -- [SUIIIPTT 4 ��� wrs rr+w►ua �— aEa•�
M▪ UM S. •un .��— a+r•.w•rsr ur .. ............ MaA•r.��.
TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $10.00 _
126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED:
Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH - ( )
(607) 273-1747
CHECK - ( �)
APPEAL ZONING: /2-9
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 (2672.the. d 7ivd CiE-�-eat J
j Y
at T / jiL /V , 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) , 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 :
&(,/hec -
.?L )3_4_te„ee_eA.L.:;;
/2 2_ -Z3'4/1
A;r,vf,c,421.;14'<,1
Dated: Signed:
PROJECT I.D.NUMBER
iI NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
_ DIVISION OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS
VI\ State Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART I Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor)
1. Applicant/sponsor 2. Project Name
e)A�Me4 IA. co VE-�.1-I I p£�-►N 5y LvA4-1 IA -A-vt i U
3. Project location:
Municipality /7f4 County --7-0 P!/- 1,f_s
4. Is proposed action.
New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modification/alteration
5. Describe project briefly: •
a—mod Pi-M►ty /use S
•
6 Precise location(road intersections, prominent landmarks,etc or provide map)
E ' �1'rE J�L�ri-i
7. Amount of land affected�
/ ed
Initially 1 ' w 1 / aetes Ultimately i' LeIT'J acre_
8 Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions?
❑ Yes ® No If No,describe briefly
9 What is present land use in vicinity of project?
Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture 0 Parkland/open space ❑ Other
Describe
10 Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or ultimately,from any other governmental agency(Federal,state or local)?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, list agency(s)and permit/approvals
- I
11 Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval?
❑ Yes I!�-No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval type _
•
12 As result of proposed action will existing permit/approval require modification?
❑ Yes ® No
I CERTIFY THAT THEINFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/sponsor name A-A --5 IA 06VEC-1i1 Date i VST /Z
• Signature •
•
- if the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
•OVER
PART II Environmental Assessment (To be completed by Agency)
A Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 61712? If yes,coordinate the review process and use the FULL/LONG FORM EAF.
❑ Yes ❑ No
B. Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR,Part 617.7? If No.a negative declaration may be superceded by another
involved action
❑ Yes ❑ No
C. Could action result in ANY adverse effects on,to,or arising from the following (Answers may be handwritten, if legible)
Cl. 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?Explain briefly.
C2 Historic,archeological,visual or aesthetic,or other natural or cultural resources,agricultural districts;or community or neighborhood character?Explain briefly
C3 Vegetation or fauna,movement of fish or wildlife species,significant habitats,or threatened or endangered species?Explain briefly.
C4 A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted,or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?Explain briefly.
C5 Growth,subsequent development,or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly
C6 Secondary,cumulative,or other effects not identified in C1-C6?Explain briefly. •
C7 A change in use of either quantity or type of energy?Explain briefly.
PART Ill Determination of Significance(To be completed by Agency)
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
materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all,relevant adverse impacts have been identified
and adequately addressed.
0 Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then
proceed directly to the FULL/LONG FORM EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration.
0 Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide here, and on
attachments as necessary, the reasons supportng this determination:
•
•
Agency Name Agency Preparer's Name
Preparer's Signature/Title Date
• r
TOWN OF ITHACA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PART II: Project Impacts and Their Magnitudes
RE: James Iacovelli, Pennsylvania Avenue, two-family houses
Impacts on Land
1. There will be no adverse environmental impact as a result of
physical changes to the project site. This conclusion is
based upon the fact that the two houses to be constructed
will be built on six adjacent lots with a total area in
excess of 53 ,400 square feet. Each of the two buildings is
68 ' long (including an attached deck) and 30 ' wide, for a
total lot coverage of 2 ,040 square feet. The total coverage
for both houses is 4 ,080 square feet, or less than 8% of the
gross lot area. As a maximum lot coverage of 25% is per-
mitted in an R9 district, I believe that the physical
changes to the site as a result of construction will be
minimal.
2. There are no unusual landforms on the site which would be
adversely affected by this project. This conclusion is
based upon an examination of a Townwide map of unique
physiographic formations prepared by the Tompkins County
Planning Department and referred to as part of our Town
Comprehensive Plan.
Impact on Water
3. There are no protected water bodies which would be affected
by this project. This conclusion is based upon an exami-
nation of a Townwide map of watersheds and surface drainage
prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department. There
are no streams on the site and excess surface drainage will
be intercepted by the roadside ditch along Kendall Avenue
and carried off in the regular drainage system.
4 . There are no non-protected water bodies which would be
affected as a result of this project. This conclusion is
also based upon an examination of the watersheds and surface
drainage map cited above.
5. This project will have no effect on groundwater quality.
This conclusion is based upon the fact that both buildings
will be connected to the Town' s sanitary sewer system.
6 . This project has a small potential impact on drainage flow
and surface water runoff. The construction of the common
parking lot between the two buildings will concentrate
•
surface runoff. The total surface area of this parking area
will be (44 ' x 56 ' ) 2,464 square feet, exclusive of the
driveway from Pennsylvania Avenue and the turnaround at the
north end of the lot (estimated additional area based on
128 ' length and 12 ' width of pavement: 1 ,536 square feet) .
The driveway and the parking area will be paved ( . 9 runoff
coefficient) . Adding the roof coverage of 4 ,080 square feet
gives a total impervious surface of 8 ,080 square feet with
an average runoff coefficient of 95 percent. This amount of
impervious surface is approximately 15% of the gross lot
area. The time of concentration is assumed to be 15
minutes. In order to accomodate a five-year storm of 1.5
inches of rainfall per hour, the site should be graded so
that the drainageway to Kendall Avenue can handle a minimum
flow of . 12 ft3/second.
