Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Special Approval 11/20/1985 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 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, November 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 August 21 , 1985 , September 18 , 1985 , and October 23 , 1985) , with clarified Notice, 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 on a portion of the foundation of an existing barn with side yard and rear yard deficiencies, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel ' No. 6-58-2-22 .41 , said parcel location being designated as "Slaterville Road" on 1985 Town of Ithaca Assessment Roll, however, having frontage on both Slaterville Road and Pine Tree Road, said parcel being located between 1476 Slaterville ,Road and 110 Pine Tree Road and between 1476 Slaterville Road and 1462 Slaterville Road. Permit is denied under Article IV, Section 14, and Article XIV, Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR THE REHEARING OF THE APPEAL of Joseph N. Freedman, Appellant, in re a Special Permit for the occupancy of a single family dwelling , in Residence District R9 , by five unrelated persons, at 230-232 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-54-7-13 and 6-54-7-14 (Old Ithaca Land Company Tract Parcels No. 87 and 88) . APPEAL of Joseph N . Freedman, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Special Permit for the occupancy of a single family dwelling, in Residence District R9 , by five unrelated persons, at 230-232 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-54-7-13 and 6-54-7-14 (Old Ithaca Land Company Tract Parcels No. 87 and 88) , such Special Permit being applied for pursuant to Article III , Section 4 , Paragraph 2 , Sub-paragraph 2b, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Permit is denied under Article III , Section 4, Paragraph 2 , Sub-paragraph 2b, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Lawrence E. Iacovelli Jr . , Appellant, Edward A. Mazza , Attorney, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Special Permit for the occupancy of a two-family dwelling, in Residence District R9 , by six (6) unrelated persons (no more than four (4) in one unit and no more than two (2) in the other unit) , at 178 Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-5-23 (Old Ithaca Land Company Tract Parcels No. 140 , 141 , and 142) , such Special Permit being applied for pursuant to Article III , Section 4 , Paragraph 2 , Sub-paragraph 2b, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Permit is denied under Article III, Section 4 , Paragraph 2 , Sub-paragraph 2b, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of William W. Steele, Appellant, Edward A. Mazza, Attorney, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Special Permit for the occupancy of a two-family dwelling, in Residence District R9 , by six (6) unrelated persons (no more than three (3) in each unit) at 119-121 Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-4-40 , (Old Ithaca Land Company Tract Parcels No. 180 and 181) , such Special Permit being applied for pursuant to Article III , Section 4 , Paragraph 2 , Sub-paragraph 2b, " of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Permit is denied under Article III , Section 4 , Paragraph 2 , Sub-paragraph 2b, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Carl R. Updike, Appellant, Anna K. Stuliglowa , Belcor Realty, Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission to use an existing structure previously used for poultry research, in an Agricultural District (Residence Districts R30 uses permitted) , for the storage of boats and motor vehicles , at 1478 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-27-1-24 . Permission is denied under Article XI, Section 51 , and Article V, Section 18 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. -(Continued on Page 2) Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 Notice of Public Hearings , November 20 , 1985 ; APPEAL of Simeon Moss, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Building Permit for the construction of an addition to an existing, legal non-conforming (side yard less than 10 feet) , single family dwelling , at 145 Pearsall Place, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-2-7 . Permit is denied under Article XII, Section 54 , and Article XIV, Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Tompkins County, Appellant , Frank R. Liguori, Commissioner of Planning, Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission for the occupancy of approximately 6 ,000 sq. ft. of professional office space in West Wing - "C" of Biggs Center (Old Hospital) to Odyssey Research Associates Inc. for computer research, and, for the use two existing apartments in the- "F" Wing for . residential space, at 1285 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-3-2 . 2 . Permission is denied under Article V, Section 18 , 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: November 12 , 1985 Publish: November 15 , 1985 Zoning Board of Appeals 3 November 20 , 1985 plans are almost ready, adding that they will be ready for the next meeting. Mrs . Reuning stated that that barn is not in very good' shape. - MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, that the matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal with' respect to property at Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road, be and- hereby is adjourned, as requested, to the next meeting of this Board in December. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Aron, Hewett, King, Reuning. Nay - None. - - - The -MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. - Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in and the matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal duly adjourned, further, to December 18 , 1985 , at 7: 00 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR THE _ REHEARING OF THE -APPEAL OF JOSEPH N. FREEDMAN, APPELLANT, IN -RE A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 , BY FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS, AT 230-232 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6-54-7-13 AND 6-54-7-14 (OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY TRACT PARCELS NO. 87 AND 88) . The following documents were before the Board. 1 . Letter dated October 28 , 1985 , from Joseph N. Freedman to Henry Aron, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Ithaca, reading -as follows: - - - "Dear Mr. Aron: This letter will serve as my formal request for a rehearing concerning the boards negative decision of 10/23/85 on my request for a special permit to allow 5 unrelated parties in an R9 area. In my opinion, the information submitted by me during the ' 9/18/85 and 10/23/85 meetings was factual, complete and more than sufficient to gain a favorable decision by the board. The next Zoning Board of appeals meeting is scheduled for November 20 , 1985 . Should the board approve this request for a rehearing, then - I further request that I be placed at the beginning of the evenings agenda since this -matter is of a continuing nature and no new business for the board. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Zoning Board of Appeals 4 November 20 , 1985 Respectfully Submitted, (sgd. ) Joseph N. Freedman JOSEPH N. FREEDMAN Cys. :Zoning Board of Appeals-Members Richard Mulvey, Esq. Supervisor - Town of Ithaca Mr. Lewis Cartee" 2. Minutes, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of September 18 , 1985 . 3 . Minutes , Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of October 23 , 1985 . Chairman Aron opened the discussion at 7:18 p.m. and stated that the Board had before it a request for a rehearing of the Joseph N. Freedman Appeal. Chairman Aron stated that he was now asking the Board whether the Board would like to rehear this appeal. Chairman Aron stated that he would poll the Board members. Mr. Hewett stated that he was in favor of a rehearing. Mr. King stated that he would like to hear some presentation from the Applicant, or his Counsel, whether the Board is going to hear some new evidence, or just rehearing the case. Mr. King stated that he really did not see any reason to rehear, but, he saw no problem with asking for further information. Attorney Richard Mulvey, commenting that he did not understand, stated that the motion was a request to rehear. Chairman Aron noted that the appeal had been denied. Attorney Mulvey noted that there was a motion to rehear, but Mr. King wants to hear from them. Town Attorney Barney stated that the only thing is that if nothing new is presented the Board will have no basis to rehear. Town Attorney Barney suggested that the Board could hear reasons to rehear. Mr. King asked that the applicant convince him that he should rehear. Attorney Mulvey commented that Mr. King was asking for a double presentation. Town Attorney Barney stated that he thought it could be stipulated that whatever is heard to consider rehearing is evidence in a rehearing. Mr. Freedman stated that they have new information to present, more current and more accurate information than what was presented to the Board at the last meeting, that is , the information that was presented by the Town Planner, Mr. Lovi, they have more correct information on that and additional information. Mr. Freedman stated that, also, they have further information on the case, adding that he could tell the Board what that is substantially. Chairman Aron stated that he would prefer going through the form and asking the Board if they want to rehear and then hear the new information. Mr. King stated that he would like to know what the new information is. Mr. Freedman stated that he had prepared more current information Zoning Board of Appeals 5 November - 20 , 1985 concerning the specifics of the geographical area than what was presented before. Mr. King, commenting that he was satisfied,_ stated that he would vote to rehear. - Mr. Hewett stated that he would vote to rehear.. Mrs. Reuning stated that she would vote to rehear. Chairman Aron stated that he would vote to rehear. Chairman Aron declared that, by unanimous vote of the Board members present, the Joseph N. Freedman Appeal would -be reheared. APPEAL OF JOSEPH N. FREEDMAN, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE OCCUPANCYOF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 , BY FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS, AT 230-232 PENNSYLVANIA` AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6-54-7-13 AND 6-54-7-14-1OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY TRACT PARCELS NO. 87 AND 88) , SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 , SUB-PARAGRAPH 2b, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 , SUB-PARAGRAPH 2b, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7 : 23 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr. Freedman stated that he would speak for himself. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman for any' additional information he may have to present. - - Mr. Freedman appended a colored-up copy of - Tax Map 54 to the bulletin board and stated that this map was a copy of the colored map used by Mr. Lovi at the October Board meeting. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman if he were satisfied that this map is accurate, with Mr. Freedman responding, no, it is not accurate. Mr. Freedman appended another colored-up copy of Tax Map 54 to the bulletin board. -Mr. Freedman pointedout. that- on Mr. Lovi' s map the blue area indicates single family residences, however, he did not make any distinction - between those that are resided in by a family and those that students live in, some with more than three by a permit. Chairman Aron commented that students are people. Mr. Freedman pointed out the blue and stated that these areas are shown by Mr. Lovi as single family residences. Referring to his new colored map, Mr. Freedman stated that this was the same map -- Tax Map 54 -- and on this map the yellow represents single family residences but only those occupied by a , family and the red is rentals. Mr. Freedman stated that the number of little red squares indicate the number of units , that is, whether there are four or six or two. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman to state again what the red is, with Mr. Freedman responding, rental. Chairman Aron asked if they were single family houses, rented. Mr. Zoning Board of Appeals 6 November 20 , 1985 Freedman pointed out that if they have one little red square they are single. Chairman Aron asked if they were owner-occupied. Mr. Freedman stated that they did not distinguish that aspect because they felt they did not have the right to inquire that much but he would say that, certainly, the majority are non-owner-occupied. Mr. Freedman pointed out his house on parcels #13 and #14 on both maps and stated that, if you look at parcels #47 , #43 , and #41 on Mr. Lovi' s map and, then, look at his map, you will see a big difference. Mr. Freedman stated that the inference on Mr. Lovi ' s map is that they are . owner-occupied but they are rented, with Iacovelli ' s across the street rented to four by permit. Mr. Freedman showed the green on his map representing those for sale. Mr. Freedman stated that if you take the number of single family residences in relationship to the total number of houses on the entire street, whether single or more, the ratio is 60% - 40% single family, however, if you take the ratio of families versus those occupied by non-families, then it is a ratio of three to one of non-families to families by persons and individual total number of people. Mr. King asked if Mr. Freedman meant Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr. Freedman explained that he was talking about both and including Coddington Road. Mr. Freedman stated that if you take it as a ratio of number of residential people versus those occupied by non-families you have a ratio of three to one. Mr. Freedman pointed out two places which are or will be occupied by 16 unrelated people and 14 unrelated people. Mr. Freedman stated that the sum total of this single family, this single family, and his, plus two, is five single family residences to 16 . Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman who made the map, with Mr. Freedman responding, that his wife made the map. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman if he felt that his map was accurate, with Mr. Freedman responding, yes, adding that he was not saying that Mr. Lovi ' s is incorrect but to the extent it goes it is inaccurate. Town Attorney Barney, referring to the "red dots" , stated that he understood that they all represent rental units, and asked if any of them have a family in them. Mr. Freedman reiterated that he had not gone into them so some he did not know if there was a family. Mr. Freedman pointed out the old Ithaca Bakery property owned by Mr. Thorpe across the street and down one and stated that it was an apartment. Mr. Cartee stated that there are four apartments in the structure and they are rented to four families. Mr. Cartee stated that the structure is not owner-occupied, adding that it is a non-conforming multiple dwelling. Town Attorney Barney asked if there were any others where one of the units is occupies by the owner, with Mr. Freedman responding, not that he was aware of. Mr. King asked if the Board was accepting these maps as evidence. Zoning Board of Appeals 7 November 20 , 1985 Chairman Aron stated that he would recommend that the maps be accepted for the records. - Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone , from the public who wished to speak. No one spoke. - • Mr. Freedman stated that at the last meeting, we discussed the parking situation at great length, concerning five vehicles for five parties . Mr. Freedman stated that he had the meeting minutes from the Board ' s August 21 , 1985 meeting where a special permit was asked for by Mrs. Anne Caston for six unrelated people [141 Kendall Avenue] . Mr. Freedman stated that at that meeting in the Environmental Assessment Form statement,. Mr. Lovi presented information for the record concerning the expected number of people in the house. Mr. Freedman read aloud from the Minutes of the August 21 , 1985 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals [page 8] , as follows: "Impact on . Transportation -- 13. This project will have no impact on the existing transportation system. This conclusion is based upon the following facts : b) Based upon', the experience of other builders in this neighborhood, it is reasonable , to expect that sufficient off-street parking should be provided for:' 1) 3 cars if four unrelated persons are permitted; 2) 4 cars if five unrelated persons are permitted; 3) 5 cars if six unrelated persons are permitted. " Mr. Freedman noted that Mr. Lovi had stated that based on the expertise of the builders in the area, adding that they certainly do have considerable expertise. - Mr. Freedman also read 13 . a) -- "Based upon traffic counts for similar residential neighborhoods in the Town, it is estimated that traffic flow on Kendall Avenue is less than 500 cars per day. " Mr. Freedman stated that he read that because it was concerning the lengthy discussion we had about if there was sufficient parking. Mr. Freedman stated that he believed - they have showed there is sufficient parking for five cars when, according to - previously accepted statements, maybe they only needed to show parking for four cars. Chairman Aron stated that he had been at the Freedman property yesterday, commenting that Mr. Freedman was not there, and he noticed that on the western side of Mr. Freedman' s house there is a trailer parked, a camper really, and on the eastern part there is room also. Mr. Freedman stated that that was right, adding that there is an old driveway there, actually. Chairman Aron stated that he could see enough room if Mr. Freedman took out three little evergreens. Mr. Freedman agreed, adding that that was a driveway. Chairman Aron stated that he had - a question for Mr. Freedman, the question being -- - - would you and could you utilize that for additional parking? Mr. Freedman stated that he could and he would if necessary. Mr. Freedman stated, in addition, interjecting that he kept referring to the last meeting, that in the meeting minutes we discussed renting to two additional parties in addition to his own family which would be permitted without approval. Mr. Freedman stated that he wanted to point out that, up to last year, they did have five Zoning Board of Appeals 8 November 20 , 1985 people living there, but, because of his profession he did not necessarily agree with putting other people in his house other than his own family. Mr. Freedman stated that he travels and for his own security and his wife' s there he did not think that would be good. Mr. Freedman stated that he would also say that, from discussions with the Building Inspector, he [Cartee] indicated that he [Freedman] would not have to add a bathroom or a kitchen. Mr. Freedman noted again that they had five people living there and described the problems he would have in creating an apartment for two additional people as was • suggested, mentioning how the plumbing would have to be rerouted, because his house is on a slab. Mr. Freedman stated that to get plumbing to that garage, he would have to rip his floor up and this would be at significant cost. Mr. Freedman stated that, in addition, he had a schedule -- Mr. Tammo Steenhuis , 266 Pennsylvania Avenue, interjecting from the floor that he did not understand, stated that, you make apartments , you will have to break up. Continuing, Mr. Freedman repeated that he had five people there up until last year. Mr. Freedman stated that the assumption is that he would not be living there, adding that the first assumption would be he and his family and two other people which would require an apartment with plumbing, doors, etc. , at significant cost. Mr. Freedman stated that he also had a statement for the Board which describes his current operating costs, his expenses, and the costs if he were to move out of the house and rent to three unrelated individuals in accordance with the current zoning laws. Chairman Aron stated that hardship does not have to be shown in this case because of the special permit involved, adding that this is not a variance matter; this is R9 . Mr. Freedman agreed and stated that he would like to enter it anyway and handed the document to the Secretary. Mr. Freedman stated that he also had a letter from Richard L. Patterson, of Patterson Real Estate, which he would like to enter. Chairman Aron read aloud, as follows: "November 5 , 1985 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We currently have the property located at 232 Pennsylvania Avenue, owned by Joseph and Virginia Freedman listed for sale. As of this date, there have been two purchase offers on the property that I am aware of, both potential buyers wishing to use the property as residential income property. The second potential buyer offering a higher purchase price, but requesting a variance for the property. Some clients have not been interested in the house as their residence, because of the existing residential income property in the area. Zoning Board of Appeals 9 , November 20 , 1985 In my opinion, the Freedmans would receive a higher sales price for their property with the variance granted which they seek, than they would from a buyer to use the property as their residence. Sincerely, - - (sgd. ) Richard L. Patterson - Richard L. Patterson, Broker" - Mr. Freedman stated that he had completed his presentation. Chairman Aron thanked -Mr. Freedman. Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak. Mr. Tammo Steenhuis , 266 Pennsylvania Avenue, spoke from the floor and stated that he lived way down a-t the end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Chairman Aron wondered where on the map on the bulletin board. Mr. Freedman stated that Mr. Steenhuis ' is not on -the map, his house is way down Penn. Ave:- and it would be on another tax map. Mr. Steenhuis stated that he ha's eight persons in, the house with six children and they use daily the road -- four of them. Mr. Steenhuis stated that the problem is he agrees completely with Mr. Freedman about persons in the house. Mr. Steenhuis stated that each person has a car, is a student and they drive faster than 30 miles. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Steenhuis if he clocked that, to which Mr. Steenhuis responded, yes, adding that he did not know how fast. Mr. Steenhuis stated that in the morning it is a real problem for the kids to go to school with sleepy and everything. Mr. Steenhuis stated that two more cars is not a problem, but two more for each rental property and Mr. Freedman has indicated well that there are many, make the street so dangerous . Mr. Steenhuis stated that there are no sidewalks and the bus cannot come to deadend street. Mr. Steenhuis stated that some day • - one of these kids will be killed. Mr. Steenhuis stated that he has five more kids close by, :the neighbors have two kids, one grown up, adding that he thought there was a total of 12 kids using street to =go to school. Mr. Steenhuis stated that he thought it was dangerous. Mr. Steenhuis stated that Mr. Freedman' s' idea is not a problem, adding that his personal opinion for being here is that he would like to voice the problem with cars and children. Chairman Aron askedMr. Freedman how many cars he has , to which Mr. Freedman replied that he had a car, a truck, and a camper.- Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. - Mr. King noted that -the total: size of the lot is 100 feet by 120 feet, so, it actually represents two building lots from the old- ' previous subdivision. - - Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman if his house was built on two lots, with Mr. Freedman responding, yes. Mr. King stated to Mr. Freedman that his proposal was to utilize this garage -- 26 feet by 26 feet -- by building two- bedrooms into it Zoning Board of Appeals 10 November 20 , 1985 and putting all the cars outside. Mr. Freedman replied, yes. Town Attorney Barney, commenting that he was still a little bit confused, stated that the red one on Mr. Lovi 's map is Mr. Freedman' house. Several voices stated that that was correct. Town Attorney Barney, noting that on the other map it appears that next door is a single family house and also next door on the other side it looks like five single families, asked if there are any of those single family homes that are rented. Mr. Freedman responded, yes. Mr. Cartee offered that what he thought Mr. Freedman was saying is that the units marked in red are units with three or more unrelated people, adding that they can, by this Board, have four, six, or eight unrelated. Town Attorney Barney stated that his question was, of those that show rental houses, how many of those are single family houses where there are four or more unrelated persons. Mr. Freedman stated -that he thought Mr. Cartee would know, adding that he [Freedman] knew that there have been occupancy permits granted for 60 or 61 people. Mr. Cartee stated that there are about nine properties that are occupied by four, or more than four, unrelated people and that are occupied by special permit. Mr. Cartee stated that there are several houses rented to three, or a family, with an absentee landlord. Mr. Freedman stated that that was correct and he knew of at least one example -- Les Jinks ' property across the street. Chairman Aron stated that he had a question for Mr. Freedman which was that he wanted to sell his house and people are going to buy it and, according to Mr. Patterson' s letter, the people would like to have an income piece of property. Mr. Freedman stated that at the last meeting, his house was not on the market. Chairman Aron asked him if it was now, with Mr. Freedman responding, yes, and adding that he took it off once. Chairman Aron stated that, should a special permit be granted to him [Freedman] , it would be granted to him, and asked Mr. Freedman -- did he know that? Mr. Freedman stated that he was not aware of how it works. Mr. Freedman noted that it was not his intention to sell if he got the permit. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman how he would do that if he did not sell. Mr. Freedman stated that he would be very careful, adding that he would still have value in that property and he would not want the value lowered, and further adding that insurance only covers so much. Chairman Aron asked what Mr. Freedman's recourse would be if they did not turn out to his liking. Mr. Freedman stated that he guessed his recourse would be eviction, adding that his recourse would be to call his attorney. Chairman Aron asked if there were any more questions from the Board. There appearing to be none, Chairman Aron asked if the Board would like to consider a motion or a decision within thirty days, adding that it was up to the Board. Mrs . Reuning, commenting that she was not present at the last meeting, stated that she was having a problem with why this request is Zoning Board of Appeals 11 November 20 , 1985 different from those where we granted five, or more, and with some families around, and across the street there are four. Mr. King stated that the Caston house [Anne M. Caston Appeal, 141 Kendall Avenue, ZBA 8/21/85 , Granted] , where there are six, does sit on three of these old lots and, also, there is a restrictive covenant. Mr. King stated that the Caston house is 'a big two-family house. Mr. Freedman stated that his house is. a ranch with a big double garage., - - Mr. King stated that it is not going to be made into an apartment, but the move in there would be to throw the cars out and take a single- family house and put in five persons. Mr. King noted that in other cases, on the Coddington Road one, for example, [Gerard and Laura Franco Appeal, 226 Coddington. Road, ZBA 4/17/85 , Denied]_, it just was not a suitable situation with parking in the front lawn and intensifying occupancy, without 'amenities and without additional land for off-street parking. Mr. King stated that this is the line, adding that there is a line somewhere and this seems to be it, otherwise the whole area -- the residential nature -- will be destroyed, as in Collegetown, with people complaining about students without the leavening effect of older people. • Mrs. Reuning stated that she thought one of the Board ' s purposes . is to protect nice residential neighborhoods. Mr. Freedman stated that the reason the permit was not granted on Coddington Road, a •different kind of road, was that it was unsafe with no off-street parking. Mr. Freedman stated that, as you can see from this map, adding that this map is accurate, on a ratio of residential to non-residential it is also three to one. Mr. King pointed out that Mr. _ Freedman was increasing it. Mr. -Freedman offered that he was not the one that was increasing it. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, that the Special Permit as requested by Joseph N. Freedman, 232 Pennsylvania Avenue, be and hereby is -denied, for the reasons that have been alluded to, it being that this property does not lend itself to the increased occupancy requested without a substantial change in the character of the building, more automobiles in .the neighborhood and outside of garages , and, ifor the reasons in the colloquy. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Aron, Hewett, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Zoning Board of Appeals 12 November 20 , 1985 Chairman Aron declared the Freedman Appeal denied. Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Freedman Appeal duly closed at 8 :04 p.m. APPEAL OF LAWRENCE E. IACOVELLI JR. , APPELLANT, EDWARD A. MAZZA, ATTORNEY, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING, IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 , BY SIX (6) UNRELATED PERSONS (NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) IN ONE UNIT AND NO MORE THAN TWO (2) IN THE OTHER UNIT) , AT 178 KENDALL AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-54-5-23 (OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY TRACT PARCELS NO. 140 , 141 , AND 142) , SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III, SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 , SUB-PARAGRAPH 2b, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 , SUB-PARAGRAPH 2b, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 8 :05 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Lawrence Iacovelli Jr. was not present, however, his attorney, Edward A. Mazza, was. Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as completed, signed, and submitted by Lawrence Iacovelli Jr. , under date of October 18 , 1985 , as follows: " . . .Having been denied permission to occupy these premises as two separate dwelling units with family or up to four unrelated persons in one dwelling unit and a family or up to two unrelated persons in the other dwelling unit, at 178 Kendall Avenue. . . I currently reside at 178 Kendall Avenue and rent the apartment out to two unrelated persons, all in compliance with the zoning ordinance. My property consists of three Ithaca Land Tract Lots (140 , 141 , 142) . The current structure is on Lots #141 and 142 . Lot #143 has no structures on it, however the driveway currently is on that lot. I request a special permit to allow the existing structure to be used as two separate dwelling units with a family or up to four unrelated persons in one unit and a family or up to two unrelated persons in the other unit. I would agree to dedicate all three building lots (140 , 141 and 142) to this use by grant of restrictive covenants to that effect. " Attorney Mazza appeared before the Board and stated that Mr. Iacovelli cannot be here tonight and has asked for an adjournment to the next meeting. Mr. King asked Attorney Mazza if he knew this house, wondering if it was the lime green one, with Attorney Mazza responding, yes, and adding that it used to be owned by Bellous . MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, that the Public Hearing in the matter of the Lawrence E. Iacovelli Jr. Appeal with respect to 178 Kendall Avenue, be and hereby is adjourned to i ' ` . - , - -- October 28, 1985 ' Mr. Henry Arbil, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals , ' , _ - - .' C/0 Town' of Ithaca ' ' - 126 E. 'Seneca Street _ _ Ithaca; NY 14850 ' - Dear Mr. Aron: - - ' - This letter will serve as my formal request• for a rehearing concerning the -boards-negative' decis ioi of _10/23/85- on my ,request for a special permit to allow 5. unrelated parties in an R9 area, - " -, In 'my opinion, the .information submitted by me during the 9/18/85 1 and. 10/23/85 meetings was factual, complete and more then sufficient to '. gain a favorable -decision by-the board. - , 'The next Zoning Board of appeals meeting is scheduled for - November 20; 1985. ' Should :the board approve this request 'for a rehearing, then I-further request that I be placed at the beginning of the evenings _ - agenda since this matter is_ Of a 'continuing nature and not_ new''business for, _ " ) -,the board,. . ' Thank you for 'your cooperation in this matter. ' • - - Respectfully. Submitted, ' , - ' JNF:rkd -- 'JOSEPH N. FREEDMAN ' - Cys.:Zoning Board of -Appeals-Members -- - _ . Richard Mulvey, Esq. . Supervisor .- Town of Ithaca . . - • _ ' Mr. Lewis Cart'ee - - - , PATTERSON REAL ESTATE - . 412 N. TIOGA ST. P.O. BOX 357 ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 . _ - (607) 273-5656 November- 5 - - TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We currently have the property located at 232 Pennsylvania Avenue, owned by Joseph and Virginia Freedman listed for sale.- , As of this date, there haVe been two purchase offers on'the property that f, am aWare of,Thoth potential buyer wishing to ,use: - the property as residential income property. The second potential-, buyer offering,a higher purchase price, but requesting a variance for the property. Some clients have not been interested in the house as their • residence; -because of the existing residential incoilie-property in the area. - In my.opinion, the Freedmans would. receive- a higher sales _ , _ price for their property with the variance granted Which they seek, than they would from a buyer to use the property as their residence. 2 - , - Sincerely, . Richard L.- Patterson; Broker RLP:gp 4,1 .dd792L1 AWLS - HR • • REALTOR' - o. - ! CZ '.. " O _O _.. _-_ _ 'i.i _ _ _ _' 'C'r -0 - - 0 c: - .f"„'0 ro '-_ c ` c�_ _ _ 7.C - r O ("7 - 7-7 0: - , 0 - ' I :- - Cam, - • 0... 'O^ "\ - -' - - _, - 'r[-C-O. __ - .: : _ --. :\ : o -_ _ — O' - r - - C-. -- 0 T- O_ c .O --: -- c ° -----,---.....-.) Ts (II = W IV) N U 3 M _ — I] WiLZfl ; r 76: G r- a H 1=1 t�f('T • 0 h l, tt W.)c.I. En iaeo3y c = Rie4; I✓ a /fi£I.Da�urr) pi , v 'L tv OOLA R 1 8 tr 'a \ \;;\ J comP8,5LL ., i ` \wj iI (Hit1�2) Ell t r �i1'.Cp 'I""ri..-u--iopko ,e` o nS (� 1 SWIQis 03 N 0c r tHoRv?) E ¢ �! ;i `Rn-ice IrJ r sf',qw . .r: v 3- , �i,oRe/AJ� t. �i2e4lbnttl'I '� 1� ®(1-5110 , ,` t \ r�rnv J 1, l' W j r (links) ; ri700✓Flr; 8 1 Kul o; Unl2 !/� I tvt ,---1,3,„,,,, E.-,/ i 66,06) ----, 1 �i�l-4// .00��- . I( w�� f?U71;.A LL I.�1 itieoufc�t ri P (14n2r) � WI (1-1106,ccuc) -a \v (,..,0....,,,. (SQ.HULTL) — } N (I:no X�t t � � c� werlS — (%I�eo��L41) El rill ��/ (IgraiEl_Lt) _ (LHCUi,p, ) • �, t �tr,,. 3nitetc' C>�eovr t L)) =1, 1Nf 3 enk'ODD)r. Irviu to • to R f i):1,,,/ rOnpps/C1t , q T-i -0- 0 •- iilinluiiniin •ulnli■unniu . c. iiii 6Im ■ 111r1■ Im lillru �;� 11 11111 11/11 �� � ,, , . Ern 111111 111 .Ini.. " _ mil Ilun 111!111: 11111' 1111u Iin n 11n1 lilnl _ ■ 11111mum. '�. ri _ o.,�' 2� O,/0°.7.. I■■ 11111 imatio 1 11f'�' ` " r i a/- 5/./ ' MI N 111111 11111U I rip!_ . ,,,__ oy��/ _ 9 11111 11111■ f, ■ NE an siial - .ir° P rA f i / -7d1 n/ . i ��/ ' it 111111 ■ 11111 11�111' 11111r Illllr■NMI 11111 rum 111111■■ gm moo ■ 11 ■ ■liHhlU M n n� I1111 nnll■� �► • ' �� . II M arlfflVA1- IE- ' �-� �' :,fit'r. # 1 Hill 111 n11 1 ■ 1n11■ H I ■ 11 4. /-a-#- - ■e p.,-ill in11■ i 77 " -"" 11111I 11111 1111 i1i,: „ a 11111■ 11111 11111 IIIb 11 1■ un j111 11111' N� �� ���1 pig Inll■ 11 rip , 1I1111�111 11 111 , ° ,i -'� 1lj111rtin -11 . ; 4 "s_72%, ."'� ',,1111111 11111 ? N6 ��'/vi1 n � nn� 111 11 R �m ■ / n 77, mar ■ 1 in 11111 1tL i 11111r 1111r . 111 11111 N ,a w.vSv'e?-„:2g- ',--F (rill■ 11111 -.`iiii iIHIy , . EM ninM 111 .■MIO 1111 alit ■ •; ., dr -5 " �° ."' ' ■ 111111 11111 � T11 ■ 11111 sir ■ 111111■ 11111■■ r na 11111 lllLlr■ 111111■ Irlll■ lilll ��d ���,� �� .I1 n..nnnu. .a 1 Erl ,,,, 5735 / "ram' '�'/1N/Lb9 # Y�Z Dom,( - �� 7qZ/ �0_d- S'/ 7 caG-9 WZ ' ` 7 4 'V . _4s777 ?//i/_/"Y__IW s�,�----,TO 1 iv_�7%61p TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , ¢CTOBER 23 , 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, October 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 matters: ADJOURNED APPEAL (from August 21 , 1985 , and, September 18 , 1985) , with clarified Notice, 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 on a portion- of the foundation of an existing barn with side yard and rear yard deficiencies, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2-22 . 41 , said parcel location being designated as "Slaterville Road" on 1985 Town of Ithaca o . Assessment Roll, however, having frontage on both Slaterville Road and Pine Tree Road, said parcel being located between 1476 Slaterville Road and 110 Pine Tree Road and between 1476 Slaterville Road and 1462 Slaterville Road. Permit is denied under Article IV, Section 14 , and Article XIV, Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. ADJOURNED APPEAL (from September 18 , 1985) of Joseph Freedman, Appellant, from the decision of the • Building Inspector denying a Special Permit for the occupancy of a single family dwelling, in Residence District R9, by five unrelated persons , at 230-232 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of . Ithaca Tax Parcels No, 6-54-7-13 and 6-54-7-14 (Old Ithaca Land Company Tract Parcels No. 87 and 88) , such Special Permit being applied for ' pursuant to Article III , Section , 4 , Paragraph 2, Sub-paragraph 2b, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning. Ordinance. Permit is denied under Article III , Section 4 , Paragraph 2 , Sub-paragraph 2b, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. - - - (Continued on Page Two) • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 23 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca. Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday, October 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, Jack D. Hewett [arrived late] , Lewis D . Cartee (Building Inspector) , John C. Barney (Town Attorney) , Peter M. Lovi (Town Planner) , Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary) . ALSO PRESENT: Nancy L. Krook, Dr. Joy Mecenas, Gladys Fendrick, Louis R. Fendrick, Joseph N. Freedman, Virginia Freedman, Sally Nation, John A. Nation, Thomas J. Kline, Attorney Anna Holmberg, Dorothy E. Zimmer, Jonathan Litt. Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 03 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 October 15 , 1985 and October 18 , 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, upon each of the Appellants and/or Agent, as appropriate, and/or Attorney, as appropriate, and upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, on October 18 , 1985 . ADJOURNED APPEAL (FROM AUGUST 21 , 1985 , AND, SEPTEMBER 18 , 1985) , WITH CLARIFIED NOTICE, 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 ON A PORTION OF THE FOUNDATION OF AN EXISTING BARN WITH SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD DEFICIENCIES , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-58-2-22 .41 , -SAID PARCEL LOCATION BEING DESIGNATED AS "SLATERVILLE ROAD" ON 1985 TOWN OF ITHACA ASSESSMENT ROLL, HOWEVER, HAVING FRONTAGE ON BOTH SLATERVILLE ROAD AND PINE TREE ROAD, SAID PARCEL BEING LOCATED , BETWEEN 1476 SLATERVILLE ROAD AND 110 PINE TREE ROAD AND BETWEEN 1476 SLATERVILLE ROAD AND 1462 SLATERVILLE ROAD. PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 14 , AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Aron informed the Board members and the public that Mr. Iacovelli' s Attorney, Edward A. Mazza, had requested an adjournment of Mr. Iacovelli ' s Appeal until the November 20 , 1985 , meeting of the Board. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Edward Austen: RESOLVED, that the Adjourned Public Hearing in the matter of the James Iacovelli Appeal with respect to Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2-22 .41 , be and hereby is further adjourned until the November Zoning Board of Appeals 2 October 23 , 1985 20 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals commencing at 7 : 00 p.m. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Aron, King, Austen. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Aron stated that those persons who had appeared in regard to the Iacovelli Appeal were most welcome to remain and listen to the other matters before the Board. ADJOURNED APPEAL (FROM SEPTEMBER 18 , 1985) OF JOSEPH FREEDMAN, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 , BY FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS, AT 230-232 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6-54-7-13 AND 6-54-7-14 (OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY TRACT PARCELS NO. 87 AND 88) , SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 , SUB-PARAGRAPH 2b, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 , SUB-PARAGRAPH 2b, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7 :05 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Both Mr. and Mrs. Freedman were present. Mrs. Krook and Dr. Mecenas departed. Chairman Aron, noting that the Board had received and each member had before him a copy of the completed Long Environmental Assessment Form, declared the Zoning Board of Appeals the Lead Agency in regard to SEQR and asked the Town Planner, Peter M. Lovi, to speak to this matter. [For the record, the document referred to by the Chairman was completed, submitted, and signed by Joseph N. Freedman under date of September 23 , 1985 , with a Survey Map attached thereto entitled "Lands of Terry J. & Marina Hart -- 232 Pennsylvania Ave. -- Town of Ithaca -- Tomp. Co. N. Y. -- June 14 , 1977"; by K.A. Baker; checked and approved by Howard R. Schlieder, N.Y.S.P.E. & L.S . 043780 , and upon which is shown two lots delineated as 54-7-14 , 50 ' x 120 ' , and 54-7-13 , 50 ' x 120 ° , and further delineated as Old Ithaca Land Co. lots numbered 87 and 88 , and with the Freedman house with attached garage, 67 ° x 26 ' , also located thereon by the Appellant, as well as driveway and parking areas . On the obverse side of said Survey Map there appears a "chart" detailing the dwelling structures located on both Pennsylvania Avenue and Kendall Avenue from Hudson Street to their termini and further detailing the number of family units , the number of apartment units , the number of rental units to three or more students, the number of multi-dwellings, the number of rental units and the number of vacant buildings . Zoning Board of Appeals 3 October 23 , 1985 The Long EAF also sets forth the review and recommendation of the Town Planner, Peter M. Lovi , under date of October 8 , 1985 , as follows : "I have reviewed the additional information provided by the applicant and I am satisfied that the project, as presented, will not present a significant adverse impact on- the environment. I recommend a negative declaration of environmental significance."] Mr. Lovi stated that, at the last meeting of the Board [September 18 , 1985] , the Board received and reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form. Mr. Lovi stated that, in his review of the Short Form, he indicated that he needed some additional information from the Appellant on three matters -- (1) expected number of cars; (2) number of similar one-family homes for precedent; (3) the effect of the remodelling on traffic and congestion on the site. Mr. Lovi stated that he had asked the Board to ask the Appellant to complete a Long Environmental Assessment Form, which it did and which, he did. Mr. Lovi stated that he has reviewed the additional information -- photographs, information attached to the Long EAF in the form of a survey and diagrams, and, on that basis , he reviewed the Long EAF and presented to the Board the brief recommendation which the Board, and Mr. Freedman, have before them- which states, essentially, that after having completed his _review he was satisfied that there will be no negative impact. Mr. Lovi stated _ that this information, again, is on the specifics of the site and represents the minimum standards of environmental review. Mr. Hewett had arrived. Chairman Aron asked if there were any questions to Mr. Lovi. Mr. King, referring to the original diagram on a light-yellow sheet of paper in the official record, asked if this diagram is that which was attached to the Long EAF . Mr. Lovi stated that it was: Mr. Lovi stated that he, too, had prepared a diagram for the Board and appended to the bulletin board a full-sized copy of Tax Map No. 54 which sets forth all the properties in the Town of Ithaca from the City of Ithaca line to the north through those properties located on Pennsylvania Avenue and Coddington Road to the south . Mr. Lovi pointed out that upon this Tax Map he had taken some time this afternoon to prepare a color-coded diagram of the properties on Pennsylania and Kendall' Avenues , and a section on Coddington Road. Mr. Lovi commented that he had used two sources to create this map -- a study done by the Planning and Engineering Department earlier this ' year in response to a somewhat similar question from the Town Supervisor to the Planning Board, as from the Zoning Board to the Appellant, and, information presented by the Appellant in this case. Mr. Lovi stated that what he had done, to the best of his ability, was to reconcile these sources and give the Board an impression of trends. Mr. Lovi stated that he was making no representation as to the' accuracy of this diagram. Indicating on the colored Tax Map, Mr. Lovi pointed out that the very large area, shaded in medium blue, running from the City line all the way down to the rear lot lines of all the properties on Kendall Avenue is zoned Light Industrial and is C Zoning Board of Appeals 4 October 23 , 1985 owned by Therm, Inc. Mr. Lovi pointed out on the drawing that the portions colored green represented vacant land owned by either landowners or Tompkins County. Mr. Lovi stated that the light blue areas are one-family dwellings. Mr. Lovi stated that both the brown and the orange areas are the properties which have two-family homes on them, the brown being those with no more than three unrelated persons in them, and the orange being those with more than three unrelated persons in them pursuant to the Board ' s granting of special permits and variances, some of which involved more than one lot being dedicated. Mr. Lovi stated that "red" denotes four-unit dwellings and there are three of these -- one on Pennsylvania Avenue, one on Kendall Avenue, and one that straddles the two roads. Mr. Lovi stated that "blue" denotes the parcels which are three-family units and are non-conforming. Referring again to his diagram, Mr. Lovi stated that, once again, there very well may be errors, however, he thought it was representative of the neighborhood, although there may be specific parcels which are not totally accurate. Mr. Lovi stated that Mr. Freedman ' s parcel is shown "here" in cross-hatched red [indicating] on Pennsylvania Avenue and is comprised of two old Ithaca Land Company lots put together, and which has on it a single family house that straddles the two lots. Mr. Lovi stated that most of the nearby parcels are single . family, but it is across from Mr. Thorpe' s three-family. Mr. Lovi stated that it is also near a group of two-family duplexes being developed by James Iacovelli by variances and special permits for increased occupancy from this Board. Referring to Mr. Lovi ' s diagram on the bulletin board, Mr. King pointed out that, of the dwellings in this particular neighborhood, approximately one-half, or even more than one-half, appear to be single family occupied. Mr. Lovi stated that he believed it to be somewhat less than one-half, commenting that, for example , there may be one house on three of these "old" lots [indicating] . Chairman Aron thanked Mr. Lovi for a very good presentation and asked if there were any more questions from the Board. There were none. Chairman Aron asked if there were any questions from the public. There were none. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman if he had anything else to add from the last time. Mr. Freedman responded that, other than more pictures which he had mounted on two large cardboards along with the chart, he had submitted all the information that the Board had requested last time. Mr. Freedman stated that he would also like to point out that the house directly across from him is rented to at least four, maybe more students; it is not a single family as that drawing shows [indicating Mr. Lovi ' s] . Mr. Freedman presented to the Board two large yellow cardboards upon one of which had been mounted four photographs of his house from different angles and the "chart" that the Board had received with the Long EAF and the survey, showing the houses , their ownership, rental aspects and numbers of rental occupants or owner-occupants on Pennsylvania Avenue and Kendall Avenue from the City line to the dead-ends of both streets. Zoning Board of Appeals 5 October 23, 1985 Chairman Arcn noted that the garage was a double garage. Mr. Freedman stated that it is a two-and-a-half garage , adding that it is _ almost 28 feet square. Mr. King asked Mr. Freedman if that house right across from his is occupied by three or more students. Mr. Freedman stated that that house is occupied by more than three students , adding that there are at least four , adding that it is a single-family house. Mr. King asked if it is an old house. Mr. Freedman stated that his wife' s aunt used to own it, so it would be over twenty years old. Mr. Freedman stated that Lawrence Iacovelli, Jr. owns this house but does not live there. Mr . King recalled that he [Iacovelli, Jr. ] was given a special permit for four unrelated persons on three "old" lots. Mr. Freedman stated that the other cardboard has a picture of what used to be the Ithaca Bakery [225 Pennsylvania Avenue] which is also across the street from him and which is now a four-unit apartment, not a three-family, owned by Ralph Thorpe who does not live there and rents to several people. Mr. Freedman pointed out that the pictures show how the parking is arranged in other rental houses in his neighborhood. Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against the Freedman Appeal . No one spoke. Chairman Aron closed the Adjourned Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. Mr. Austen noted that it appeared that Mr. Freedman was going to add two bedrooms and not a kitchenette, so that it will be a five-bedroom house. Mr. Freedman stated that he was not going to add a kitchenette, although, he might possibly add a small bathroom but he was not really sure about that. Mr. Austen asked Mr. Freedman- where he proposed to put the cars. ' Mr. Freedman stated that the driveway is approximately 50 feet long and is 18 feet wide and, in addition to that, there is a 10-foot by 16-foot turn around, and, parking space beside the garage. Mr. Freedman pointed ' out that the matter of parking was one of the questions that Mr. Lovi asked about and one of the reasons why the Board asked him to fill out the Long EAF. Mr. Freedman, referring to the pictures of his property from all different angles on the yellow cardboard with the chart, pointed out his camper parked beside the garage, and stated that it is 10 feet by 12 feet in size itself. Chairman Aron commented to Mr. Freedman that he wanted to put five unrelated persons in there and he is moving out because it is too noisy. Chairman Aron stated that Mr. ' Freedman will be an absentee landlord and asked how he would control it. Mr. Freedman responded that he did not say it was too noisy, he said it was not family-oriented any more. Mr. Freedman stated that he was not planning to leave South Hill, adding that his children go to South Hill School, and further adding that his father-in-law lives at 115 Pennsylvania Avenue, his wife' s uncle lives at 117 Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr. Freedman stated that he has relatives on both Pennsylvania Avenue and Kendall Avenue. Mr. Freedman stated that on Kendall Avenue his wife ' s other uncle lives right next door to James Iacovelli, and reiterated that if he moved elsewhere it will be on South Hill. i Zoning Board of Appeals 6 October 23 , 1985 Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman what he would do if he saw on-street parking. Mr. Freedman stated that he would make them move. Chairman Aron stated that Mr. Freedman will have at least five cars there. Mr. Freedman stated that he did not know if they will have five cars because it is so close to the College, and added that there could be more, but there could be less. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman how he would regulate how the cars would be parked, and stated, let us assume an ambulance has to get in there. Mr. Freedman stated that cars can be parked in the turn-around. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman if he were going to put white lines in the driveway and parking area and stripe it. Mr. Freedman responded that he had not planned to nor had he thought of that because none of the other rental houses, or the apartments, in the area have any such thing. Mr. Freedman pointed out that other rental houses in the area have more people and each has less parking [indicating on the yellow cardboard] than he does . Chairman Aron noted that under the Zoning Ordinance, Section 77, it says, in effect, that the proposed use shall not be detrimental to the neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate property or seriously damage the neighbors. [Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub-paragraph d. ] Chairman Aron noted that Section 77 also says that access and egress of all structures shall be safely designed. [Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub-paragraph e. ] Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman how he was going to do that. Mr. Freedman stated that there is sufficient area for an emergency vehicle to get in there. Mr. Freedman stated that he has a truck of his own that is 15 feet long,- and, he can park three trucks, one behind each other, and two cars, and leave a sufficient section 9 feet wide for access. Mr. Freedman noted that the driveway is 18 feet wide and that leaves 9 or 10 feet for an emergency vehicle. Chairman Aron commented that Mr. Freedman would have to instruct the tenants so that this area is available. Mr. Freedman replied, absolutely. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman if he thought he would be able to control that with his father, etc . , up there. Mr. Freedman stated that he saw no problem. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman what made him move out of there. Mr. Freedman, commenting that he had not moved out, stated that he has one boy who is active in hunting and fishing and he does not have enough room to let him go out and hunt and fish, but, he did not want to leave the South Hill area. Mr. Freedman stated that he has one boy at South Hill School and one boy at Boynton Middle School and he did not want to move them around to different schools. Chairman Aron read from the Appeal Form submitted by Mr. Freedman on September 5 , 1985 , as follows : "The area has become increasingly busy with traffic and we would like to move to a more family oriented area. " Chairman Aron stated that he thought that area was family-oriented. Mr. Freedman stated that it is not any more. Mr. Freedman described the houses and the occupants and the rentals. Mr. Freedman stated that the house next door is a single family, but all the others are rentals and include Thorpe' s four-unit, Iacovelli 's two rented duplexes and a new duplex with more than four students . Zoning Board of Appeals 7 October 23 , 1985 Mr. Austen asked Mr. Freedman what the chances would be of making the turn-around larger for parking. Mr. Freedman stated that _ that could certainly be done if necessary, reiterating that he could do that, and adding that he could not go out the one way with, the turn-around because of the next door property line. Mr. Austen wondered if there could be any widening of the turn-around. Mr. Freedman stated that he really thought he has enough parking now, but he thought that could be done. Mr. Freedman referred the Board to the picture on the yellow cardboard of Mr. Thorpe ' s rental property and stated that there are four apartments there with a great number of occupants and he [Thorpe] has substantially less parking area than he [Freedman] does. - Mr. Freedman noted that the houses on the opposite side of the street are very close to the road -- maybe only 20 feet -- and the houses on his side are considerably farther back. Mr. Freedman pointed out that his house sits back 50 feet from the right of way and 75 feet from the center of the road. Mr. King queried about Mr. Freedman' s statement that Thorpe' s property was the old Ithaca Bakery, and Mr. Freedman responded, yes, according to his father-in-law. Chairman Aron asked if there were any further questions. There were none. Chairman Aron noted that the Board had before it the completed Long Form EAF with a recommendation from the Town Planner for a negative declaration of environmental significance . Mr . King stated that he would speak to the EAF with a comment first. Mr. King stated that he had some trouble with just what an adverse environmental impact is because, frankly , he was a little bit disturbed with this application and with the way this neighborhood is going, largely by actions of this Board, piece by piece. Mr. King stated that it was a good idea in unitizing these lots while permitting, in some cases, greatly increased occupancy, for good quality construction; that is good. Referring to Mr. Lovi ' s diagram, Mr. King stated that the other aspect is that 400 of the area is residential, meaning single family homes, and applications are tending to down-grade that neighborhood in the sense of removing the family and replacing it with students. Mr. King stated that this is the same kind of problem experienced in Collegetown. Mr. King stated that Bryant Park, in the City, is begging the City to do something. Mr. King stated that owners steady and ameliorate students . Mr. King stated that other people have rights, and, remembering a few -- more than a few -- years ago when he was a student, there was no single building that he could recall which was totally occupied by students and absentee landlords. Mr. King described how he resided in one room in a home and was always aware of the owners ' needs and, if he were not aware, he was made aware, recalling a physician living nearby and a pharmacist, too. Mr. King stated that he saw this thing going the other way -- by Mr. Freedman' s own admission -- traffic, etc. -- economics. Mr. King stated that there is no question that Mr. Freedman is permitted to build two bedrooms; that is not a problem, but all the families living in the neighborhood is a problem. Mr. King stated that, looking at the EAF, the Board could not say that- this proposal would totally change the neighborhood --- Zoning Board of Appeals 8 October 23 , 1985' it is not that drastic a change in and of itself and it meets the minimum standards set by SEQR, and so he would MOVE that there is no negative impact. Mr. Lovi pointed out that in his review of the Short EAF [Part II] on page 2 , letter C6 , he had stated -- "If many Special Permits of this type were granted, the cumulative effect would be to erode the occupancy standards established by the Zoning Ordinance. This outcome could have a significant effect on community character. " Mr. Lovi stated that both of these forms, the Long and the Short, should be read concurrently. Mr. Edward Austen SECONDED Mr. King ' s MOTION. Chairman Aron asked for discussion; there was none. Chairman Aron called for a vote on the negative declaration of environmental significance. Aye - Aron, King, Austen. Nay - None . Abstain - Hewett. The MOTION was declared to be carried . Mr. Hewett stated that he abstained because he arrived late and had not heard all of the presentation. Mr. Austen stated that in other cases the Board took more land into this increased occupancy. Mr. Freedman described other lots which are smaller and which have increased occupancy and less parking. Mr. Freedman pointed out that his parcel is comprised of two lots. Mr. King stated that there is no question that Mr. Freedman' s is a beautiful home and is nicely situated on the lot. Mr. King commented to Mr. Freedman that he understood he had not moved out, with Mr. Freedman responding, no, he still lives there. Mr. King stated that it was his opinion that Mr. Freedman should be encouraged to stay or to rent within the terms of the ordinance, adding that a family and two others would be fine, and further adding that he has seen no economic hardship. MOTION by Mr. Edward King: RESOLVED, that the requested variance be denied. It was noted that the request was for Special Permit pursuant to Section 4 , sub-paragraph 2b, of the ordinance. MOTION by Mr. Edward King: RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, that the Joseph N. Freedman request for Special Permit with respect to • Zoning Board of Appeals 9 October 23 , 1985 increased occupancy at 230-232 Pennsylvania Avenue, be and hereby is denied. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Edward Austen. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye Aron, King, Austen. Nay - None . Abstain - Hewett. The MOTION was declared to be carried . Mr. Hewett stated that he abstained for the same reason as with the Motion on the EAF. Mr. ' Freedman asked permission of the Chair to speak and was granted same. Mr. Freedman stated that his house is the most expensive house on the street; there is no question about it. Mr. Freedman stated that he bought the property five and a half years ago and put a lot of money into it and, now, he is getting nothing out of this place, nothing aesthetic. Mr. Freedman stated that he has apartments all around him and that is not the way he wants his children to live. Mr. Freedman stated that when you say that 500 of the houses are residential, that is not a fact; if 30o is residential it might be a little closer. Mr. Freedman stated that it is true that all of those people who rent do not have four or five unrelated persons, some of , them have more, some have the three that is permitted by the ordinance without special permit, but the area is still primarily student housing. Mr. Freedman stated that for him to put all that money into his house to make it a nice place when he has students all around him and apartments all around him just does not make sense any more. Mr. Freedman stated that he did not see how it could be for him, as one person, as Mr. King suggests, to maintain that "residential" status or not. Mr. Freedman stated that he cannot do that; he simply cannot do that, therefore, the only economic benefit he can get is - to move and even that is being closed off. Mr. Freedman stated that he has not been in the area long enough to build equity; he has not owned that house long enough, even though his wife' s family has all been there for years . Mr. Freedman stated that having the best house, on that street, is not beneficial to selling in that area. Mr. Freedman stated that now he cannot move so he is caught in the middle between all the variances and special permits granted before him, and after him but not to him. Mr. Freedman stated that because he is squeezed in the middle he cannot, as one person, make that area residential again. Mr. Freedman stated the houses all around him are for sale; they will be bought and there will be more rentals and more absentee landlords, all legal. Mr. Freedman stated that others are leaving, but they have equity; they have no mortgages. Mr. Freedman stated that he does not have enough equity to make up the difference between sale price for the area and the house cost. Mr. Freedman stated that when he moved there it was Zoning Board of Appeals 10 October 23 , 1985 primarily residential; now, it is not. Mr. Freedman stated that he cannot tell Mr. Iacovelli not to build apartments; he cannot tell the Schultzes not to build apartments, and so on. Mr. Freedman stated that the area is inundated and he is stuck in the middle of it and he is just not able to turn it around. Mrs . Virginia Freedman stated that they have small children and they have students walking through their lawn every day -- some days it may be 8 , and some days it may be 15 . Mrs. Freedman stated that someone from Mr. Thorpe ' s apartments was recently arrested for sodomy of a young boy. Mrs. Freedman stated that the neighbors, the Kelly' s, put up a fence and the students just tore down the fence. Mrs. Freedman stated that there is a house full of