Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (41) TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2003 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 Monday, June 16, 2003 , in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P .M ., on the following matters : APPEAL of the Town of Ithaca, Appellant, Creig Hebdon, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V. Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a municipal water storage tank 44 + feet high (30 foot height limit) near 307 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -5- 1 . 2, Residence District R-30. APPEAL of Barbara Harvey, Appellant, Elizabeth Bixler, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 13 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an existing carport/garage with a front yard building setback of 19.2 + feet (25 foot setback required) at 883 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2- 18, Residence District R- 15 . Said garage constructed by a previous owner in violation of the Ordinance. APPEAL of Shawn Gillespie, Appellant, requesting a special approval under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be able to add a second dwelling unit within the confines of an existing single family conforming home located at 881 . 5 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25 -2- 19, Residence District R- 15 . Said home was constructed 14 .3 + feet ( 15 foot required) from the north side property line, by a previous owner. A variance from Article IV , Section 14 of said Ordinance, may also be requested. APPEAL of Stephen Cummins, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to extend the uses at the Indian Creek Farm stand, located at 1408 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 1 -25.21 , Residence District R- 15 . The farm stand, which is not a permitted use in an R- 15 zone, proposes to produce fresh and hard cider and to replace a greenhouse structure with a wood framed structure . APPEAL of Linda Lerch, Appellant, Claudia Brenner, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to extend a non-conforming building/lot with the construction of additional space at 1014 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2- 21 , Residence District R- 15 . The construction does not enlarge the existing building footprint but enlarges it skyward . Said lot is deficient in size and building lot line setbacks. APPEAL of Mark Zifchock, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit a business known as the Computer Gurus to operate from 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -2= 15 , Residence District R-30. The Ordinance does not permit said business, as conducted, to specifically operate in a R-30 Zone . Additionally, the appellant is asking for a determination from the Zoning Board that the occupants residing within the structure, containing the Computer Gurus, are occupying said space as a non-traditional family. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 : 00 p . m., and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated : June 6 , 2003 Published : June 9 . 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED RESOLVED that this board grants the appeal of Linda Lerch, Appellant, Claudia Brenner, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to extend a non- conforming building/lot with the construction of additional space at 1014 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-21 , Residence District R- 15. The construction does not enlarge the existing building footprint but enlarges it skyward. Said lot is deficient in size and building lot line setbacks. FINDINGS: a . The requirements for a special approval have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: a . The construction be performed as indicated on the applicant's plans. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NA YS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — We are going to take a break for a few minutes in the hope that Mr. Barney will arrive ( 8 : 13 p . m . ) . Mr . Frost — I have reached him on his cell phone . The board reconvened at 8:20 p. m. APPEAL of Mark Zifchock, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit a business known as the Computer Gurus to operate from 855 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 . -2- 15 , Residence District R- 30 . The Ordinance does not permit said business , as conducted , to specifically operate in a R-30 Zone . Additionally, the appellant is asking for a determination from the Zoning Board that the occupants residing within the structure , containing the Computer Gurus , are . occupying said space as a non-traditional family. Mr. Ellsworth — I have a question of John Barney before we start . Chairperson Sigel — Okay . Mr . Ellsworth — Jason Demerest . . . I ' m currently involved with a project . We are working together on a project . I ' m not being paid by him ; I ' m being paid by the owner. 25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Frost— But it' s not involving this property. Mr. Ellsworth — No . It has nothing to do with this property . Do I continue or do 1 abstain ? Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Demerest is advising and acting as architect for the applicant . Attorney Barney — I want to be a little careful in how I phrase this question , but how close are you to Mr. Demerest in terms of professionalism ? It comes to the point of whether there is some financial gain . Mr. Ellsworth — He is drawing my work . Attorney Barney — He is drawing your work? Mr. Ellsworth — Yeah , because he 's CAD and I ' m non -CAD . Attorney Barney — I think you have to look at it in the circumstance that if you voted against this proposal , would that have an impact on your relationship and your ability to work with Mr. Demerest ? If that is the case , than you should probably abstain . Mr. Ellsworth — I thought the rule was from before , if I could remain impartial . . . Attorney Barney — That is certainly part of it and clearly if you have a financial gain out of voting one way or another you should disqualify yourself . It is a question of whether the relationship itself creates a situation where you would be . . . and you were to your financial detriment to go against something . Mr. Ellsworth — Earlier today I was training him how to replace me . Attorney Barney — Then you want out . I guess I ' m not too terribly concerned . Mr. Ellsworth — Okay. I just wanted to get it . out . Attorney Barney — You should disclose it . There is no question about it . Chairperson Sigel — Okay . Please state your name and address for the record . Mark Zifchock , 855 Five Mile Drive . Chairperson Sigel — And give us an overview of what it is you are asking to do . Jason Demerest , Tallman and Demerest Architects — I reviewed the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the situation on hand . As far as I can tell , it seems that although unusual , 26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED they do seem to comply with the definition of family . . . albeit somewhat non -traditional . I will have Mark elaborate a little bit on that . Mr. Zifchock — And specifically as much as I understand the zoning laws , areas where we share space , share expenses , share meals and basically operate together. We own the residence jointly . We live there together. Our children play together. Our ambition in the beginning was to live and try to work together as a group that would benefit from being together with one another and working on the place together. We operate as a family and that is the way that we function . Our transactions are that of a family. Chairperson Sigel — Could you enumerate for the board how many adults are living there and how many children are living there ? Mr. Zifchock — Karl Gesslein is not living there now , but he will be living there shortly . He is still fixing his area so he can actually stay there . All adults that I am going to mention are all part owners of the property . Jocelyn Wanagel lives there now . My wife lives there . I live there and my son lives there . Mr. Frost — You mentioned the first person is fixing up his space or something . Could you clarify? Mr. Zifchock — There needs to be work done before he feels comfortable . He does have a house now that he is selling . Once that is sold , he will be moving in . Mr. Frost — You understand , though , the building permit process is necessary before any work occurs . Mr. Zifchock — Essentially the upgrades Karl is making are cosmetic . . They are finish upgrades in his space . An application will be, filed . Mr. Frost — You understand , too , that there is an occupancy classification change . This was a school . It is not approved for residential . Mr. Demerest — My understanding was that the zoning of the area right now is R-30 and when the prior occupancy leaves the area , the facility would revert back unless requested otherwise by the new owner. Essentially we are requesting to revert back to R-30 occupancy . Mr. Frost — It is not going to be an issue with the board so much as the fact that through the due process of obtaining a building permit , changing the occupancy classification from a school building to a residential building . In this case , really what is before the board is the fact that this is not a traditional family . There is a mechanism that is specified in the Zoning Ordinance as to the type of evidence you have to present to the Zoning Board to get the approval of a non -traditional family . It is not clear to me whether you have any of that evidence , which I have tried to suggest to you that you 27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED need to obtain by way of definition of non -traditional family . The other process is that business is not a permitted use in an R-30 zone . Mr. Demerest — In reviewing the definition of a family in paragraph d , which reverts the decision back to the board , and then references paragraph f, which begins to list some of the standards that will be applied in making the determination . I have gone through that and the majority of the standards seem to be met . The first one , the group , which in theory and size resembles a traditional family unit . That is obviously in question . The second one , a single housekeeping unit . That is the intent , to share resources to put together and live as one unit . This is their current nature . This is their home . They are members of the community , not students . This is a long-term arrangement . Some of the other standards listed here , such as address , if their address 855 Five Mile Drive is really their home address . Their drivers license information and voter registration information , filing their taxes . . . that is the address that they use . They share some furniture that came from one owner. Other things have been purchased together. They are sharing the burden of setting up the household . The children , I believe are still a little young to be enrolled in school , but I do know that they participate in home schooling together. They are obviously employed in the area . I actually use them as a computer-consulting firm . Another point to make is that they have lived together in the past . They are long-term friends . They have an existing relationship . They understand that living together can be difficult , but the space is pretty large for four people . It really makes it easier to get away from each other at times . Essentially , it seems to me as I went through this list , virtually every mark was met . The biggest point is that they are not transient in any way . I understand that the determination and standards here are related to preventing transient occupants and in particular college students . In my opinion , they really met those requirements . I investigated this a little further and found some New York State Court of Appeals determinations related to the definition of family . I included that in the outline that I provided . I will just read a couple of these . There is one Nickman vs . Town of Oyster Bay . I ' ll read the finding from the Court of Appeals . ( Mr. Demerest read the finding to the board) . Essentially , the house is a fairly good size . They obviously are not overcrowding that space . If you go into the zoning law and look at this work , the requirements for an occupant , it is well in access of that . Mr. Ellsworth — How many square feet in this building ? Mr. Zifchock — It is well over 4 , 000 square feet . Mr. Ellsworth — How long have they owned it ? Mr. Zifchock — A little bit over a year. 28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Mr. Frost — Basically it was a plumbing permit application made in which my office received a copy . Three kitchens in the building were discovered during one of my inspections . My understanding is that as a non -traditional family , you live in a single , one unit . The multiple kitchens essentially would constitute a multiple dwelling , which is not consistent with the non -traditional family aspect . Could you clarify or expand upon that? Mr. Demerest - Obviously when you have a traditional family , it is often found to have a single cook in the household . Obviously one kitchen would suffice . When you have four individuals as being non -traditional , those definitions in how you set up a house would obviously change with that non -traditional relationship based on different work schedules . It would just be easier to have multiple kitchens . Mr. Frost — But you understand that you move from a single family residence to a multiple dwelling once you get beyond two kitchens . Mr. Demerest — I guess that is one area of the code that never really understood that . If I in my house chose to put a second kitchen or a kitchenette down in the basement as entertainment space , I would see that as my right . I don 't think the quantity of kitchens is really what is defining the type of facility . Mr. Krantz — Okay, before we get too far into this . It is certainly is within the realm of this board to issue a variance so you can have a business there . That would to me seem reasonable particularly since there was a school there . We have given variances to several places right along the Elmira Road there . I don 't see any problem with that . Is it really within the realm of this board to determine the definition of what a family is ? Attorney Barney — It is not only the realm , it is obligation of this board under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance . The definition is there , basically is there in terms of trying to define those circumstances . The Nickman case said if you have the functional equivalent of a traditional family than you could not discriminate simply because the people did not happen to have blood connections . It did make it pretty clear that it had to be somewhat to what you would view what a traditional family is in this day and age . That is what our ordinance made an effort to deal with . Chairperson Sigel — It seems to me that the Town ' s definition of a family in the clause that you point to , which allows for determination of a non -traditional unit as being a family . . . it states that we must find in two that the group is one which will live and cook together as a single housekeeping unit . I have a hard time understanding the need for more than one kitchen if your group is going to live and cook as a single housekeeping unit . Mr. Demerest — That issue obviously hasn 't presented . We have discussed with the appellants it has obviously created an issue . They are open to reducing the number I think to two . The present kitchen is in severe need of upgrade . It might actually be issue with the plumbing issues to move the kitchen upstairs . And just once again , being 29 n Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED a non -traditional family the needs of that living arrangement is different . I think the term housekeeping unit is much greater . . . Chairperson Sigel — We need to determine that your group is functionally equivalent to a traditional family unit , which would only need one kitchen . Say it was your traditional couple with an adult relative or two living in the same household , which were blood related . That family unit would presumably only require one kitchen even though there were four adults living in the household . It seems to me that if you want two kitchens , than what you want is two dwelling units . A combination of a kitchen and sanitary facilities defines a dwelling unit . Mr. Frost — Both the old building code as well as the new building code as well as the Zoning Ordinance defines a dwelling unit as a and I ' ll read this directly from the new code . "A dwelling unit is a single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons including permanent provisions living , sleeping , eating and sanitation . " Where we run into the situation where someone may have a summer kitchen , it is usually in the floor plan arrangement where you cannot close a door and create a separate area , which I think is more in line with what they have . Mr. Krantz — Many of the houses along the lake have two kitchens . Mr. Frost — It is the way that the living area is arranged with sleeping , sanitary and cooking provisions . Mr. Demerest — I somewhat disagree because there isn 't a quantity listed in the definition . Going back to the concept of your parents moving in , it is not unheard of to construct a separate kitchen for the dietary needs of a different generation that would warrant a second kitchen . I don 't see the kitchen as a real deciding factor. Related to the Nickman case , soon after the Court of Appeals considered whether a municipality could restrict the number of unrelated persons living together as a functional equivalent of a natural family while allowing an unlimited number of related persons to reside together. The Court of Appeals told them they cannot . Attorney Barney — I think you are misreading how it applies to our statute . Our statute does not limit the number of unrelated persons living together as a functional equivalent . It does require a permit if there is more than two that are claiming to be living together. The test in here is whether you come within the requirements of being a functional family unit . Chairperson Sigel — Under our Zoning Ordinance , is it permissible to have a single dwelling unit , which has two kitchens ? Attorney Barney — Yes . It is a question as to whether you could create two dwelling units . If you can make two kitchens and two complete living combinations sleeping and sanitation , than you have two dwelling units . 