Impact on Air
7. This project will not have an adverse environmental impact ,
on air quality. This conclusion is based upon the fact that
these new houses will be built to State Code insulation
requirements and should be more thermally efficient than the
average home in the Town of Ithaca. Air pollutants from the
home furnaces should be below average when computed on a per
capita basis.
Impact on Plants and Animals
8. There are no known threatened or endangered species of plant
or animal which will be adversely affected by this project .
This conclusion is based on an examination of maps prepared
by the Tompkins County Planning Department describing Game
Habitats , Unique Wildlife Habitats , and Forest Land and
Unique Floral Regions.
9. There will be no adverse environmental impact on
non-endangered or non-threatened species of plants and
animals. This conclusion is also based on an examination of
maps prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department
describing Game Habitats , Unique Wildlife Habitats , and
Forest Land and Unique Floral Regions.
Impact on Visual Resources
10 . The project will have no adverse impact on views, vistas, or
other aspect,s..,of the neighborhood or community visual
character. This conclusion is based upon the fact that in
this area, the present R9 zoning designation and the
approved Ithaca Land Company subdivision would permit a one
or two-family home with as much as 2,250 square feet of lot
coverage to be built on each of the six affected lots. In
addition, a public street known as Maryland Avenue would
have to be constructed to serve that portion of tax parcel
number 54-5-38 which is designated as #129 on the Ithaca
Land Company plat. A development of this sort would be
considerably more disruptive of the neighborhood character
and aesthetics than the proposed buildings . In addition,
the old, unattractive house presently located on tax parcel
number 54-5-40 (#241 Pennsylvania Avenue) will be torn down
as part of this action.
Impact on Historical Resources
11. This project will not impact upon any site or structure of
historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance. This
conclusion in based on the fact that five of the six parcels
included as part of this action are presently open land and
that the sixth parcel contains a house of no historic value.
It is unlikely that the land itself contains any artifacts
of pre-historic or paleontological importance. This judg-
ment is based upon the evidence that a considerable amount
of building and development in this area has not produced
evidence of any artifacts at this time.
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
12. This project will have no negative impact on the quality or
quantity of existing and future open spaces or recreational
opportunities in the community. Neither the Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan nor the Ithaca Land
Company plat provide for any dedicated recreation area on
this site. To the extent that the proposed development
reduces that mass of buildings which would otherwise be
permitted, it will have a positive effect on the preser-
vation "of open space in the neighborhood.
Impact on Transportation
13 . This project will have an impact on the existing
transportation system. Based upon traffic counts for
similar residential neighborhoods in the Town, it is esti-
mated that traffic flow on Pennsylvania Avenue is less than
500 cars per day. The parking area for the two buildings
provides space for 14 cars. Based upon an assumption of 14
cars each making 4 trips per day, these two buildings may
add more than 55+ trips per day to Pennsylvania Avenue.
This would represent an increase of approximately 10 percent
to the estimated daily traffic flow. This increase may be
considered significant but is well within standards for
residential neighborhoods elsewhere in the Town.
Impact on Energy
14 . This project will have no significant effect on the
community' s sources of fuel and energy. This conclusion is
based upon the fact that these houses are typical two-family
homes which, even if built to the most energy-efficient
insulation standards, could have only a marginal effect on
the community's overall energy use.
Impact on Noise
15 . There will be no significant odors, glare, vibration or
electrical disturbances as a result of this project. This
conclusion is based upon the fact that glare, vibration and
electrical disturbances are not associated with residential
construction of this type. The increase in traffic flow
along Pennsylvania Avenue has been described and considered
above. However, since the resulting traffic flow is consi-
dered to be well within neighborhood standards and the
increase in traffic will be private cars and not trucks, the
increase in noise is not considered to be significant.
Impact on Health and Hazards
16 . This project will have no significant impact on public
health and safety. This conclusion is based upon the fact
that the construction of one and two family houses has been
determined by the Town Board to be a permitted use which
will not adversely affect the public health, safety and
welfare. The two buildings will be constructed in confor-
mance with the New York State Life Safety Code and will be
inspected by our Building Inspector before a Certificate of
Occupancy may be issued.
Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
17. This project will have no adverse impact on the growth and
character of the existing community. This conclusion is
based upon the fact that on March 20 , 1985 the Zoning Board
of Appeals approved a variance for the construction of a
pair of two-family homes at 145 and 147 Kendall Avenue.
These homes are substantially identical to the buildings
proposed to be constructed in the present action and were
permitted to be occupied by no more than seven unrelated
persons in each building. Two parcels of land, #130 and
#131 of the Ithaca Land Company plat, were dedicated as open
space to accompany this variance.
The present action is extremely similar to the variance
already approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Six
parcels rather than five are proposed -to be dedicated, and
that these parcels to be dedicated are contiguous to the two
parcels previously reserved as open space. The construction
of these buildings and others by Mr. Iacovelli and others in
the past five years is establishing a standard of construc-
tion quality and lot coverage which is more characteristic
of R15 residential neighborhoods elsewhere in the Town. The
standards of residential occupancy are somewhat lower that
would be permitted according to the R9 standards of the
Zoning Ordinance.
e .
18. There is no public controversy concerning the project at
this time. This conclusion is based upon comments received
by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department as of August 13 ,
1985 . It is possible that negative comments may be received
prior to, or at the time of, the Public Hearing on August
21 , 1985 .
REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATION:
This project is an Unlisted action according to Local Law #3 ,
1980 . Given the expected impacts which this project appears to
have on the environment, I recommend that a negative declaration
of environmental significance be made.
Reviewer' s Name: P- - . Lovi To n '• .nner
_
Signature: - �� Date: 513g
Lead Agency Chairman: He Aron, Zoning Board of Appeals
Signature: Date: 8/ 8 c