students across the street and they play loud music and shoot moons. Mrs . Freedman stated that the area is two dead-end streets primarily occupied by students. Mrs. Freedman stated that the Iacovellis own most of the land and he has so many student rentals . Mr. Freedman continued and stated that the "residential" character is gone. Mr. Freedman stated that his wife' s family, his father-in-law, her uncles, etc. go way back as South Hill residents . Mr. Freedman stated that he did not build up his property, the way he has, to give it up, and having the best house on a street like that is not helping him at all. Mr. Freedman stated that he wanted his family to live in a residential area. Mr. Freedman stated that he knows everyone up there and he also knows what a lousy neighborhood is because he grew up in one and he wanted a nice place for his kids . Mr. Freedman stated that his kids want to play and they are subjected to incidents of sodomy, indecent exposure and so on. Mr . Freedman stated that Thorpe' s apartments have no parking for the numbers of tenants; he has a large double lot with a multitude of parking. Mr. Freedman stated that he has a double and a half garage and plenty of parking. Mr. Freedman stated that he keeps his home and property up, adding that the garage is better than most of the houses. Mr. Freedman stated that the neighborhood is being changed from residential -- whatever that means -- to student housing and he is not able to change that. Mr. Freedman stated that he was a student; he went to College, and there are good and bad students , and he has children. Mr. Freedman stated that he probably will sell the house and what will happen is that he will not get fair market value because he cannot get that for a single family house on those streets , and someone will buy it and they will put students in there but they will not come to the Zoning Board right up front like he did. Town Attorney Barney pointed out to Chairman Aron that the Board had three more public hearings before it and, unless the Board were considering re-hearing Mr. Freedman' s appeal, he would suggest that the Board move on to those hearings. Mr. King stated that the Board was not considering a re-hearing at this time. APPEAL OF MICHAEL VAN ORMAN, APPELLANT, THOMAS KLINE, AGENT, ANNA HOLMBERG, ATTORNEY, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH THE GARAGE ATTACHED THERETO HAVING A SOUTHERLY SIDE YARD DEFICIENCY OF TWO FEET, LOCATED IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 AT 145 RIDGECREST ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-45-2-20 . CERTIFICATE IS DENIED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18 , 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, September 18 , 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 August 21 , 1985) , with clarified Notice, of James Iacovelli, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Building Permit for theconstruction of a two-family dwelling in Residence District R15 on a portion of the foundation of an existing barn with side yard and rear yard deficiencies, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2-22 .41 , said parcel location being designated as "Slaterville Road" on 1985 Town of Ithaca Assessment Roll, however, having frontage on both Slaterville Road and Pine Tree Road, said parcel being located between 1476 Slaterville Road and 110 Pine Tree Road and between 1476 Slaterville Road and 1462 Slaterville Road. Permit is denied under Article IV, Section 14 , and Article XIV, Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Joseph Freedman, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Special Permit for the occupancy of a single family dwelling, in Residence District R9 , by five unrelated persons , at 230-232 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels ,No. 6-54-7-13 and 6-54-7-14 (Old Ithaca Land Company Tract Parcels No. 87 and 88) , such Special Permit being applied for pursuant to Article III, Section 4 , Paragraph 2, Sub-paragraph 2b, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Permit is denied under Article ' III , Section 4 , Paragraph 2, Sub-paragraph 2b, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York, Inc . , Appellant, Robert I. Williamson, Esq. , Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission to maintain two (2) existing- billboards, in Residence District R30 , on premises owned by Sam and Eleanor Matychak, (Continued on Page Two) - Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Page Two~ Notice of Public Hearings, September 18, 1985 at 1180 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-36-1-8. Permission is denied under Section 8 .01-1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, Local. Law No. 6-1980 . APPEAL Park Outdoor Advertising of New York , Inc. , Appellant, Robert I . Williamson, Esq. , Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission to maintain seven (7) existing billboards, in Residence District R30 , on premises owned by R H P Properties, Inc. , at 1325 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-28-1-25 . Permission is denied under Section 8 . 01-1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, Local Law No. 6-1980 . APPEAL of Anthony A. and Barbara A. Schultz , Appellants, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Certificate of Occupancy for a four-unit dwelling structure on lots numbered 30, 31 , and a portion of 32 , said lots being those shown on map entitled "Lands of the Ithaca Land Company" , filed in the Tompkins County Clerk' s Office on July 12 , 1895 , said lots and portion being those proposed to be subdivided from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-35 (270 Pennsylvania Avenue) comprised of five lots numbered 30 , 31 , 32 , 33, and 34 on said map of the Lands of the Ithaca Land Company. Certificate is denied pursuant to a grant of variance set down by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on September 14 , 1983 , whereby the construction of said four-unit dwelling structure at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-35 , was permitted with the understanding that said grant of variance encompassed all five lots numbered 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , and 34, on said map of the Lands of the Ithaca Land Company, and, in accordance with Article XIV, Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. a 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: September 10 , 1985 Publish: September 13 , 1985 Zoning Board of Appeals 7 September 18, 1985 MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning, seconded by Mr. Edward Austen: RESOLVED, that the matter of the Appeal of James Iacovelli with respect to Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6-58-2-22 .41 be and hereby is adjourned to October 16 , 1985 , at 7 : 00 p.m. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a ,vote. Aye - Aron, Austen, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Iacovelli Appeal duly adjourned at 8 : 00 p.m. APPEAL OF JOSEPH FREEDMAN, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 , BY FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS , AT 230-232 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6-54-7-13 AND 6-54 -7-14 (OLD ITHACA LAND COMPANY TRACT PARCELS NO. 87 AND 88) , SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III, SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2, SUB-PARAGRAPH 2b, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 2 ; SUB-PARAGRAPH 2b, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 8 : 01 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Both Mr. and Mrs. Freedman were present. Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Joseph N. Freedman under date of September 5 , 1985 , as follows: " . . .Having been denied permission to occupy a five bedroom single family residence with five (5) unrelated persons at 232 Pennsylvania Avenue. . .The area has , become increasingly busy with traffic and we would like to move to a more family oriented area. In order to do so would require additional income from my present residence which strict observance of the ordinance would not provide nor would a sale given the present market conditions in my present area for sale ofsingle family residences . " Chairman Aron noted that each of the .Board members had before him/her a copy of the Short Environmental Assessment Form, as signed and submitted by Joseph Freedman under date of September 15 , 1985 , and as reviewed by and recommended upon [Parts II and III] by the Town Planner, Mr. Lovi, under date of September 17 , 1985 . Chairman Aron read aloud the reviewer' s recommendation, as follows: [Box Checked: - "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. " ] "This appeal is an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQR. On the basis of the information I have at this time, I recommend a positive declaration of environmental significance. I believe the appellant should provide additional information on 1) the Zoning Board of Appeals 8 September 18 , 1985 expected number of cars to be parked on the site; 2) the number of similar one family homes with increased occupancy in the neighborhood which could be considered as precedent; 3) the effect which closing off the garage and remodelling the space as bedrooms will have on parking and traffic congestion on the site. This information could be provided on a Long Environmental Assessment form. The ZBA may require the applicant to provide this information prior to considering this appeal . " Chairman Aron noted that the Board members had also received a copy of a photograph of the house in question. Mr. King noted that the proposal is to close in the garage and make two more bedrooms in there, winding up with a five-bedroom house. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman if he had purchased this property. Mr. Freedman replied that he lived in it. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman how long he had lived in his house, with Mr. Freedman responding, about five years. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Freedman if he had purchased this house with the intention to have more people there. Mr. Freedman stated that he had not, adding that he purchased it with the intention of living there. Chairman Aron noted that Mr. Freedman had said that he cannot afford it. Mr. Freedman responded, no, he wanted to move to a more residential neighborhood. Chairman Aron noted that the house would then be a total rental house. Mrs . Reuning commented that , in addition to the clarifications referred to in the Short EAF, she would also like to have some more information on the area so that the Board would have an idea of the lots in the area. Mr. King asked Mr. Freedman if he had a survey of the property, with Mr. Freedman replying that he thought so. Mr. King wondered if the house were shown on the survey, adding that if it were not, it should be . Mr. Austen stated that he would also like to see where Mr. Freedman proposes to have the parking. Mr. Freedman noted that he had submitted a pictures and he had some more with him. Mr. Freedman indicated the parking areas on the photographs and stated that it is 60 feet from the street to the garage which is even larger than a double garage. Mr. Freedman noted that, with the turn-around, there is room for seven cars. Mr. King commented that he would like to know how many single family homes there are in the area. Mr. Tammo Steenhuis , 266 Pennsylvania Avenue, spoke from the floor and stated that his home is a family residence farther up Pennsylvania Avenue at number 266 . Mr. Steenhuis stated that there are residential homes with kids and the problem with Pennsylvania Avenue is that it is a dead-end street and there is no bus and the children have to walk down the street. Mr. Steenhuis stated that the students go so close and the students drive very fast. Mr. Steenhuis stated that there is a problem and it will be a greater problem with more students and with the children and cars. Mr. Steenhuis stated that there are so many cars and so many students and the area is over-populated with cars and Ithaca College students. Chairman Aron stated that he would recommend to Mr. Freedman that he see the Town Planner, Mr. Lovi, adding that he will help him with the Long EAF and the preparation of further pertinent information. Zoning Board of Appeals 9 September 18, 1985 Mr. King stated that he had a question for Mr. Freedman which was, did he not think he would be aggravating the situation to change his home into a multiple family. Mr. Freedman stated that he really did not think so, adding that his family of five people is living in there now. Mr. Freedman stated that to go from five people to five unrelated people would not have a significant impact. Mr. King stated that it could, however, mean five cars or more. Mr. Freedman ' stated that he had two cars himself parked there -- a station wagon and a large truck which is a full-sized Bronco, plus his camper -- and, so, there is parking for seven cars . Mr. Freedman stated that also the five unrelated persons does not necessarily mean five or more cars because he lives so close to the College that it is a lot easier for the kids to walk up the backyards, which is what they do now, to the College. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Edward Austen: RESOLVED, that the Freedman Appeal with respect to 232 Pennsylvania Avenue be and hereby is adjourned until October 16 , 1985 , at 7:00 p.m. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Aron, Austen, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Freedman Appeal duly adjourned at 8 : 14 p.m. APPEAL OF PARK OUTDOOR ADVERTISING OF NEW YORK, INC. , APPELLANT, ROBERT I . WILLIAMSON, ESQ. , AGENT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO MAINTAIN TWO (2) EXISTING BILLBOARDS , IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 , ON PREMISES OWNED BY SAM AND ELEANOR MATYCHAK, AT 1180 DANBY ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-36-1-8 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER SECTION 8. 01-1 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW, LOCAL LAW NO. 6-1980 . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 8 : 15 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Attorney Robert I. Williamson was present, as well as Mr . Robert Daniels of Park Outdoor Advertising. Each of the Board members had before him/her the following documents. 1 . Copy of letter dated August 30, 1985 , to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Office, signed by Robert I . Williamson, as follows: "Enclosed please find copies of appeal re signs owned by Park Outdoor scheduled, as I understand it, for September 17 , 1985 . " 2 . Copy of letter dated December 10 , 1981 , to Robert I . Williamson Jr. , Esq. , signed by Darrell W. Harp, Assistant Commissioner, Legal Affairs, New York State Department of Transportation, 1220 Zoning Board of Appeals 10 September 18 , 1985 Washington Avenue, State Campus, Albany, NY 12232 , as follows: "This will confirm your request as to our interpretation of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 as it relates to compensation for outdoor advertising signs along interstate and federal-aid primary highways. ¶Clearly, this act mandates compensation for advertising signs lawfully in existence which are removed by any public agency providing they are compensable or lawful under the provisions of the Federal Beautification Act. " 3 . Copy of Appeal of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York, Inc. with respect to those billboards located at 1180 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-36-1-8 , as signed and submitted by Roy H. Park Jr . , under date of August 30 , 1985 , and reading as follows : " . . .Having been denied permission to Park Outdoor Advertising of New York, Inc. at premises owned by Matychak at 1180 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-36-1-8 . . . in violation of -- SECTION (S) 8 .01-1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, Local Law No. 6-1980 . . .PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: A variance is requested because removal of the signs will eliminate income to the company in the approximate amount of $8 ,000 per annum as well as an essential tool for local business advertising. The faces currently advertise local businesses including Fairview Heights and Giordano Realty. In addition, there is a public service ad of the United States Air Force for a local recruiting office. It is submitted the boards will have no effect on future development of the area; they do not generate extra traffic, nor will they contravene the intent of the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance . They will not change the character of the neighborhood. The boards have all been improved and rebuilt in the last couple of years. There is no other way to overcome the hardship imposed by these town regulations except by this variance. " 4 . Copy of Appeal of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York, Inc. with respect to those billboards located at 1325 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-28-1-25 , as signed and submitted by Roy H. Park Jr. , under date of August 30 , 1985 , and reading as follows : " . . .Having been denied permission to Park Outdoor Advertising of New York, Inc. at 1325 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-28-1-25 . . . in violation of -- SECTION (S) 8 .01-1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, Local Law No. 6-1980 . . .PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: A variance is requested because removal of the structures will eliminate income to Park Outdoor at this location of approximately $13 ,000 per annum. The boards are an essential tool for local business advertising. The boards at this location advertise local businesses such as Watt Distributing, Fairview Heights and Gallagher Television. There are also public service ads for the United States Army and United States Air Force. ¶In addition, the removal will create a further hardship on the State of New York since these signs located along Route 79 are along a Federal-Aid Primary Highway, (9 vivect../fi lhe) (—Pt A7(JIV r r - TOWN OF ITHACA _- 47/4011 (L; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM APPLICANT �%®re 2I'/ ,Z;eee //,4A DATE � 'f ,,f PROJECT 7'-11 ca c" e C, .(R.09✓,q ' • LOCATION , 1/� /`tea To be completed and submitted by the applicant. Comments may be written next to the question or on additional paper. - _ GENERAL -INFORMATION A.��� �- f (� =''P-7�, 09 7`i 4/7/ 1 . Applicant 7J'-c/4-‘,/ ,cz4vd Phone Address r13 oZ- ,? M//!/, , Property Owner Phone Address c.1"/9M�' 2. Location of Proposed Action. (Write Address/Tax Lot; Attach..vU_S.GS top_ograph i c map -w-i-th� affected-lands--ou•tl-i ned. ) �� ,1-1--,41N/9 z9Z.1 ��- 7/3,��5q 7 /� 3. Proposed Action. .��NLOS�' Z /Z. /Nq 4. Activities and types of operation resulting from the completion of the proposed action. , IDENTIFICATION OF PROPOSED ACTION -- Site Plan and USGS Map - 5. State the time schedules for the proposed action: Planning Construction s/Zs? Design, Documents A///I Finished Site Work/Grading ,,�,/47 Preliminary Site Work ,0/19 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. 4////57 Transportation of materials to site. ti/ ;-� :Disposal of waste materials. Proposed chemical treatments, such as herbicides, dust control , etc. Special techniques to overcome unusual conditions. - 7. Describe the type of proposed building and site materials to be used.- Foundation i(///9 Structure HVAC - - Energy Sources Siding Insulation Windows and Glass Roofing Pavement Vegetative Cover 8. Total area directly modified by proposed action. 7I J Q 7C7: acres. 9. "Total area covered by impervious surfaces. 5c,)( - Roofs sq.ft. Parking goo SQ f7" acres. Roads acres. 10. Gross building sizes: 101.,C-e5 HovS-c- Present Total /O6-0 sq.ft. No. of -B-1-dgs. ` . No. of Floors/B+dg. / Proposed Total 17a(D sq.ft. No. of •B-1.dgs. / . No. of Floors/-B. dg. / Future Total sq.ft. No. of Bldgs. . No. of Floors/Bldg. -o o rvi S - 11 . Number of proposed Ilwe-l-l-i-ng Units . Number of proposed Commercial Units 4)//q Sizes of Units ',rye/2- E,4) /0,15-a 7G7z Sizes of Units /1//, • r 12. Parking: - Existing L. spaces. Proposed s ®.® spaces. Traffic generated/day f°ki2 0,95, (Note: Indirect Contamination Source Permit may be required if 1 ,000 spaces provided. 13. Show proposed Signs on Site Plan. - Size sq.ft. Height above ground: Top ft. ; Bottom ft. Wording /u/h)- r 14. Show proposed Lights -and other Poles on Site Plan. - Height above ground 4/// 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. /11,49 Purpose of materials (Note: Permits are required from DEC and Tompkins County Health Department.) 16. If the resulting activities are either commercial or industrial use, write the material: to be transferred to/from the site, their frequency, and the mode of transportation. Imported materials /ll)#9 . Frequency . Mode Exported materials . Frequency . Mode 17. Describe project history, including controversy perceived by the developer, litigation, court decisions, etc. Al /p COMMUNITY FACTORS AND IMPACTS 18. Designated Zoning of the Site of the proposed action 9 19. Zoning changes or variances being requested , /1L, ,. i iiI ' A,e7/ % _/// 11 GT/®/V /9"9iQ..42 . crud - �i9l�s ��J 7 -,u1A/ ZD'N//1 o 20. Check if the Site of the proposed action is within or next to the following Districts or Areas: - Agricultural District Historic Preservation District Floodplain (HUD designated) Unique Natural Area Freshwater Wetland 21 . Check which land uses describe the neighborhood character. Single-unit Residential Recreation .. Multi-unit Residential , Agriculture Commercial Forestry Woodland Industrial Wildlife/Conservation Institutional Inactive - Transportation Other 22. Check which public services are being rem-ter provided. • Sanitary Sewage Gas . Water Electricity Storm Drainage Telephone (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 On-street Parking County Highway One-way Traffic > Off-street Parking 'C Town Highway Two-way Traffic Bus systems City/Village Street Traffic Lights 24. Number of existing buildings affected by the proposed action: 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: ice/ 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 Greater than ten feet 27. If bedrock depth is less than ten feet, check type of bedrock existing at Site of proposed action. Ju/A ' Shale Thinly bedded shale and siltstone • Siltstone or sandstone _ Limestone 28. Check types of topographic features which describe or are found on the Site. - Level or gently rolling plains Hilltop Hummocks with small ponds - WA Hillside 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 proposed to be modified. Initials may be used. 30. Briefly describe the nature and extent of proposed modification of existing slopes or soils or drainage: �//, YES NO 31 . Will any wetlands or adjacent areas be modified by the proposed action? If so -' J designate on the Site Plan the wetlands which will be affected. (Note: "Wetlands" permit from administering agency required for alteration.) 32. -\�/1 Will any streams be modified by the proposed action? If so, designate-on the 11 Site Plan which streams will be modified. (Note: "Dam" or "Disturbance" permit from DEC is required for modifications.) 33. 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? - Stands of mature trees greater than 30 feet tall. Young tree species less than 30 feet tall . - ��, Shrubs. - - - >K Terrestrial plants up to two feet high. >C Ferns, grasses, sedges, rushes. Aquatic plants. - ,>C Crops. - 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. 1 ( Are there any plans for revegetation? If so, briefly explain. 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. • Will activity cause a change in or affect visual character of natural or cultural landscape features? 40. r • 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 . rr To your knowledge, are there any rare, endangered, endemic, or unusual wild- • Ii life species which are located on the Site of the proposed action? If so, how are they distributed? 42. I.><-1 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 Fumes Odors Smoke . Other emissions (Note: Air Quality Permits from DEC or Tompkins County Health Department may be required. ) 44. 1 ?>. Will there be changes to existing noise or vibration levels due to the,pro- 1 posed action or its resulting activities? If so, describe the cause. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS AND IMPACTS / - - 45. Number of employees during construction: Oi// i - -5- `Maximum number of employees present at the Site at one time: AVM 46. Number of employees during activities after completion: /1/49 47. If resulting activities are for either Industrial or Commercial use, state the employment shifts and number of employees in each shift. Shift /I//'4 Employees Shift Employees Shift Employees Shift Employees 48. If the resulting activities are for residential use, state the number of planned resident. Permanent _ Seasonal j ,r7.41. 7/5' s 49. Briefly describe the nature and amount of indirect growth anticipated as a result of the proposed action or resulting activities. 2`eh'-S� / ,& c,"/ -7'6 dI2'P J 50. Existing community or business or facilities or residential structures requiring relocation. AM 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? !c/® 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.) 4.09 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 Gathering : 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 Public Utility Connection Building Permit 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. 56. If Federal review under NEPA is required, name Agency: ////,4 ignaiCure of 'Appl icant Tit1p --t' ;,>. REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATIONS: Type of Action: I H4vc--- rr,,,rr-tee.-r -tm- xso-- 1-r®r vt-A-- (1,1�o ram.-r,=;z c,i..j \N ne"Th `ice Tfr Ap VLI r..L. r-P19 Al,-i-r--, I A1°1 S&-rt V► 1 4 �-r- i i4& t -c-t® t S — b..Jt L.c-- fit�-`t"® .s A 5,4 t.a t so'cc.iv�`r° J r ► I .4/ v.-_-7z... (v.