30 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Mr. Frost — Without getting into debate here , the Town Board by resolution set up a mechanism where someone if it is determined to have an illegal apartment in a two family residence , then removal of a kitchen will then constitute bringing it back to a single residence . It has really been a Town Board determination . Attorney Barney — It has usually been historical where we had clear violation of a third unit to assure that there is not going to be more than what is permitted . Where there has been a history of a violation that the excess kitchens be removed so they cannot create the third unit . Mr. Frost — Or in the case of two units and they bring the building up to code for a 2 family . Chairperson Sigel — So if they have two or more kitchens , would that make it by definition ? Attorney Barney — I think you have to look at the lay out . Many homes have six bedrooms and two bathrooms and a kitchen . Sometimes a mini- kitchen and a bar in the basement . But if that another room and a bathroom accompanied mini- kitchen in the basement and it is capable of being shutoff , you have now created a dwelling unit . Mr. Frost — If you chose to provide a floor plan . . . ( not audible ) . Chairperson Sigel — If it were a two unit building , then there would be no issue as far as occupancy . If there are two families . . . Attorney Barney — I wasn 't quite fast enough to get the number and names of people . Who is going to be living there ? Mr. Zifchock — Myself , Karl Gesslein , Jocelyn Wanagel and Claire Fox . Attorney Barney — And I gather that there is a little Fox and a little Zifchock . If you hadn 't . . . I think you would have been kind of interestingly been able to qualify with two units and have a traditional family . Mr. Gesslein — We have considered setting up multiple units and certainly divide it up very easily . However, 90% of the basement area is communal . The upstairs area has three separate distinct bedrooms and those are considered people 's private spaces , but as far as people ' s bathrooms and kitchens , those are not considered private spaces . I think that it is worth knowing that the way that we choose to live is very unusual as far as a traditional family . For us to install a fire break between two separate units would really separate the way that we choose to live . We are choosing to live this way and it is not very easy , but we feel like in our heart it is the right place for us to live . Mark has been a friend of mine for 15 years . We are all locals of the area . We are here for the long haul . We feel very rooted in this community . This is where we want to be . If you guys feel like you can steer us in the direction . . . ( not audible) . 31 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Attorney Barney — I understand that , but the way you choose to live doesn 't not necessarily govern what we can and we can 't do . We have rules and laws that govern what can and can 't be done by zoning . If we can get you to a point where you are in compliance with our zoning , if you choose to open up a door and go upstairs and downstairs then I don 't think anyone is going to sit there policing it . On the other hand , I think you need to get into a position where you are in compliance one way or another whether it is by this board finding that you are a functional family. Mr. Frost — It is not clear to me whether there is a plan for a third kitchen that the plumbing permit reflects or if you have given up on the third kitchen ? Mr. Zifchock — (Comments not audible) Mr. Frost — So you are not planning on a third kitchen ? Mr. Zifchock — Right . Mr. Krantz — Wouldn 't a third kitchen be something . . . ( hot audible) Mr. Gesslein — We have discussed that . I think there is a lot of different ideas about what ways we want to use our kitchens and things . We recognize the possibility . . . ( not audible) Mr. Frost — The second kitchen was off of a bedroom upstairs in the studio classrooms . I believe that second kitchen upstairs is part of a bedroom , which is basically exclusive from the hallway and other bedrooms . To get to that second kitchen you are going through somebody's bedroom . Mr. Gesslein — Actually , you have to go through a hallway. It's at the end of the hallway . Mr. Demerest — There are two points .of access . Mr. Frost — That may have been created since the last time I was there . The kitchen opens up to a large . . . there is no door that is part of a bedroom . You have to understand that part of my dilemma even beyond the Zoning Board ' s actions here is the fact that 1 have to deal with building code . There is no way that I am going to sidestep the requirements of the building code . Mr. Demerest — I feel that we are trying to work with the zoning now . I haven 't really looked at the building permit requirements . I think once we see where this takes us , and then we will develop it further. Obviously they proceeded without really knowing what they could do . That is what we are trying to do now . Chairperson Sigel — So it would be legal then for them to have two kitchens assuming they were arranged in a way that was not condusive to separating the house into two 32 I Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED separate dwelling units . So that if we determine that it was a single family unit and they submitted floor plans that show the orientations of the . . . certainly if both kitchens were on the same floor, that would make it much less condusive to separating the house . Obviously the natural separation would be first floor second floor for two independent units . Having a kitchen on the first floor and one on the second floor would allow you to just shut a door and you would have complete independent units top and bottom . Mr. Ellsworth — We have floor plans here . One says original layout and one says proposed . Nothing has been started on the proposed ? Mr. Demerest — There is work done on the proposed . Mr. Frost — There is a second kitchen on the upper floor that was not there . Chairperson . Sigel — What would be the harm in actually allowing a layout that was condusive to making two dwelling units ? Attorney Barney — Nothing , as long as it meets the requirement of it being either , . ( not audible) . I haven 't studied the plans . Chairperson Sigel — Does it have to be completely in the basement? Mr. Frost — I don 't see that as an issue , but I do see the lack of fire separation and other building code requirements as being very necessary to achieve . Attorney Barney — Building code is an issue that I don 't this board has authority to alter any way . Chairperson Sigel — I guess my point is though , do we need to be concerned about the ease with which it could be converted into two units . Attorney Barney — You mean back into a single ? Chairperson Sigel — No . Do we need to worry about the ease in which it could be made into two separate dwelling units given the fact that is legal ? Attorney Barney — No . Quite frankly , looking at the circumstances my preference would be to see it as two dwelling units . You can 't have a boarder. Chairperson Sigel — What would be the problem with the two units ? Attorney Barney — You are not allowed to have boarders . What gets you to the two unrelated or three unrelated people is that we have boarders in a single -family house . So you can have three unrelated people before you have to come in and go through the permit process . We do not allow that in a two family house . 33 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — Wouldn 't they only have two families ? Attorney Barney — They have one family . . . Mr. Gesslein — I don 't think an owner can be a boarder by definition . Chairperson Sigel — Claire and Mark would be one family and Karl and Jocelyn would be another. Mr. Frost — There are two children with two families and the third person with no children . So there are three distinct individuals there unless you chose to . . . ( not audible) . Attorney Barney — If you wanted to classify Karl , Karl 's son and Jocelyn as a non - traditional family , they would meet the definition . Then they could be in one unit and Mark , Claire and Felix could be in the second unit . You would have to have two separate units . What surrounds this area ? What is the neighborhood ? Mr. Gesslein — It is pretty sparse right here . There are three neighbors . We have signatures from all those people basically saying that they are aware of our living situation and they support it . They are aware that we have a computer business that is working out of that space . They also support that . Mr. Krantz — It is the corner of 13A and the Elmira Road . It is tucked sort of below where the Waldorff School was . Attorney Barney — At one time they wanted to expand it . Chairperson Sigel — Personally , I don 't have a problem with determining that this group is a family . I ' m just not quite sure how to handle what to allow or if we even need to say anything about what it is that they can do in their house and how they can install the services that they need . Mr. Dixon — It seems to me like we can just make the determination that they are a family . Chairperson Sigel — It seems possible that we don 't even need to say anything about what they can put in the house . If they want to do something that is not allowed by the ordinance , they can come back with concrete plans for a variance . If two kitchens are allowed by the ordinance depending upon how the layout is , then they can work to meet that . Mr. Dixon — Then there is the issue of the business use , which I don 't have a problem here . Mr. Ellsworth — Can we get some explanation of a business use . 34 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Mr. Gesslein — The business is that we are computer consultants . We do software and support work . Mr. Ellsworth — How are you using this property as part of your business? Mr. Gesslein — Our workstation is there and we communicate with our clients . . Mr. Ellsworth — Do your clients come there ? Mr. Gesslein — As a convenience we have had clients . . . ( not audible) Mr. Ellsworth — So your places of business are homes or whatever. So you go to their places . Chairperson Sigel — If you are programming you are there by yourself . Mr. Gesslein — There are five people in the business . Three of the people , Mark , Jocelyn and myself are part owners in the business . Then there are two other people , Abram and John . Abram and Mark do programming and John , myself and Jocelyn do on site customer support work . It is a very unusual business . Everyone is an independent contractor. They have their own customer basis . They charge whatever they want . . . It is not like any other business I 've ever heard of . Mr. Ellsworth — But the customer support you are talking about is . . . Mr. Gesslein — We go on site . Mr. Ellsworth — Away from your property? Mr. Gesslein — Absolutely . Mr. Ellsworth — How many times a month do people come to your property? Mr. Gesslein — I think we 've got customer vehicles in our parking lot for less than an hour. It is an average of five people per month . It is very low . Mr. Zifchock — It is a convenience for them . Mr. Ellsworth — Your neighbors that have signed this are aware of this travel ? Mr. Gesslein — Yes . It is a bunch of consultants living under the same roof . Attorney Barney — It is a non -traditional family , who happen to be consultants living under the same roof . 35 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Mr. Gesslein — It is a bunch of non -traditional consultants living as a family under a business hall Attorney Barney — We need to be careful from a precedential standpoint . What makes this unique is the area . If you took the same kind of situation and plopped it down in the middle of Cayuga Heights , you probably would have a different reaction from the neighborhood than you are likely to get here . You indicated that there are two other people indicated involved in this business . Where do they do the work? Mr. Gesslein — On site . Abram comes over . . . (not audible) . Attorney Barney — So you have one person who comes who doesn 't live there , but who comes there to work . Chairperson Sigel — The other person who is not an owner is mostly working at customer sites . Mr. Gesslein — Ninety percent , yes . Chairperson Sigel — Personally , I don 't have a problem with recognizing this as a profession under Section 19 , subsection 1 . Attorney Barney — Except profession in that context I think means a licensed profession . I don 't think a license is required for this Chairperson Sigel — It says quasi - profession . If they are not professional , then they might as well be quasi -professional . Mr. Demerest — EcoVillage , 1995 , local law 1 . The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance included computer consulting in that same exact paragraph . Attorney Barney — Yeah , but that is a special piece of legislation that applies to a specific area in a Special Land Use District , which requested that specifically as part of the rezoning of an entire area . I recognize that it might be nice , but the very fact that we had to put it in there suggests that it is not permitted elsewhere . Mr. Demerest — I ' m not implying that it is permitted ; I ' m just saying that it is included in a like group . Attorney Barney — In an area where . . . well it sets a precedent for that area , but it also says that if it is not included and isn 't listed that it is not one of these quasi - professions . The computer area is very different . We have been wrestling with it because Section 1 materials are basically licensed by and large . . . or educated in a sense that you have a degree in a particular field . What is your situation here ? 36 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Mr. Gesslein — I have something that is called a MCSE . . . Internet Certification . It is a Microsoft Support Certification . It is the highest support certification . If you go to the computing center or SHERPA , you pay $ 130 an hour for someone who doesn 't have as much qualifications as I do . There are certifications . However, Jocelyn who is 19 and was home schooled 0 . . and is far more qualified than some of these people charging $ 130 per hour. So the computer industry is very unusual . I consider myself along with my partners professionals , like lawyers . Mr. Ellsworth — John , could you summarize here ? I ' m getting a little lost . Attorney Barney — You have the family issue , which I think you 've kind of resolved in your minds how you want to go on that . I would say that we would need some documentation for the assertions here in terms of the voting . We would want to see some driver' s licenses and that sort of thing . Assuming you get over the documentation hurdle , the next question is the use of the property. One family or two family , if you are treating them as a single housekeeping unit , it really doesn 't matter. Mr. Ellsworth — They can have two kitchens ? Attorney Barney — It has to meet a residential . . . Mr. Frost — If you have two distinct areas , by code it has to be a two family residential , with fire safety issues . If they are willing to put that in , I have no problem to give them a certification of occupancy when they have a building that looks and smells like a two family residence , I don 't have a problem with that then . Mr. Dixon — So if they put up a fire wall . . . Attorney Barney — What is entailed to satisfy .you from a building code standpoint ? Mr. Frost — (Comments not audible) . Attorney Barney — So any determination has to be conditioned upon complying to building code . Mr . Ellsworth — Have you people retained this architect to bring this building into compliance ? Is that part of what you are retaining the architect for? Mr . Gesslein — That' s fine . Mr. Ellsworth — If that is what is required to get approval of this board ? Mr. Gesslein - -We will put in fire separation if that is what the board feels is necessary . As long as I can say that I don 't feel like putting in fire separation . . . ( not audible) . 37 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Mr. Zifchock - You can be rest assured that we are going to refer to Jason to meet Andy' s need as far as code compliance . Mr. Gesslein - As a side point, there is a central fire alarm system in the building . That was left over from the school and is functional . Mr. Ellsworth - In all areas? - Mr. Gesslein -Yes . Personally , I served as a volunteer fire fighter for almost five years in Danby . I am very well aware of the risks of fire . There is nothing that scares me more than structural fires . We are willing to comply with the fire codes as you see fit . Mr. Krantz - I would add my voice to what seems like a growing consensus that this is a family and that certainly a variance for this kind of business in this kind location is okay. Attorney Barney - The variance disturbs me , this ' would be a use variance . It needs to fit into one these first or second paragraphs of Section 19 . Chairperson Sigel - If we determine that it is Section 1 , then it is not a variance . Attorney Barney - That' s right , but that effectively means that once you have made that interpretation that anyone else that wants to put a computer process into their home , basically . . . Chairperson Sigel - I don 't see how that is any more impactful than a doctor or a dentist who has two or three assistants that are outside employees that come to the location . We have that type of profession with people coming and going all day . Mr. Frost - The new ordinance is more giving , I think . Attorney Barney - I think I ' d rather, if you were going to do it , see you fit into the Section 1 definition or make an interpretation that complies as a quasi - profession . Chairperson Sigel - I agree that meeting the requirements of a use variance would be different . Attorney Barney - I don 't hear any economic hardship here . Chairperson Sigel - I am still a little confused , though , if we make the determination of a single-family unit . Why can 't they have two kitchens? Attorney Barney - Because then it is a layout . It doesn 't matter what we do for zoning purposes , they have one family . It doesn 't matter if they were living there unrelated or if they had fifteen related people if they had two units then they would meet fire code requirements . 38 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — Is it possible for them to have a layout , which would not trigger that requirement? Say the kitchens were both on the same floor next to each other and it just wasn 't feasible to divide the house in such a way that you had two units . Mr. Frost — Not with this particular floor plan . I ' m not so sure it is worth it in the final analysis . I don 't think the board is necessarily objecting to what you are proposing to do as to so much we have to operate within the legal bounds . Certainly for me , since I put my name on the Certificate of Occupancy , as much as I ' d like to say here fine , it has to fall within the legal boundaries . Mr. Demerest — I think my obstacle is not knowing whether this is two family or one family . If it turns out that this is considered one family , I can approach the building code and design a solution . Chairperson Sigel — I think to some extent that depends upon how it is designed . Obviously , you could make what is essentially two kitchens , but make it also appear to be one large kitchen . Include two rooms that were open to each other, you could have duplicate everything . Mr. Frost — Let me ask the Town Attorney , if they do some kind of an affidavit . . . I think my concern would be say once they sell the property . If they do an affidavit certifying that they are living as a single family residence , does that relieve the Town of liability should something bad happen and they have may look like and smell like a two family residence . Attorney Barney — I don 't think we have that authority. We can deal with the zoning . We have the authority to grant variances if the criteria are met and the authority to make an interpretation if this is or is not a family . But you don 't have authority to say the building code when a definition says a dwelling unit would mean an area providing these living accommodations . When you look at the floor plan and there are two areas providing complete living accommodations , this board doesn 't have the authority to say we waive that requirement regardless of how they are living in it . Chairperson Sigel — It automatically triggers the need for the fire code . Attorney Barney — It triggers either to redesign or a variance from the State or putting in whatever is necessary to meet the building code requirements for a two family house . Mr. Demerest — I could offer the point that two complete living units would exist if you had separation . Without that separation , you have two kitchens but only one living space . Mr. Frost — I would disagree with that . Attorney Barney — Well , even in zoning we would differ. It is capable of being two separate dwelling units by closing a door or by doing very little modification . 39 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — Or even installing a door in a convenient location . Attorney Barney — If it looks like a duck , walks like a duck , then it has to be a duck . That is really what the problem is here . As I look at the floor plan , you have an up and a down with a kitchen and a bathroom . It appears the capability of . sleeping accommodations on both floors . So I think you have on the face of it something that really looks very much like. a duck . The question is can you design it in such a way as to take the wings and the beak off of it . Mr. Demerest — I think the biggest issue that I see is if the two kitchens end up upstairs , in essence it is a symmetrical layout . You have to go through a common exit to get out of the room . Mr. Frost — I think the best solution is seeking a variance from the State . Female — My question is , so if it looks like . . . granted we ' re not going to be living like that . Is there anything wrong with just . . . its not a huge amount of work to build a fire barrier in there if you guys feel like that is what makes the most sense to do . It is not going to be very difficult for us to create that . Chairperson Sigel — You could do that and then keep the door open all the time . Female — It could still be considered . . . Attorney Barney — The thing is I don 't exactly know what you have to do to meet the fire requirements . Mr. Frost — I think the variance process is probably cheaper. Mr. Dixon — So you think that will work out ? That is not our problem . Our problem is crafting a resolution that deals with . . . I think we should just call one family and permit the business . Chairperson Sigel — What documentation would you suggest we require ? Attorney Barney — Well , if you are registered to vote , they should have a card a voter card . Driver' s licenses with this address on it . And maybe the upper third of your tax return with the name and address . Mr. Gesslein — Just as a side note , I ' m actually not living there right now . So some of my address is at my house that I haven 't sold yet . My house is going to be sold in the next month . Mr. Ellsworth — You are selling your house in a month ? 40 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Mr. Gesslein — I hope so . Chairperson Sigel — Sixty days would be reasonable to provide one piece of documentation from each member. Attorney Barney — I would say three pieces of documentation from everybody , other than the children , of course . Chairperson Sigel — So you would suggest driver's license . Attorney Barney — A copy of a driver' s license , voter registration and copy of the portion of the tax return with the name and address on it . Mr. Zifchock — Are utility bills ? Attorney Barney — I don 't know if everybody would be on the utility bill . Mr. Zifchock — We share those . Chairperson Sigel — Tax returns , it might be another year. Attorney Barney — Then a statement that you will file the tax return this coming year at 855 Five Mile Drive . Mr. Dixon — And a copy of the deed . Chairperson Sigel — With all four names . Attorney Barney — You realize , board members , when you are doing this that theoretically you are suppose to have a group that has lived together for some period of time . That is one of the criteria . It is a criterion that has not been met by this particular group . Chairperson Sigel — The group is one which will live and cook together as a single housekeeping unit . Mr. Gesslein — I have a very unusual situation . I have a house that I purchased with the mother of my child even though we are separated . So I spend half my time there and half my time at the school . Really , just so I can be with my son , I stay at that house , but that house is going to be sold . It is also very non -traditional . Attorney Barney — One of the criteria is whether or not the group has been living together as a unit for an extended period of time . This is one of the considerations . Mr. Ellsworth — Is one year an extended time ? 41 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Demerest — This is a proposed change in zoning . Chairperson Sigel — Personally , I ' m taking the fact that they all own it jointly as a substantial indication of commitment . We ' ll open the public hearing at this point (9 : 19 p . m . ) , if there is anyone to speak . If not , we ' ll close the public hearing ( 9 : 20 p . m . ) . Mike , any comments ? Mr. Smith — I ' m not sure how to comment . We have a recommendation with the part II write up . The way I wrote it up is that I have a few more questions than really statements . I didn 't recommend a negative determination as in the other ones because at the point when I was writing this up , I didn 't have the benefit of all the information that has been heard tonight in conversations and questions about parking and traffic and business and how the family would work and the layout and those type of things . So , I will leave that up to the board . Chairperson Sigel — Certainly , I can understand if you are assuming that they are going to require one or more use variances then the justifications certainly become harder. Mr. Ellsworth — Now that you 've heard it , how do you feel before we vote on the environmental ? Mr. Smith — The parking doesn 't seem to be an issue . I would mention that the parking , the majority of it in the access drive , isn 't actually located on this parcel . It is in the State right-of-way . Their driveway coming in and the circle and the majority of the parking is not located on that parcel . Chairperson Sigel — Do they own that land or does the State actually own it? Mr. Smith — It is part of the State right-of-way . Chairperson Sigel — So they own it , as such as an easement . Mr. Gesslein — I don 't believe that we own it . Mr. Ellsworth — The State owns it . Attorney Barney — The State owns it . Mr. Gesslein — There is a number of Town easements and some other stuff that is on the property . Mr. Ellsworth — How does that fit , John ? Does that mean they have to move these things over onto their property ? 42 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Attorney Barney - Well , everybody that comes off a State road comes in on a piece of the State ' s property until you get to the edge of the right-of-way . Mr. Gesslein — We have to drive across the State property . We do park on the State property . . . most of our vehicles do . Attorney Barney — How much parking is on your property? Mr. Ellsworth — It was a school . There must be some . Mr. Gesslein — It depends on how you want to park . We could probably park 50 cars side by side on the right-of-way . Chairperson Sigel — I think if for some reason you were required to not park on the State right-of-way , you do have more than sufficient parking on your property . Mr. Gesslein — Yes . Attorney Barney — I don 't think the State can deny them a curb cut . Chairperson Sigel — They could deny them the parking . Mr. Gesslein — We like using the turnaround . Attorney Barney — I don 't think this board is planning on taking it away from you . They are more concerned about . . . Mr. Gesslein — We actually plow the turnaround because the Town guys never come and do it . So , nothing against the Town or anything . Attorney Barney — Who plows it ? Mr. Gesslein — We pay for the plowing . Attorney Barney — The turnaround to your property? Mr. Gesslein — Yes . Attorney Barney - Why should the Town plow that ? Mr. Gesslein — Because it is Town property . Attorney Barney — It is State property . Chairperson Sigel — You need to go up on Route 13 and flag down the plow guy when they come by . They' ll pull right over for you . 43 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Gesslein — You mean the Town doesn 't plow people ' s driveways? Attorney Barney — Only certain people . Mr. Dixon — It plows the snow into my driveway. Chairperson Sigel — All right , John , so what are we . . . ? Attorney Barney — First , you have the SEQR to deal with . Then a couple of resolutions , one dealing with the family issue and the other dealing with the interpretation of the business side of it . Chairperson Sigel — What type of appeal is the family determination ? Is that a special approval or is that just a determination ? Attorney Barney — It is a special approval or maybe just a determination under . . . ( not audible) . It is basically a determination under 5d . Chairperson Sigel — So you are saying a variance from the requirements of Article 5 , section 18 and 19 . Mr. Frost — The applicant is asking for . . . ( not audible) . Chairperson Sigel — Well , if the business is advertised as a .variance , than making the determination that a variance is not required seems okay. Attorney Barney — I ' m not uncomfortable with that at this time . Chairperson Sigel — We are making a determination that what they are doing is legal . Then the family . . . okay. How should we handle the environmental assessment given that the official assessment was not a recommendation ? Attorney Barney — You don 't have to have a recommendation to make your own determination . It ' s just that most of the time you intend to follow . Chairperson Sigel — Would someone like to make a motion ? Mr. Ellsworth — You have all the notes . Chairperson Sigel — Does someone want to do the EAF? Okay , I will move to make a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Mark Zifchock . I can 't say for the reasons stated . Attorney Barney — You ' ll have to come up with the reasons . Mr. Ellsworth — If they brought in a written statement by . . . 44 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Attorney Barney - If there is no change in the traffic from the prior use . Relatively minimal occupancy in terms of traffic coming in and out . Very little customer traffic if any. In terms of the use and noise and that sort of stuff . Chairperson Sigel — It doesn 't have any impact on air quality, surface or ground water quality , noise levels , traffic patterns , solid waste production , erosion , drainage or flooding . Attorney Barney — They are able to do their work and occupy the area outside the unique natural area . Chairperson Sigel It should have no impact on natural or cultural resources or not change the community or neighborhood character. It should not have any impact on vegetation or fish or wildlife species . It is consistent with the Town ' s existing plans and goals as officially adopted . It should not induce any subsequent development or growth . Mr. Dixon — Second . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-038: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : MARK ZIFCHOCK, 855 FIVE MILE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 31 . -2- 159 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Mark Zifchock, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit a business known as the Computer Gurus to operate from 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -2- 15, Residence District R-30. The Ordinance does not permit said business, as conducted, to specifically operate in a R-30 Zone. Additionally, the appellant is asking for a determination from the Zoning Board that the occupants residing within the structure, containing the Computer Gurus, are occupying said space as a non-traditional family. This negative determination of environmental significance is made for the following reasons: a . Appellants have submitted a statement signed by neighboring property owners stating that they support the requests. b. There will be no change in existing traffic patterns. c. There will only be minimal traffic coming in and out. The applicant indicated that there will be at most several clients visiting the site per week. d. There will be no additional noise related to the use. e. There will be no impact on air quality or surface or ground water quality. f. There will be no impact on solid waste production. g. It is consistent with the Town 's existing plans and goals as officially adopted. h. It should not induce any subsequent development or growth . 45 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Attorney Barney — I do have a problem here because this is I think subject to 239 review and we haven 't gotten anything back from the County yet . Have they had it for 30 days ? Mr. Frost — It was less than 30 days . Attorney Barney — You are not supposed to act unless you have their response or 30 days have passed since it was submitted to them : Mr. Ellsworth - So could we make it contingent ? Conversation not audible. Attorney Barney — I think we 've got it . We can go right ahead then . Chairperson Sigel — I will move in the appeal of Mark Zifchock to make a determination that their business known as the Computer Gurus operating at 855 Five Mile Drive , Tax Parcel No . 31 . -2 - 15 , District R-30 , Attorney Barney — I think you might want to make the determination with respect to the family before the home occupation . Chairperson Sigel - I will move in the appeal of Mark Zifchock to make a determination that Claire Fox , Karl Gesslein , Jocelyn Wanagel , and Mark Zifchock and their children constitute a family . Mr. Krantz — And any future children . Chairperson Sigel - And Mark and Claire ' s child Felix and Karl 's child O' Ryan constitute a family under the definition of Town Ordinance definitions 5 subsection f . Attorney Barney — It is actually subsection d . Chairperson Sigel — With the condition that the four adults mentioned must supply a driver' s license and a voter registration showing the 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence within 60 days . Mr. Dixon — Plus a copy of the deed . 46 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — They must also submit a copy of the deed showing all four of them as co-owners of the property within 60 days . They must either supply the top portion of the front page of the tax return showing 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence or an affidavit indicating that they intend to file their next tax return with 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence within 60 days . Attorney Barney — I think that the further condition that the property be brought into compliance with the building code requirements for a single family or, if the layout is such that it qualifies as a two family residence , and the requirements of a two family house are met within some period of time . . . maybe 60 days . Chairperson Sigel — Is 60 days feasible ? Mr. Frost — Or seek a State variance ? Chairperson Sigel — Six months ? Mr. Frost — Are you going to allow occupancy prior to them having certificate of occupancy? Chairperson Sigel — Is it legal for anyone to live there right now? Mr. Frost — Not at this point . There is an occupancy classification change . We have to change the Certificate of Occupancy . Attorney Barney — Forget that the group is living there , if I as an individual move into that building and live there as a house . Mr. Frost — Not without a Certificate of Occupancy . Attorney Barney — Okay , but is there something there that would stop you from issuing a Certificate of Occupancy . Mr. Frost — Yes . It doesn 't qualify and meet the requirements of the building code for a residence . Attorney Barney — That is my question basically . There are deficiencies that do not meet the building code leaving aside the two family one family issue . Mr. Frost — You would have to make application to convert the school to a residence . Attorney Barney — I think you probably want to have a condition that the application of conversion be submitted promptly . . . probably within a couple of weeks . Is that doable ? Mr. Frost — This is the board ' s decision if you are going to approval occupancy . 47 /I Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — We don 't have the power to permit occupancy . Attorney Barney — That ' s right . Mr. Frost — Neither do I . Attorney Barney — We are not asking you to , but I think that it is conditional that there be an application filed for a conversion to a single family or two family residence . Chairperson Sigel — We are requiring them to show that they are living in a building that is not legal for them to live in . Attorney Barney — Right . . . ( not audible) . Chairperson Sigel — Should we make this conditional on the Certificate of Occupancy? Attorney Barney — I would say that the documentation request should come 60 days after the Certificate of Occupancy issued or 30 days . Mr. Ellsworth — Does that fit? Sixty days? Male voice — (Comments not audible) . Attorney Barney — If your layout doesn 't qualify , that is the problem . Male voice — (Comments not audible) . Attorney Barney — As long as it ' s not a two family house . Chairperson Sigel — They don 't have two kitchens now , do they? Mr. Frost — There is a second kitchen upstairs that I saw . There was a sink and cooking provisions . Male voice — (Comments not audible) . Mr. Frost — I must be hallucinating then , because what I saw . . . Mr. Dixon — We could make it 60 days after the CO . Chairperson Sigel — Okay , so we will make this determination . Is it appropriate to make this determination dependent upon the obtaining of a Certificate of Occupancy? Attorney Barney — I ' m not quite sure how to work it . This application is in the context of this particular house . So I think we could probably use that as justification . I would include it as a condition . 48 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — The Certificate of Occupancy? Attorney Barney — That number one an application be made for the conversion within a very short period of time . Do you think two weeks would do it? Male voice — (Comments not audible) . Attorney Barney — You could do it in two weeks . So an application for a change of occupancy be submitted . . . Chairperson Sigel — Lets stick with two weeks . And that the documents be submitted with 60 days . . . Attorney Barney - . . . after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. You should make clear, Lori , in the resolution that the application for conversion to include all of the documentation required by the Building Code Officer of the Town . Mr. Frost — May I also suggest that you have a potential of mixed occupancy in the building because you have the business and the residence . That will need to be addressed . You have a business use in there along with your residence . It is not so simple as showing egress . I have an application ; I just don 't have proper plans . Attorney Barney — So what are you saying ? Chairperson Sigel — Is this a home occupation ? Mr. Frost — This is . . . Chairperson Sigel — We are going to make that determination . Attorney Barney — We are two different laws here that we are dealing with in the zoning . We can make it , but we don 't have the authority . We are going to change the time to 30 days for the application . Chairperson Sigel — So it will be four weeks for the application for a conversion . Second on that motion which was to make the determination that they are a single family . Mr. Dixon — Second . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 039: MARK ZIFCHOCK, 855 FIVE MILE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 31 . -2- 15, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon . 49 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16 , 2003 APPROVED RESOLVED that this Board makes the determination that Jocelyn Wanagel, Karl Gesslein (and his son O 'Ryan), and Claire Fox and Mark Zifchock (and their son Felix), residing at 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. . 31 -2- 15, Residence District R-30 constitute a family under Article I, Section 1 , Paragraph 5 (d) of the Town of Ithaca . Zoning Ordinance. CONDITIONS: a . The four adults must each supply a driver's license and voter's registration showing 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence within sixty days after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. b. The four adults must submit a copy of the deed showing all four of them as co- owners of the property within sixty days after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. c. The four adults must submit the top portion of their tax returns showing 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence or an affidavit indicating that they intend to file their next tax return with 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence within sixty days after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. FUTHER CONDITIONS: a . The property be brought into compliance with the Building Code requirements for a single family residence (or a two family residence if the layout qualifies as such) within six months. b. Application for a change of occupancy be made within four weeks and include all of the documentation required by the Zoning Officer of the Town. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NA YS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — , And I will move in the appeal of Mark Zifchock to make the determination by this board that the business known as the Computer Gurus , operating at 855 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 . -2- 15 , District R-30 . . . Attorney Barney — In the manner represented to this board at the public hearing . . . or during the discussion prior to the public hearing . Chairperson Sigel — In the manner represented to the board during this hearing , is an occupation as defined by section 19 , subsection 1 and therefore , is allowed to exist at this location and is allowed to have not more than 3 additional persons not residing on the premises employed by said business . Would you suggest anything further? Second ? 50 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2003 APPROVED Mr. Dixon — Second . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 040: MARK ZIFCHOCK, 855 FIVE MILE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 31 . -245, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED that this board makes a determination that the business, known as Computer Gurus, operating at 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -2- 15, Residence District R-30, in the manner represented to this Board during the discussion prior to the Public Hearing, is an occupation as defined by Section 19, subsection 1 , and therefore is allowed to exist at this location and is allowed to have not more than three additional persons not residing on the premises employed by said business. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NA YS: NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — I think we are more or less done . Mr. Demerest — Thanks a lot for your time . Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 9 : 53 p . m . Kirk Sigel , Chairperson Carrie Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk 51 F LE DATE Z13 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO . 2003-038 : ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : MARK ZIFCHOCK, 855 FIVE MILE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 31 . -2- 15 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Andrew Dixon . RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Mark Zifchock , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit a business known as the Computer Gurus to operate from 855 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 -2- 15 , Residence District R-30 . The Ordinance does not permit said business , as conducted , to specifically operate in a R-30 Zone . Additionally , the appellant is asking for a determination from the Zoning Board that the occupants residing within the structure , containing the Computer Gurus , are occupying said space as a non -traditional family . This negative determination of environmental significance is made for the following reasons : a . Appellants have submitted a statement signed by neighboring property owners stating that they support the requests . b . There will be no change in existing traffic patterns . c . There will only be minimal traffic coming in and out . The applicant indicated that there will be at most several clients visiting the site per week . d . There will be no additional noise related to the use . e . There will be no impact on air quality or surface or ground water quality . f . There will be no impact on solid waste production . g . It is consistent with the Town ' s existing plans and goals as officially adopted . h . It should not induce any subsequent development or growth . The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Dixon NAYS : None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Lori Love , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify That the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meetin he 16th day of June . .. °� L�e Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE VO Da E ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2003- 039 : MARK ZIFCHOCK, 855 FIVE MILE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 31 . -2-15 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Andrew Dixon . RESOLVED that this Board makes the determination that Jocelyn Wanagel , Karl Gesslein (and his son O ' Ryan ) , and Claire Fox and Mark Zifchock ( and their son Felix) , residing at 855 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 -2 - 15 , Residence District R-30 constitute a family under Article I , Section 1 , Paragraph 5 (d ) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . CONDITIONS : a . The four adults must each supply a driver' s license and voter' s registration showing 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence within sixty days after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued . b . The four adults must submit a copy of the deed showing all four of them as co-owners of the property within sixty days after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued . c . The four adults must submit the top portion of their tax returns showing 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence or an affidavit indicating that they intend to file their next tax return with 855 Five Mile Drive as their residence within sixty days after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued . FUTHER CONDITIONS : a . The property be brought into compliance with the Building Code requirements for a single family residence (or a two family residence if the layout qualifies as such ) within six months . b . Application for a change of occupancy be made within four weeks and include all of the documentation required by the Zoning Officer of the Town . The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Dixon NAYS : NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I Lori Love , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify That the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the day of June . e Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE i DATE ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2003- 040 : MARK ZIFCHOCK, 855 FIVE MILE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 31 . -2- 15 . RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Andrew Dixon . RESOLVED that this board makes a determination that the business , known as Computer Gurus , operating at 855 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 -2 - 15 , Residence District R-30 , in the manner represented to this Board during the discussion prior to the Public Hearing , is an occupation as defined by Section 19 , subsection 1 , and therefore is allowed to exist at this location and is allowed to have not more than three additional persons not residing on the premises employed by said business . The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Dixon NAYS : NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I Lori Love , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify That the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the day of June . Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca TALLMAN & DEMAREST Date: 6116/2003 Project: 855 Five Mile Drive Document: BZA Appeal Outline A R C H I T E C T S J L L P I t. 190 Benjamin Hill Road Newfield , NY 14867 ( 607 ) 564 - 7268 ( 607 ) 351 - 0091 www . tdarchitects . com Outline of Appeal Arguments 855 Five Mile Drive — Town of Ithaca Issue #1 : Article V, Section 18 — Use Regulations Discussion : The present use , a one-family dwelling , by the appellants , appears to be in compliance with the town ' s zoning laws upon application of the standards referred to and outlined in paragraphs d ) and f) under the definition of "family" found in the zoning law . In addition to meeting the standards therein , the following determinations by the New York State Court of Appeals (see attached documents) provide compelling evidence to define the appellants as a "family' : • In 1985 , the Court of Appeals in McMinn v. Town of Oyster Bay, 66 N . Y. 2d 544 , 498 N . Y . S . 2d 128 ( 1985) found : " Manifestly , restricting occupancy of single-family housing based generally on the biological or legal relationships between its inhabitants bears no reasonable relationship to the goals of reducing parking and traffic problems , controlling population density and preventing noise and disturbance . Their achievement depends not upon the biological or legal relations between the occupants of a house but generally upon the size of the dwelling and the lot and the number of its occupants. Soon after deciding McMinn , the Court of Appeals considered whether a municipality can restrict the number of unrelated persons living together as the functional equivalent of a natural family, while allowing an unlimited number of related persons to reside together. In Baer v. Town of Brookhaven , 73 N . Y . 2d 942 , 540 N . Y. S . 2d 234 ( 1989) the Court of Appeals held that it cannot. • City of White Plains v. Ferraioli , 34 N . Y. 2d 300 , 357 N . Y . S . 2d 449 ( 1974) : The Court cited White Plains for the proposition that a municipality may not seek to achieve its legitimate objectives of preserving the character of single-family neighborhoods by limiting the definition of "family" to exclude a household which in every sense but a biological one is a single family. • See additional information and `Guidelines to Drafting a Definition of Family. ' ' TALLMAN & DEMAREST Date: 6116/2003 Pro ject: 855 Five Mile Drive Document: BZA Appeal Outline A R C H I T E C T S � L L P s; 190 Benjamin Hill Road Newfield , NY 14867 ( 607 ) 564 - 7268 ( 607 ) 351 - 0091 www . tdarchitects . com Issue #2 : Article V, Section 19 — Accessory Uses Discussion . The business conducted at 855 Five Mile Drive , known as ` Computer Gurus' , is consistent with the permitted accessory uses described in paragraph 1 under section 19 . As computer consultants , the services provided by the appellants are mostly provided at the client's place of business , and as a result has a less significant effect on the character of the neighborhood than most of the permitted uses specifically listed in the zoning law. The issue appears to be related to the omission of `computer consultants ' as a specifically listed professional service business , but would be included as an "other recognized profession" as stated in section 19 . The fact that some of these individuals hold professional certifications within their industry further substantiates the type of business conducted within the dwelling . Furthermore , computer consulting was probably not in existence when the zoning law, or the initial language borrowed , was written . Potential evidence of this omission , as well as the need for inclusion of computer consulting as a professional service can be found in local law # 1 of the 1995 amendment to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . To elaborate , the amendment added `computer consulting ' to the permitted accessory uses for the Eco-Village project, and the modified paragraph originally read the same as paragraph 1 of section 19 in Article V . All of the occupants are part owners of the property, and as such , one would expect that they should be afforded the same benefits of a home office , as would other professionals . The presence of employees is a factor as well , but having only two makes this a non- issue , since three non - resident employees are permitted under section 19 . In summary, a variance to allow the business to continue at 855 Five Mile Drive does not seem appropriate or necessary , due to the current satisfaction of the zoning law in regard to accessory uses . 1N Y zs LVJ, k ounsefS umce, Legal lvlemoranaa, Lennition OI " rainny " In Loning Law an. . . rage 1 or o NYS Department of State Counsel' s Office Legal Memorandum LU05 DEFINITION OF " FAMILY " IN ZONING LAW AND BUILDING CODES An appropriate definition of "family" is basic to density and use prescriptions of zoning laws and to the applicability of building code laws. This memorandum discusses the definition in the context of such laws. ZONING Any successful zoning scheme which purports to create and attain a single-family zoning district must contain a definition of family. Dating back to 1974, the U. S . Supreme Court and many state courts, including our New York Court of Appeals, have examined the question of the definition of family, both in enforcement proceedings and in declaratory judgment actions. This line of family definition cases has followed a very traditional path of analysis. Courts have carefully looked for some reasonable relationship between the zoning regulation and the goals sought to be achieved by the regulation. Generally, they first examine the goal sought to be achieved to see if it furthers a legitimate governmental objective. They then proceed to scrutinize whether the means designed to reach that end -- in this case a definition of family-- are reasonable. Courts have regularly found a legitimate purpose in zoning regulations which are aimed at achieving a homogeneous, traditional single- family neighborhood. "A quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land-use project addressed to family needs," according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U. S. 11 91 94 S Ct 1536, 39 L Ed 2d 797 ( 1974), a case which upheld, as constitutional, a zoning definition of family against a challenge that it violated the equal protection clause. To preserve this quiet neighborhood character, many municipalities have enacted definitions of " family" to exclude groups of individuals who, it is perceived, degrade the single family district. For example, in college towns or resort areas, municipalities are often concerned about fraternities and other groups of unrelated college students living together in crowded conditions in single family areas. Such living conditions can cause parking, noise, litter and congestion problems. Many local governments, therefore, have enacted restrictive definitions of family within their zoning and building codes, and enforce these provisions against groups who do not meet the "family" definition, in an effort to keep out those who would otherwise cause or contribute to unwanted neighborhood impacts. Unfortunately, these definitions occasionally exclude persons who should properly be included within the term "family." Both the U. S . Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals have not hesitated to strike down zoning definitions of " family" which are so narrowly drawn as to exclude certain family members or families which are not biologically related or are non-traditional. In so doing, the courts, in their opinions, have furnished guideposts which communities can follow in crafting a definition of family which meets constitutional due process requirements. Courts have not abided restrictive definitions of " family" which keep out certain types of families. For example, the definition of family may not be so restrictive as to exclude from its scope family members who are not expressly listed, such as cousins, uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews. The United States Supreme Court, in Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U . S . 494 ( 1977), held that, in keeping with due process, a zoning ordinance may not differentiate between relatives of varying degrees of kinship. In his lead opinion, Justice Powell commented that: "The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grand-parents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition. " 431 U.S . at 504 . Due process, then, would seem to require that any such definition eliminate distinctions among familial degrees. In the case of City of White Plains v. Ferraioli, 34 N.Y.2d 300, 357 N.Y.S.2d 449 ( 1974), the New York Court of Appeals held that a group home with ten foster children, headed by the natural parents of two additional children, could together constitute a "family. " The Court invalidated a restrictive definition of family limited to blood relatives and spouses, which would have excluded the foster home. The Court stated: " [Aln ordinance may restrict a residential zone to occupancy by stable families occupying single-family homes, but neither by express provision nor construction may it limit the definition of family to exclude a household `which in every but a biological sense is a single family. "' (Id. at 306) The Court established a standard that the " . . . minimal arrangement to meet the test of a zoning provision as this one, is a group headed by a householder caring for a reasonable number of children as one would be likely to find in a biologically unitary family. " (Id.) Factors of importance to the Court in the White Plains case were that the group home: a) was a "single housekeeping unit" ; b) was "to all outward appearances, a relatively normal, stable, and permanent family unit" ; c) was not "a temporary living arrangement as would be a group of college students sharing a house" ; and d) did not provide "a framework for transients or transient living. " Four years later, the Court of Appeals found that a house consisting of two surrogate parents and seven emotionally disturbed children was it . the functional and factual equivalent of a natural family, and to exclude it from a residential area would be to serve no valid purpose. " Group House of Port Washington v. Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead 45 N.Y. 2d 266, at 272 ( 1978). The httn ://www.dos . state_ nv_us/cnsl /familv. htm1 6/ 12/2003 1V T a UUJ, l;0unsel ' s UIlice, Legal memoranaa, Uerinnion OI -- rarillly " in Loning Law an. . , rage L OI b Town had defined family as "[o]ne ( 1 ) or more persons related by blood, marriage or legal adoption residing or cooking or warming food as a single housekeeping unit; with whom there may not be more than two (2) boarders, roomers or lodgers who must live together in a common household. " In a 4-3 decision, Court of Appeals held that the definition of "family" improperly excluded from its scope group homes. The Court explained that in zoning for stable neighborhoods in a single family district, local governments must include the functional and factual equivalents of natural families, as well as traditional families. After White Plains and Group House, municipalities must define families to include groups of unrelated persons who constitute a family. However, even the inclusion of provision for unrelated persons in the zoning definition of family does not guarantee that it will survive a constitutional challenge. For example, during the 1980s, the Town of Oyster Bay defined "family" as : "(a) Any number of persons, related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption, living and cooking on the premises together as a a single, nonprofit housekeeping unit; or (b) Any two (2) persons not related by blood, marriage or legal adoption, living and cooking on the premises together as a single, nonprofit housekeeping unit, both of whom are sixty-two (62) years of age or over, and residing on the premises. " In 1985, the Court of Appeals in McMinn v. Town of Oyster Bay 66 N. Y.2d 544, 498 N.Y. S .2d 128 ( 1985) found fault with the alternative definition of a " family" as being " [a]ny two (2) persons not related . . .both of whom are sixty-two (62) years of age or over. " In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals invalidated the definition : "Manifestly, restricting occupancy of single-family housing based generally on the biological or legal relationships between its inhabitants bears no reasonable relationship to the goals of reducing parking and traffic problems, controlling population density and preventing noise and disturbance (citations omitted). Their achievement depends not upon the biological or legal relations between the occupants of a house but generally upon the size of the dwelling and the lot and the number of its occupants. Thus, the definition of family employed here is both fatally overinclusive in prohibiting, for example, a young unmarried couple from occupying a four-bedroom house who do not threaten the purposes of the ordinance and underinclusive in failing to prohibit occupancy of a two-bedroom home by ten or twelve persons who are related in only the most distant manner and who might well be expected to present serious overcrowding and traffic problems. " (66 N .Y. 2d at 549-550) The Court cited White Plains (supra) for the proposition that a municipality may not seek to achieve its legitimate obiectives of preserving the character of single-family neighborhoods by limiting the definition of " family" to exclude a household which in every sense but a biological one is a single family. "This ordinance, by limiting occupancy of single-family homes to persons related by blood, marriage or adoption or to only two unrelated persons of a certain age, excludes many households who pose no threat to the goal of preserving the character of the traditional single-family neighborhood, such as the households involved in White Plains and Group House, and thus fails the rational relationship test. " 66 N.Y.2d at 550. The Court went on to state: "Because the only alternative definition contained in this ordinance. . .is more restrictive, both as to the number of unrelated persons and their ages, than is constitutionality permissible, however, the entire definition of family contained in the ordinance violates our state constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. " 66 N .Y.2d at 551 . For a definition of family to be constitutionally permissible, it is necessary to ensure that alternative definitions of family include within them both traditional family units and well-defined non-traditional groups to whom the courts have extended due process protections. This task is one which may involve the drawing of some fine legal distinctions. Soon after deciding McMinn, the Court of Appeals considered whether a municipality can restrict the number of unrelated persons living together as the functional equivalent of a natural family, while allowing an unlimited number of related persons to reside together. In Baer v. Town of Brookhaven 73 N.Y .2d 942, 540 N.Y.S .2d 234 ( 1989) the Court of Appeals held that it cannot. In Baer, the town of Brookhaven charged five (5) unrelated elderly women residing together in a house located in a single family residential zone with violating the town's zoning law, which provided that not more than 4 unrelated persons living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit could constitute a family. The zoning law did not place a similar number limit on the number of persons related by blood, marriage or adoption. The Court of Appeals held that the family definition violated the State due process clause because it restricted the size of a functionally equivalent family of unrelated persons but not the size of a traditional family. Such differentiation was not reasonably related to a legitimate zoning purpose, and therefore violated State Due Process. Reading the Baer decision in light of the U. S. Supreme Court' s ruling in Moore v. City of East Cleveland, (supra), it appears that, for zoning purposes, a municipality may not restrict the number of related or unrelated persons who constitute a family. As will be noted later, an appellate court has approved a method for controlling groups of unrelated persons who are not a family. httn ://www_dos . state_nv_us/cnsl /familv.htm ] 6/ 12/2003 IN Y a I.JUJ , uounsers UTTICe, Legal lvlemoranaa, lleT nirion OT "ramny In Goning Law an. . . rages OT b The definition of family can affect the implementation of other laws unrelated to zoning. For example, in Braschi v Stahl Associates 74 N. Y. 2d 201 , 544 N. Y. S.2d 784 ( 1989), the Court of Appeals ruled that two homosexual men living together in a spousal-like arrangement could constitute a "family" within the context of the non-eviction provisions of the New York City Rent and Eviction regulations. The Court expressly stated that its decision on the definition of family under the rent control regulations had no bearing on the concept of "functional family" in its decisions concerning local zoning regulations. 