-3- I M-pre.G"C® (7r-.3 -r-{ f-�cJ t 2-ot r-ie r rr— . I r_zr-u-t r r.-r-r-„ L iJ ,/err. i F,- i L.,&-(4_._ 71 ra1--) C Ai 1(1-m1� .i°c,-71-ate 4,1 4 t✓ 1 F I e4.►,..)eg.- ./ ./.1 .F...--__7"..T . .'Signla`ture of Reviewer•' I;7-'t••--? 77; /Citi Na'Sra.....-, Title . Agency 1 n, i i 1 G- Date Reviewed ( DETERMINATION BY TOWN OF ITHACA BOARD: - I � I Negative Declaration -- Determination of Non-Significance. Positive Declaration"'-- Action may be of Significa t nvironmental Impact. D/EIS Required. • Signt6 e of Chairperson . ocr. ,43, (fes-- Date -8- Lt 6/ /P/ .WN7( ,- A W '°J d Y..2t' T .71a n'/g1 :9417' V" 1 a„SNN.�� ZEZ "v , albs kM'7k'V if 7' A a:a/-9.2 ..�v .ONb o� �� ., k .g(,£tt0 ; ,. ` p:"±www.... let ii '':' z f 27-Z,-ks- : • . , ' t, 0! / . .11h111111N%%-- � ---� o r itg dJA0addy. cfgTip9/1 )_- /i 0' 44,1, .2 A 7 N - ®� (i , w?P#4r �o db'4/ 01 a'Ig-va'a' ; . , e k - ''sz -. . , . ''0 ,g''' 1.9„,e 107 '- s..72.,17' .c.I.Z' i .* ' 0 NP.L. -9SS- �1'A/ 1 f • 'C)V / '. • .ta'b'f/ V'/V/a'S' )4 'f �C a'.1g+,[ ' - 4 .[...... V,+'".... 4 .r.._.m .ten A ) - 0 I-row-3'4J _ I'"1 t�lismid ��Nvl�/ L 1 vi 00. to E ('t3m+pzmi) 2fra-xve ?‘.15 Z17nm� U V ) (/n3Aa-D-vi) Ll E 0.773-noay/) - El g773Ap3 1J) 7���I5 SN M 7� J p ( n-73'1o°,ti) ] -,1.1 (.nigloati r) 5 L (lytol) 1��� t7�tin�r2 -, i p r13�o�b1' Im} � S®}J � "� c�, /IN '�� cra/b/aa'�03 ;' , N1lNdl(o-N0;0" (177j,o�,t, INl�� 0,1u15) [f 4,4 5 VR,--„,„9_1 , "00 0 $(e4443.vii Cly/ nn�j .0 _r /H 050. (ahopi.)e, ' , c 0 "r,0rn,soi o (�a>,/H� �t ti13n47t1f) �� l,3ldw 1J ,, Qc r 11 anoDb s Q}/td,00nl tiio )1 d a wnN0'►3W C tialb Q Ei ., E ° t- r r a. /\74atiC d w J 4 n. -..[bt/H Q E 18 o w 4- s _ aw7i Ela (ad yoHI) ® ¢ a b lvz,,M 8 - — v F > :is v us-471-F NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION PROJECT I.D.NUMBER DIVISION OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS - �� I - 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. Apphcant/sponsor I2 Project Name eo4lV4 / ?3o 7,a ,,o. 'vN1Q. 3 Project location. • Municipality TOw/✓ • County j 6/6/jai /ice 4. Is proposed action: - ❑ New • ❑ Expansion RI Modification/alteration 5. Describe project briefly. c/O1 e L—� c��/.mil//V �%/ Gj, �w�. CIJ�I/UL/ T. -cam Z 2.ore2 I iS 6 Precise location(road intersections, prominent,landmarks,etc or provide map) 7. Amount of land affected Initially acres Ultimately acres' /1/0N`e 8 Will proposed a ion comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? ❑ Yes No If No,describe briefly u//777/ /// fre(-7/oit/ y /J/47/?/� z —2d Tow>✓ o/ -,Tf+ffC.2 2aiv/N� o/Z0//7/.R/c-e 9 What is present land use in vicinity of project? g.Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture D Parkland/open space ❑ Other Describe. 10 Does action involve a ermit1approval, or funding,now or ultimately, from any other governmental agency(Federal,state or local)? ❑ Yes No If yes, list agency(s)and permit/approvals 11 Does any aspect yyof.the action have a currently valid permit or approval? I.❑ Yes y No if yes, list agency name and permit/approval type - 12 As result of proposed action will existing permit/approval require modification? El yes No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name Q p� Date: • Signature. • - 1.ef `J 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 (1 o be completed by Agency) • A. Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12? If yes,coordinate the review process and use the FULL/LONG FORM EAF. ❑ Yes Ay 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 invr'lved action -0 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 On the basis of -existing information, it is unlikely that this 'action will have a significant effect on these aspects of the environment . Existing traffic patterns may be adversely affected if insufficient pa�rlcing pis' provi ledf for the deN.pent( LionI , do not have sufficient information upon which. to C2 Historic,archeological,visual or aesthetic,or other natural or cultural resources,agricultural districts;or community or neighborhood character?Explain briefly. There may be an adverse impact on the community or neighborhood character. This- conclusion is .based upon the fact that no evidence has been presented- that five unrelated persons presently occupy any existing home in the neighborhood. To the extent that this action 1� is from ne IVorl��fo standafrdbs its •?raj be Derce,i?v.d as an adverse impac C e a ion or fauna,movemen is or wi i e species,significan ha ita'ts or t rea ene or endangered species xp am nefly. As this action merely relates to increasing intensity upon an already developed lot,_ I_ dog, not believe__that i`t w1,l1 have a Ogni,f icant adverse impact upon these criteria. - C4 A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted,o a change in use or intensityof use of landr Vet?:n ural resour ? xpl i bri As indicated in the appeal , this use is n per ri �`itt �4> ie Zoning Ordinance. The criteria for the issuance of Special Permits_ are given in Section 77,. number 7 . I do not have sufficient information to determine� the environmental effects of this action on community goals CS4rov,t1tisliB§egitATecelopment• or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly - If the appeal -is granted, it is likely that subsequent appellants would refer to this matter as precedent for similar increases in permitted - occupancy. C6 Secondary, cumulative,or other effects not identified in C1-C6? Explain briefly. If many Special Permits of this type were granted, the cumulative effect would be to erode the occupancy standards established by the Zoning Ordinanc This outcome could have a significant effect on community character . C7 A change in use of either quantity or type of energy? Explain briefly I do not believe that this action will have any significant environmental effect upon -this criteria. PART III 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—Ensue-tf;at explanations contain sufficient detail to show-that-ail.relevant adve;s-r-i ipacts-have-been-identified— - -and adequately addressed. ER 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. ❑ 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: This appeal is an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQR. On the basis of the information 'I have at this time, I recommend a positive declaration of environmental significance. I believe the appellant should provide additional information on 1) -the expected number of cars to be parked on the site; 2) the number of similar one family homes with increased occupancy in the neighborhood which could be considered as precedent ; 3) the effect which closing off the garage and remodeling the space as bedrooms will have on parking and traffic congestion o site, i information could be provided on a. Long Environments ssess ent fo m. The ZBA may require the applicant to provide this in r ation rio o considering this appeal . Agency Name Agency Preparer's Name PETER M. LOVI Preparer's Signature/Title TOWN PLANNER Date SEPTEMR1a.R 17, 1985 • ' �1 r PROJECT I.D.NUMBER I NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION t i1/4 hS;\1 DIVISION OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS • /ti'`1, State Environmental 'Duality 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 3. Project location: Municipality 7v .J/i/ O „ZT/�qCA County 7-0•1?"/:-/ 4. Is proposed action: ❑ New • ❑ Expansion ID Modification/alteration 5_ Describe project briefly C�oI y EXirTiiv �,� ce2/vve/c'j •7c� Z • 6. Precise location(road intersections,prominent landmarks,etc.or provide map) • • 7. Amount of land affected Initially acres Ultimately acres /✓aN-e-' B Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? ❑ Yes E-No If No,describe briefly 7eS- /vo r,1,1/'L7' �c '/77/ //":7A:'/11 7'wr✓ d/ ,T Tf//iC42 9 What is present land use in vicinity of project? I,Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture El Parkland/open space ❑ Other Describe: • . 10 Does action involve a ermitiapproval, or funding now or ultimately,from any other governmental agency(Federal,state or local)? • 0 Yes No If yes, list agency(s)and permit/approvaly 11 Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? ❑ Yes ..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 THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name e� ��l� ✓ Date: • 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 li Ftironmental Assessment (lo be completed by Agenc ) A. Dtiei action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12? If yes,coordinate the review process and use the FULL/LONG FORM EAF. ❑ Yes - tlil 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 invr•1ved action Yes El No , • C. Could action result in ANY adverse effects on,to,or arising from the following (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. 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. On the basis of existing information, it is unlikely that this action will have a significant effect on these aspects of the environment . Existing traffic patterns may be adversely affected if insufficient paring is pr.ovi ie . for the detsaafnttf CioI do not have sufficient information upon w is to make a C2. Historic,archeological,visual or aesthetic,or other natural or cultural resources,agricultural districts•or community or neighborhood character?Explain briefly. There may be an adverse impact on the community or neighborhood character. This conclusion is :based upon the fact that no evidence • has been presented that five unrelated persons presently occupy any existing home in the neighborhood.siest, To the extent sthat this action C a altsr ffromvenm s12orw ipespecsafdEh sTs,oit LIMN orbeanDee eceilsYEginVefaadv adverse impal As this action merely relates to increasing intensity upon an already developed lot , I,._Uo . not believe that i,t will ha;ye, a sign f ican.t adverse impact upon these criteria. C4 A community's existing plans or goals as officially adapted,o a,change in use or intensityf use of land r t e natural resour ? xp i bri As indicated in the appeal , this use is not permit-�fu y right �$ ie Zoning Ordinance. The criteria for the issuance of Special Permits. are given in Section 77, number 7. I do not have sufficient information to determine}., the environmental effects of this action on community goals r CS`? row'ttf;�sb&equ'�r�t�celopment, •or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?Explain briefly. • If the appeal is granted, it is likely that subsequent appellants would refer to this matter as precedent for similar increases in permitted , 1, occupancy. • - C6 Secon ary, cumulative,or other effects not identified in C1-C6?Explain briefly. If many Special Permits of this type were granted, the cumulative effect would be to erode the occupancy standards established by the Zoning Ordinani This outcome could have a significant effect on community character . C7. A change in use of either quantity or type of energy,Explain briefly I do not believe that this action will have any significant environmental effect upon this criteria. 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 attachment's or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all.relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. ER 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:This appeal is an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQR. On the basis. of the information 'I have at this time, I recommend a positive declaration of environmental significance. I believe the appellant should provide additional information on 1) the expected number of cars to be parked on the site; 2) the number of similar one family homes with increased occupancy in the neighborhood which could be considered as precedent ; 3) the effect which closin, off the garage and remodeling the space as bedrooms will have on parking and traffic congestion o the- site. is information could be provided on a Long Environmenta ssess ent fo m./ The ZBA may require the applicant to provide this in r ation ri q7 onsidering this appeal . Agency Name Agency Preparers Name PETER M. LOVI Preparer's Signature1Title (�� �- TOWN PLANNER Date SEPTEMRFR 17 g5 1,,,,, Vl• 111111.1,11 IL" If.VV _ 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: lc- 1 D Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH - ( (-V) (607) 273-1747 CHECK - ( ) APPEAL ZONING: 2?-7 • 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 /2( -LJ y may' A/v ,�'Q(1/I// -L iQ/e 7 // /G7'l,Q�.r/l'.69n/%P /., J i// iJse( ( 7(J,)e%7v "�e,er /�cs at (7,3 S-2e.e.-pt/y,. ,6. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-,5-"y-7 j,? ,�/v 2 ,5y--7-/4 , 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: (4,.- -/-(-7,- ,e=?- _A4.- . --,14-Z-Z-) ,/,,--.41"--4-A-M1(2_, . -(,)-tA_I._(9. --/-7.-el/ __.(1,c4e ,/,e,e-Z-Z &ea-e ,_ ,,,, _ <.,%2,6- -e a,: % / 1Z-i /' j - 6y�9 .-ate 2 o =-W--,P �� - � ,d -.- �/e_ ___ Qom- .,e1 ,2- L -i-7 ,/;�.�, 224y--/i �_, .../� �il,ee� _/,/,�t/ 2t'- f 1'�GC2{.2_./ -e- `� _ ,sL . I4 di2/�_e_ ,/,ri --/ ./c i f ' v ,e ,1-/'� l,/_ ACe-/G __ '2 icy ��Z , �0 .•,y 1 �/4'-,� �� ,?,-.7 _21,,, - A e / Dated: Yf- Signed _„� 2, / `</ � : .�2i-- y / �� 1 t a! Ya l� v i, far,-n4"�' �-r , ggi ' [Y;�'j �1., 4,, b