544 N. Y.S . 2d at 796 note 3 . Also, in 1993 , a federal district court in the case of Oxford House v. Town of Babylon, 819 F. Supp. 1179 (E .D.N.Y. 1993) concluded that the federal Fair Housing Act prevented the Town of Babylon from evicting recovering alcoholics and drug addicts from a group home based on the town's zoning definition of family. The town alleged the house was being used in violation of the single family zoning because the residents were transient and not a family. Under the town code, a family is defined to include those related by blood, marriage or adoption, or not more than 4 unrelated individuals living in a stable, non-transient household . Oxford House accommodated between 5 and 8 transient residents. Under the Fair Housing Act, it is unlawful for government to discriminate in the sale, rental or use of housing on the basis of handicap and individuals recovering from drug or alcohol addiction are considered handicapped under the Act. In the court's view, applying the town's zoning definition of "family" to evict the Oxford House residents due to the size or transient nature of the group living arrangement would discriminate against them because of their handicap. The court determined that the town's interest in uniform enforcement of its zoning ordinance was not a sufficient governmental interest justifying the eviction of the residents of Oxford house, since it had a much greater discriminatory impact on the handicapped. Finally, in Genesis of Mt. Vernon v. ZBA of City of Mt. Vernon, 81 N.Y.2d 741 , 593 N.Y . S.2d 769 ( 1992), the Court of Appeals struck down the city's definition of "boarding house" as not reasonably related to achieving the ordinance's legitimate purposes of reducing parking and traffic problems and controlling population density. The definition of "boarding house" was so broad it would have prevented any type of family living in a rented house. In the Court' s words : "Because the prohibition against a `boarding house' includes a family expressly permitted under the Zoning Ordinance's definition of `family ', the definition of ` boarding house ' is overbroad, thereby inviting arbitrary application." I. Guidelines to Drafting a Definition of Family In light of the numerous state and federal court decisions on the subject of defining "family," some guidelines may be gleaned as to constitutionally permissible standards. A . Preservation of the character of single-family areas remains a legitimate purpose of zoning. B. Zoning may not exclude a group which " in every but a biological sense is a single family" (White Plains, supra); or a household "which poses no threat to the goal of preserving the character of the traditional single -family neighborhood" (McMinn supra). C. Court decisions have indicated that the "factual and functional equivalent" of a traditional family of unrelated persons may be evidenced by the following : 1 . single housekeeping unit; 2. more or less permanent living arrangement; 3 . stable, rather than transient living arrangements (except where the handicapped are affected); 4. a group headed by a householder caring for a reasonable number of children as one would be likely find in a biologically unitary family (White Plains 34 N.Y .2d at 306). II. Techniques for Drafting Definitions A. Some municipalities have attempted to define "family" to comply with court decisions by providing for discretionary review of groups of unrelated persons greater than a specified number to ensure that they are the functional equivalent of a family. Under this approach, the municipality defines all related persons and a specific number (e.g.- four) of unrelated individuals as constituting a "family." For groups of greater than four (4) unrelated individuals to constitute a "family," the group would have the burden of proving to an administrative official or entity (such as a zoning official or the board of appeals) that they meet the criteria set forth in the zoning regulations to show that are a "functionally equivalent family. " Such an approach is consistent with the cases indicating that defining a "family" of unrelated persons is a factual decision. Many municipalities in New York have adopted this discretionary review technique for defining family. For example, the City of Poughkeepsie zoning ordinance, in its definition of "family," contains a rebuttable presumption that 4 or more unrelated persons living in a single dwelling do not constitute the functional equivalent of a traditional family. The ordinance provides an opportunity for applicants to convince the Zoning Administrator that the group is the functional equivalent of a traditional family. The factors httn ://www.dos _ state_nv _us/cnsl /familv.html 6/ 12/2003 IN Y a 1JU6, uounsers Urnce, Legal iviemoranaa, Definition or - -ramny - In Loning Law an. . . rage 4 Of d which must be considered by the Zoning Administrator are whether the group : 1 . shares the entire house 2. lives and cooks together as a single housekeeping unit 3 . shares expenses for food, rent, utilities or other household expenses, and 4. is permanent and stable. Such an approach has met with success in the courts. In Unification Theological Seminary v City of Poughkeepsie 201 A.D. 2d 4845 607 N.Y. S .2d 383 (2nd Dept. 1994), the Appellate Division upheld the City of Poughkeepsie's definition of "family" against a challenge that it violated the Due Process Clause. The Court held that it was valid to use a rebuttable presumption to establish which groups of unrelated individuals should be considered a family. For those municipalities which have enacted or are considering adopting definitions of family similar to that of the City of Poughkeepsie, this case lends constitutional support to those efforts. B . Another technique is to correlate the number of occupants to the size of the structure occupied (e.g. , by setting a maximum number Of persons for a specified floor area, or requiring a given floor area per resident). The advantage of such an approach is that it relates population density to house size and does not address the factors of permanence, stability, non-transience, and outward appearance of a family which all the decisions use. In so doing, it avoids the constitutional problems associated with defining "family." Maximum occupancy restrictions may be exempt from certain provisions of the Fair Housing Act. In the case of City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, 514 U.S. 725, 115 S . Ct. 17765 131 L.Ed.2d 801 ( 1995), the U. S. Supreme Court held that the city's zoning code definition of the term "family" is not a maximum occupancy restriction exempt from the Fair Housing Act. In enacting the Fair Housing Act, Congress recognized the distinction between municipal land use regulations--which are subject to the Fair Housing Act--and maximum occupancy restrictions, for which it created an absolute exemption. Maximum occupancy restrictions cap the number of occupants per dwelling, typically in regard to floor space or the number and type of rooms. These restrictions ordinarily apply uniformly to all residents of all dwelling units. Their purpose is to protect health and safety by preventing overcrowding. These uniform rules are exempt from the provisions of the Fair Housing Act. On the other hand, rules designed to preserve the family character of a neighborhood, keyed to the composition of household rather than on the total number of occupants living quarters can contain, do not qualify for the exemption. While maximum occupancy restrictions are attractive to many municipalities, a strict quantitative approach may lead to the opposite result from that which the decisions endorse--a stable, single-family area. NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE Many local officials and citizens are concerned with the administration and enforcement of zoning and building laws. On the front line is the local building inspector. In many municipalities, the building inspector may wear several "hats" and may be charged with enforcing zoning regulations, State and local building codes and related regulations. In larger municipalities, the various enforcement tasks may be divided among the building inspector, the zoning enforcement officer and perhaps, a number of other officers or employees. The law concerning the definition of family differs for the separate contexts of zoning and building code administration. It is important for local officials, whether enforcing zoning and building in combination or separately, to learn the law applicable to their respective area of responsibility. This section addresses the definition of family in the context of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. Successful administration and enforcement of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (Uniform Code) does not depend upon enactment of a definition of the term family by a municipality. The code itself defines the word family to mean "(a) household constituting a single housekeeping unit occupied by one or more persons" (9 NYCRR 606.3 (a)(66)). The concept of family, however, is not as integral to administration and enforcement of the code as it is to the operation of a local zoning law. The word family appears in the Uniform Code primarily in the context of occupancy classifications. Pursuant to Part 701 of the code, all buildings and structures are classified by their occupancy or use group. Section 701 .2 states that "(o)ne- and two family dwellings for purposes of this code shall be classified with respect to the number of dwelling units for families each having not more than four lodgers . . " (emphasis supplied). The regulation further provides that classification shall be in accordance with the following groups: Group Al --- buildings containing one dwelling unit; a bed and breakfast dwelling. Group A2 --- buildings containing two dwelling units. Occupancy classifications are critical to administration of the Uniform Code because the applicability of many code provisions depends upon a building's occupancy classification. The terms one family dwelling and two-family dwelling are used in the Uniform Code when the intent is to subject Group Al and/or Group A2 buildings to the requirements of a particular code provision. httn : //www.dos .state.nv_us/cnsl /familv. htm ] 6/ 12/2003 iN r a liw, uounsers Ulnce, Legal iviemoranaa, Dennlrlon or - - ramrly - in /.oning Law an. . . rage o or o The occupancy classification of a residential building generally depends upon the number of dwelling units contained within the building rather than upon the nature of the relationship between the building's occupants. The Uniform Code defines the terms dwelling and dwelling unit as follows : Dwelling. Building containing not more than two dwelling units occupied exclusively for residential uses. i. One family dwelling. Building arranged for one dwelling unit. ii. Two-family dwelling. Building arranged for two dwelling units. (9 NYCRR 606. 3(a)(55)) Dwelling unit. One or more rooms with provision for living, cooking, sanitary and sleeping facilities arranged for the use of one family. (9 NYCRR 606.3(a)(57)) In most instances, therefore, classifying a residential building is a matter of counting the dwelling units: one dwelling unit is a one family dwelling (Group A1 ); two dwelling units is a two family dwelling (Group A2); three or more dwelling units is a multiple dwelling (Groups B1 , B2, B3 , and B4). In only one circumstance would the nature of the relationship of the occupants of a residential building affect the occupancy classification of the building. Section 701 .2 of the Uniform Code provides that one- and two-family dwellings be classified on the basis of the "number of dwelling units for families each having not more than four lodgers. except that up to 10 transient lodgers are permitted in a one--family dwelling used as a bed and breakfast dwelling in accordance with section 1231 .2(e) of (the) code . " (emphasis supplied). Consequently, the presence of more than four lodgers residing in an individual dwelling unit, except in the context of operation of a bed and breakfast establishment, would be inconsistent with the classification of the building containing such dwelling unit as an Al or A2 occupancy, even though the building contains only one or two dwelling units. The term lodger is defined in the code as follows: Lodger. A transient, temporary or permanent paying guest. (9 NYCRR 606.3 (a)( 130)) In this limited circumstance the relationship between the occupants of a dwelling unit will be relevant to assigning the proper occupancy classification to a building. If five or more occupants of a dwelling unit must be characterized as " a paying guest" rather than a member of a "household constituting a single housekeeping unit," the building containing the dwelling unit cannot be classified as an A 1 or A2 occupancy unless the building is a bed and breakfast dwelling. Questions have been raised as to what effect certain New York statutes and regulations may have on the classification of a building as a one family dwelling or a two-family dwelling for purposes of the Uniform Code. Subdivision (f) of Mental Hygiene Law §41 .34 ("the Padavan Law") provides that "(a) community residence established pursuant to this section and family care homes shall be deemed a family unit, for the purposes of local laws and ordinances. " Section 1 .03 of the Mental Hygiene Law defines the term community residence to mean : Any facility operated by or subject to licensure by the Office of Mental Health or the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities which provides a supervised residence or residential respite services for mentally disabled persons and a homelike environment and room, board and responsible supervision for the habilitation or rehabilitation of mentally disabled persons as part of an overall service delivery system. Subdivision 12 of Social Services Law §390 provides: (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except as may be required as a condition of licensure or registration by regulation promulgated pursuant to this section, no village, town (outside the area of any incorporated village), city or county shall adopt or enact any law, ordinance, rule or regulation which would impose, mandate or otherwise enforce standards for sanitation, health, fire safety or building construction on a one or two family dwelling or multiple dwelling used to provide group family day care or family day care than would be applicable were such child day care not provided on the premises. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude local authorities with enforcement jurisdiction of the applicable sanitation, health, fire safety or building construction code from making appropriate inspections to assure compliance with such standards. The department of social services shall provide to the secretary of state on a monthly basis, a list of child day care registrants. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law : for the purposes of this subdivision, no local government may prohibit use of a single family dwelling for family day care or group family day care where a permit for such use has been issued in accordance with regulations issued pursuant to this section; nor may any local government prohibit use for family day care or group family day care, of a multiple dwelling classified as fireproof or prohibit use for family day care or group family day care, of a dwelling unit located on the ground floor of a multiple dwelling not classified as fireproof, where in either case a registration or license for such use has been issued in accordance with regulations adopted pursuant to this section and such use is otherwise permitted under state fire and safety standards (the state code) and under any other existing httn : //www.dos . state_nv_us/cnsl /familv.htm ] 6/ 12/2003 1N Y a LIVJ, Lounsers VInce, Legal lvlemOranaa, IJerininon Or " rainny" In GOning Law an. . . rage b OI o . a ' standard for permitted uses of the multiple dwelling. The provisions of the Uniform Code pertaining to the occupancy classification of buildings are not in conflict with the quoted provisions of the Mental Hygiene Law and the Social Services Law. The code defines community residence as a facility for the mentally disabled as defined by Mental Hygiene Law § 1 .03 and any rules and regulations promulgated under that statute (9 NYCRR 606.3(a)(34)). Section 701 .2 of the code provides that one- and two-family dwellings shall also be classified as a community residence where applicable. The intent of that provision is to clearly establish that a building operating as a community residence may properly be classified as a one- or two-family dwelling, depending on whether the building contains one or two dwelling units. Classifying such a facility as an Al or A2 occupancy conforms with the provisions of Mental Hygiene Law §41 .34 which directs that the occupants of a community residence be deemed a family unit for purposes of local laws or ordinances. Nor is the code in conflict with the provisions of Social Services Law §390 pertaining to the operation of family day care homes and group family day care homes. There is no provision of the Uniform Code which restricts operation of family day care or group family day care in a dwelling unit in a building classified as a one family dwelling (A 1 occupancy), a two-family dwelling (A2 occupancy) or a multiple dwelling (B I occupancy). Indeed, the provisions of Social Services Law §390 quoted above clearly prohibit the Uniform Code from imposing any such restrictions upon premises otherwise used for residential purposes. The operation of a family day care home or a group family day care home is not a factor in the occupancy classification assigned to the building wherein the day care is provided. [ Home ] [ Counsel's Office Menu Page ] [ Legal Memoranda - Land Use and Zoning ] htfi _//www.dos . state.nv.us/cnsl/familv.html 6/ 12/2003 l.:omen 6clence INews rage 1 oT I CORNELL U N I V R R S I T Y S C I E N C E NEWS Zoning laws keep seniors from creative housing options,expert finds GERONTOLOGY August 1994 Contact: Susan S. Lang, (607) 255 -3613 , ssl4(@comell.edu ITHACA, N.Y. - Although housing innovations could keep ITHACA, N.Y. - Although housing innovations could keep thousands of elderly from economic hardship, entering nursing homes prematurely or living in substandard housing, zoning laws inadvertently stand in the way, according to a Comell University expert. "Despite court rulings that overturn outdated zoning laws that were written 20 or 30 years ago to preserve neighborhoods for 'traditional' families, similar local zoning laws still stand in many communities because they have not been challenged, " said Patricia Baron Pollak, Cornell associate professor of consumer economics and housing and director of Housing Options for Senior Today, a public education program of Cornell Cooperative Extension and the New York State Office for the Aging. In New York, for example, the McMinn v. Town of Oyster Bay case maintained that a zoning definition of family limiting the number of unrelated people allowed to live together was unconstitutional. Yet, local zoning laws stand until challenged. "Current zoning in many communities nationwide deprives unrelated seniors the social and economic opportunity of living together or the opportunity to live in their own unit on a relative's property. They are prevented from 'aging in place' with close social supports in mixed- aged neighborhoods instead of in 'age ghettos,"' said Pollak, a housing policy expert who is also the chair of the American Planning Association's Division of Housing and Human Services. For more than 10 years, Pollak has been studying how local housing policy decisions affect households and how communities can use their existing housing stock to create affordable housing units for the elderly. She has studied creative housing solutions for the elderly around the world and has developed strategies for instituting them in the United States. These options include: match-up home sharing in which two or three unrelated people share a home and living expenses; shared residence in which a group of unrelated people lives together as a "volunteer family," and meals, chores and sometimes management of the house are shared; accessory apartments which are built onto or into an existing single-family house; and elder cottages, small, free-standing units, separate from the main house, used temporarily by a relative and later removed when no longer needed. Pollak calls for municipalities "to take a hard look at their zoning regulations and revise them to allow these badly needed housing options. " Pollak has published widely on housing options for seniors, including the monograph, Key Zoning Issues for Shared Residences for Older Persons, published by the American Association of Retired Persons and a chapter on the same topic published in the 1993 Zoning and Planning Law Handbook, and Community-Based Housing for the Elderly: A Zoning Guide for Planners and Municipal Officials, published by the American Planning Association. She also is the director of the Housing Policy Programs at Cornell that offers more than a dozen publications on how to take advantage of creative housing options for the elderly. These may be obtained by calling (607) 255-2091 or (607) 255-2577 . -30- 11994 release index J J Cornell News Service Home Page I httn ://vvww_news _come] ] _edu/science/PR ST94/PR ST099401 .htm ] 6/ 12/2003 �.l•r � -as 1 All 7T7V tv A 9 fryr t w O i, �t r An open letter to the Ithaca Town Board , I am a neighbor of the residence located at 855 Five Mile Drive and 1 am aware of the hearing regarding its use . I understand that there are four adults and one child living at 855 Five Mile Drive which consists of a single traditional family and two other friends . Computer Gurus operates it office from that location which consists of three of the residents and two non - residents . I am also aware that Computer Gurus is a group of professionals that perform 90 % of their work at customer sites . I do not feel that the presence of Computer Gurus has had a significant impact on traffic through the neighborhood , nor do I feel that it has any negative impact on the value of my property or the properties around me . The residents and the other members of Computer Gurus as well their visitors have conducted themselves in a good , neighborly fashion . I am supportive of their appeal to the town board to be allowed to continue to operate their business and to be treated as a non -traditional family as is consistent with their lifestyle . r�. Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of- Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, NY ONLY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by A pplicant or Project Sponsor) 1 . Appllcant/Spons 2. Project Name : Y 3. Precise location (street a dress, road Intersections, pro ne t landmarks, etc. or provide map) : 655 Fig IMAf �Dnve , sal 9 'a[ Tax Parcel Number: 4. Is proposed action : NEW? EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION ? 5. Describe project briefly: ( Include project purpose, present land use, current and future tC{ � oY construction plans, and oth r levant iltems) : r�SeS C�rwle,� , z �c . �nov2 84n si >tikS + !a i lei ally J' VM61 K � � wa,�r �c1 ti�>� + St (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adec. uately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of land affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) Acres (6-10 yrs) D Acres (> 10 yrs) Acres 7, How Is land zoned presently? 6 r 30 S. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES NO If no, describe conflict briefly : 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES NO X Public Water? YES NO )� _ Public Sewer? YES NO 10. What Is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park/ForesVOpen Space Other Please Describe: 11 . Does proposed action involve a permit, approval , or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local)? YES NO �( If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding : 12 Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permiVapproval. Also, state whether It will require modification. I I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE f�TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AppllcanVSpons Na a ( Pririt or Type ) : Signature : IAWA Date : 1 TLRev. 8/92 I PART 11 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 YES NO X If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: See Attached. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : See Attached. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly : See Attached. C4. The Town' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly : See Attached. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly: See Attached. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05? Explain briefly: See Attached. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) Explain briefly : See Attached. D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES NO X If yes, explain briefly: E. Comments of staff CB., other attached. (Check as applicable.) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i .e . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope, and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material . Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately address. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration . X_Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals ��1 � Z �V54� Name of Lead Agency Preparer' s ignature (If different from Responsible Officer) Kirk Sigel, Chairman )ame title of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer DATE :lure of Res onsibl Officer in Lead Agency PART II — Environmental Assessment : Mark Zifchock 855 Five Mile Drive Non-Conforming Use & Occupancy Zoning Board of Appeals A . Action is Unlisted . B . Action will not receive coordinated review. C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising from the following : 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? No significant adverse effects are anticipated relating to air quality, water quality or quantity, noise levels, traffic , solid waste, or potential for erosion , drainage , or flooding as a result of the proposed action . The proposal is to operate a computer consulting business based out of the existing residence and to allow an occupancy in the residence that exceeds the maximum allowed . The consulting business primarily goes to the clients business, but occasionally clients would come to the office . The former schoolhouse building is located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 -2 - 15 while the entrance drive and the majority of the existing parking is located within the State highway right of way. The applicants are also the owners of the neighboring parcel , Tax Parcel # 31 -2 - 16 which is currently vacant. It appears that there would be approximately 8 to 10 parking spaces along the gravel entrance drive and circle . It is not clear if this will be adequate for the consulting business and the increased occupancy. Further details regarding parking requirements and traffic should be provided . C2 . Aesthetic , agriculture, archeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources, or community. o�ghborhood character? None Anticipated . No aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources are known to exist on the site , or are expected to otherwise be affected by the proposed action . C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats , or threatened or endangered pecies? None Anticipated . No significant impacts to vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish , or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species are anticipated. While the existing building and drives are not located within a UNA , the northern portion of Tax Parcel No . 31 -2 - 16 is within the Fleming Meadow Unique Natural Area (UNA- 152) . A large wet meadow and wooded wetland is located within the UNA and it is noted as an important birding site . This is one of the few remnants of the extensive cattail marsh that was found at the base of Cayuga Lake . The portions of the property ' s to be used are currently lawn, parking, or the existing building. The existing trees and grasses in and around the wetland should not be disturbed for this proposal . Any future development (parking) of the site would be limited by the wetland areas . C4 . The Town ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of land or other natural resources? None Anticipated . The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan designates the site as "Conservation / Open Space ," and it is zoned Residence District R-30 . The area to the west of the site is zoned Light Industrial . The proposal appears to require two use variances, one for the computer consulting business and the other for the increase or special occupancy situation. The computer consulting business and the unique living arrangement may have an impact on the character of the neighborhood, and could set a precedent for other use changes in the future . It appears that additional information would be helpful to understand the computer consulting business and the living situation . The Zoning Ordinance under Article I , Section 1 , Paragraph 5 (d) of the definition for a family, allows for a group of unrelated persons numbering more than two to be considered a family with the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals if certain criteria has been met. The material provided for this proposal does not appear to include the necessary documentation of how this situation can be classified as a family . C5 . Growth subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? None Anticipated. C6 . Long term short term cumulative or other effects not identified in C 1 -05 ? None Anticipated . C7 . Other impacts including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) ? None Anticipated . D . Is there or is there liked to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated. A PART III . — Staff Recommendation , Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action , the proposed scale of it, and the information -above, it appears that there is insufficient information to make a determination of environmental significance . It is recommended that additional information and site details be provided regarding parking and anticipated traffic impacts associated with the proposed use and the family arrangement with the increase in occupancy. Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: Michael Smith, Environmental Plannerx�5 Review Date : June 4, 2003 l ; Tompkins,'' my x z 4 JUN - 5 2003 DEPARTMENTOF P§CANNING TOWN OF ITHACA E 121 East ,Cour>t' Streetj BUILDING/ZONING 'Ithaca, Ni'*'A rk 114850 g, ? yX Edward C. Marx, AICP w.�,M Telephone (607) 274-5560 l(' Commissioner of Planning - _ _ Fax (607) 274-5578 June 4, 2003 Mr. Andy Frost, Building/Zoning Officer Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re : Review Pursuant to § 239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action : . Use Variance, Old Waldorf School, 855 Five Mile Drive , Tax Parcel . No . 31 -2- 15 Dear Mr. Frost : This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to § 239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter-community, or county-wide impacts . Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Edward C . Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, JUNE 164 2003 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 Monday, June 16, 2003 , in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P. M . , on the following matters : APPEAL of the Town of Ithaca, Appellant, Creig Hebdon, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a municipal water storage tank 44 + feet high (30 foot height limit) near 307 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -5- 1 .2, Residence District R-30. APPEAL of Barbara Harvey, Appellant, Elizabeth Bixler, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 13 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an existing carport/garage with a front yard building setback of 19.2 ± feet (25 foot setback required) at 883 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2- 18 , Residence District R- 15 . Said garage constructed by a previous owner in violation of the Ordinance. APPEAL of Shawn Gillespie, Appellant, requesting a special approval under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be able to add a second dwelling unit within the confines of an existing single family conforming home located at 881 . 5 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25-2- 19, Residence District R- 15 . Said home was constructed 14 .3 + feet ( 15 foot required) from the north side property line, by a previous owner. A variance from Article IV, Section 14 of said Ordinance, may also be requested. APPEAL of Stephen Cummins, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to extend the uses at the Indian Creek Farm stand, located at 1408 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 1 -25 .21 , Residence District R- 15 . The farm stand, which is not a permitted use in an R- 15 zone, proposes to produce fresh and hard cider and to replace a greenhouse structure with a wood framed structure . APPEAL of Linda Lerch, Appellant, Claudia Brenner, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11 , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to extend a non-conforming building/lot with the construction of additional space at 10 14 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2- 21 , Residence District R- 15 . The construction does not enlarge the existing building footprint but enlarges it skyward . Said lot is deficient in size and building lot line setbacks. . APPEAL of Mark Zifchock, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section . 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit a business known as the Computer Gurus to operate from 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -2- 15 , Residence District R-30. The Ordinance does not permit said business, as conducted, to specifically operate in a R-30 Zone . Additionally, the appellant is asking for a determination from the Zoning Board that the occupants residing within the structure, containing the Computer Gurus, are occupying said space as a non-traditional family. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 :00 p. m. , and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated : June 6 , 2003 Published : June 9 , 200-1 TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $80600 _ 215 North Tioga Street RECEIVED: `J Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 2734783 CASH - ( ) APPEAL CHECK - ( ) to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer ZONING : and the Zoning Board of Appeals For Office Use Only of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to : oRAk 6Y1 U Zwe�S at bJJ - �,�x )��1� Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ul Bkt&, ' " t 15 , 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) V , 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 Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary .) oy, mmAd & 0CCV �S ��� �� w�w►S � l �,�sv�.e By filing this application , I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my app ication . 22 U Signature of Owner/Appellant : Date : 5 ( J Signature of Appell�antlA`gge/nt : Date : Print Name Here : Home Telephone Number : 277 X187 D Work Telephone Number . � q 079 s4a �] - y3aa NOTE : if construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will gxviu. Your attendance at the meeting is advised. TALLMAN & DEMAREST Date: 5/14/2003 Project: 855 Five Mile Drive Document: Code Assessment A R C H I T E C T S L L P 190 Benjamin Hill Road Newfield , NY 14867 ( 607 ) 564 - 7268 ( 607 ) 351 - 0091 www . tdarchitects . com Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 215 N . Tioga St . Ithaca , NY 14850 Re : 855 Five Mile Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 Members of the board , I have reviewed the proposed project located at 855 Five Mile Drive , and would like to offer an initial assessment in terms of both the zoning and building codes . I am familiar with the property as I was given a tour of the building last summer on a personal basis , and have completed an architectural inspection this week . I am also familiar with the consulting business that the owners operate since they provide my company with computer consulting services . Please review the following comments related to the recent dialogue between the town and the owners , as well as the code requirements in general . Upon review of the town 's zoning ordinance , I agree that the current property use is not clearly defined as a permitted use . However, the intended living arrangement, in my opinion , is very similar to a one-family dwelling despite the alternative living agreement. Ultimately , this group has decided to share resources within a single dwelling unit , which is consistent with the definition of a family as defined in the zoning ordinance , except for the specifically stated legal relationships . Due to the fact that all of the occupants are part owners of the property , a legal relationship is present, and creates a very different scenario than a typical multiple dwelling where three or more people reside in separately owned (or an owner with tenants) dwelling units within a single structure . The operation of a computer consulting business based out of their home has also raised some concerns . As a customer of Computer Gurus , I am familiar with the service they provide , as well as some of their business philosophy. The nature of this type of consulting typically requires service work at a client's place of business , and the majority of their clients are businesses , not consumers . For this reason , it would be incorrect to classify this business as anything except a professional service company. The incidental drop-off & pick- up of computers for service work , which is a matter of convenience , is similar to my profession where clients may meet in a home- based office , but to a lesser degree . Therefore , the maintenance of a small office space within a larger residential building does not constitute a mixed occupancy of the property . The lack of a building permit for the work already completed , as well as a certificate of occupancy is an obvious breach of zoning law. The failure to comply with law is a serious issue , but most of the work completed without a permit is not an uncommon occurrence within a private residence . This is not to offer an excuse of common practice , albeit illegal , but to provide an indication of the type of work undertaken . In my opinion , the owner's have a vested interest in the quality of the work performed , and most of the improvements were cosmetic or necessary repairs . To TALLMAN & DEMAREST Date: 5/14/2003 Project: 855 Five Mile Drive Document: Code Assessment ARCHITECTS L L P 190 Benjamin Hill Road Newfield , NY 14867 ( 607 ) 564 - 7268 ( 607 ) 351 - 0091 www . tdarchitects . com provide a reference , I consider the work performed to be similar to replacement of surface finishes and/or mechanical equipment such as a furnace , which occurs without a permit in many instances . Aside from having the electrical and plumbing systems inspected , the only issue of any significant concern would be the minor structural work completed . At this point, I will be consulting with the owners to ensure that the safety standards dictated by the building code are met . I will also be providing architectural consulting for all other codes issues , as required . I hope this assessment helps to make this project a reality as I feel the owners are an asset to the community, and feel it is important to see a unique architectural building sustained for the future . Please know that I give this project my full support, and I will do all that I can to see that future undertakings are appropriately handled . Sincerely, Jason Demarest An open letter to the Town zoning board from the owners of the residence at 855 Five Mile Drive (the Inlet Valley School) . We've written this letter for the benefit of the town board in the hopes of clarifying our intentions for the school, and to shed some light on the dialog we ' re having with Andrew Frost. So you know, the building was purchased in march of 2002 by four friends - Claire Fox, Karl Gesslein, Jocelyn Wanagel and Mark Zifchock. We are a group of friends living and working together in a way that feels right to us . Everyone here recognizes that our methods and lifestyles are unconventional and do not fit easily into the current zoning regulations for our space. We are trying to set a powerful example for others that it more important that you live in a way that you feel called to live than to just accept the way that things are. You can create your own reality by creating an environment that may be totally unconventional, but that feels right to you and is still safe for your children. This philosophy has led us to approach the use of the school in an unconventional way - alternatively establishing common and private areas throughout the building. Three of the owners are independent computer consultants informally working together under the business name Computer Gurus . Two of our friends who are not owners in the building also share our office. Our business consists of computer consulting and custom software work. The impact of the business is pretty light — we see customers there perhaps 1 hour out of the month, and the office is occupied infrequently. We are consultants so we can choose how we spend our time with our children, families, and friends first. Maintaining an office at our residence is important to making this idea work. We have done some construction on the property, principally to alleviate substantial heat efficiency issues with the windows , walls, and attic, and to prepare for proper kitchen space . We understand that exuberance and need are not valid excuses for .construction without permit, and have halted all construction pending permit issuance . It is not our intent to antagonize the town — on the contrary, we live in Ithaca for its community, and recognize the reciprocal relationship we have with our neighbors . We ' re hoping that the town board can help us come to a conclusion that meets our needs for use of the space, while recognizing the responsibilities you have to the town. Specifically, our hopes are that we can : 1 . continue work on proper kitchen and bath spaces usable by two families per building and construction code. 2 . continue to operate our business from the building — preferably recognized as a professional home office per Article V Section 19 . (see also the definition of professional defined under Accessory Uses in Local Law No . l — 1995 — providing a special land use district for the Eco Village Co Housing Cooperative) 3 . work toward making the property more liveable for the owners and meeting appropriate safety and zoning requirements . 4 . craft a solution which avoids the need for variances . We appreciate the time and energy the board is giving to our case. We recognize that these sorts of issues are as difficult for you as it is for us . We are willing to work ogether with the board to come to a-resolution that works, or everyone . �, r OF 1p - - = - 9� TOWN OF ITHACA - �� w � 04� 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 www . town . ithacamy . us TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 ENGINEERING 273- 1747 PLANNING 273- 1747 ZONING 273- 1783 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks & Trails, Water & Sewer) 273- 1656 FAX (607) 273- 1704 February 18, 2003 Mr. Mark Zifchock 855 Five Mile Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 RE : Building_Occupancy Dear Mr. Zifchock : This letter serves as a follow up to our recent conversations regarding the use of your home located at 855 Five Mile Drive. The existing building located there was previously used as the Waldorf Elementary School . The building, while it has had numerous occupancies over the years, was originally built as a school, I believe, in the, 1930s. You purchased the property in March 2002, along with three other persons. According to the Tompkins County Assessment Department, the owners on record are 1 ) yourself; 2) Karl Gesslein, 3) C. Fox; and 4) Joshua Wanagel . You have indicated that you officially reside on the premises, but that the others officially reside elsewhere. You have indicated that some work was done within the building in order to accommodate living quarters for you and your family . You have also indicated that you, the building ' s co-owners, and a few other persons operate a business known as the "Computer Gurus" (also found in the telephone book yellow pages - location 855 Five Mile Drive) at this location. You have further indicated most of the computer business is conducted off site; however, a repair shop is also maintained on the premises. This office has determined that several violations of Town regulations now exist at 855 Five Mile Drive as follows : 1 ) Article V, Section 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance does not specifically permit a computer-based operation to be conducted from a residential property, which also employs people not officially residing on the premises. It appears that your business operates as computer consultants involving operations and processes, along with mechanical and technical repairs. An operation, as noted above does not clearly fall into the categories of the listed permitted uses in the Zoning Ordinance, including "customary home occupation" or "professional offices." You may appear before the Town Zoning Board of Appeals to: 1 ) seek a variance from the requirements of Section 18 and 19; or 2) to make an argument that your business is a professional office, which would also allow three additional non-resident employees, as part of the business. A customary home occupation does not permit non-resident persons to be employed in the business. ` 2) Article XIV , Section 75 and 76 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance requires that building permits be obtained prior to commencing any construction work within a structure, including alterations or renovations and that a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained not only upon completion of construction work , but also when a building occupancy classification changes . In your case . the building occupancy has cone from a school to a residential and commercial use . In order to abate the above noted violations you will need to obtain a building permit ( upon proper application ) and perform the necessary work to ensure your occupancy complies with the applicable sections of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. I am enclosing a permit application for your use . Mr. Mark Zifchock February 18, 2003 Page Two Additionally, you will need to appear before the Town ' s Zoning Board of Appeals to seek variances to aggrieve my determination. I am enclosing an appeal application for your use. I anticipate being able to schedule you for the Board ' s April 21 , 2003 meeting. Finally, upon receipt of this letter, please submit your applications as soon as possible or by March 24, 2003 . Please do not hesitate to call me to further discuss. this matter, as necessary. Your cooperation is appreciated. Since ely yours, Andrew S. Frost Director of Building and Zoning Enclosures ASF/dlh cc : Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor Kirk Sigel , Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman John Barney, Town Attorney � OFIT� TOWN OF ITHACA 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 www . town . itha ca . ny . us TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 ENGINEERING 273- 1747 PLANNING 273- 1747 ZONING 273- 1783 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks & Trails, Water & Sewer) 273- 1656 FAX (607) 273- 1704 May 1 , 2003 Mr. Mark Zifchock 855 Five Mile Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 RE : Building Occupancy at 855 Five Mile Drive Dear Mr. Zifchock: This letter serves as a follow up to my recent visit to your property located at 855 Five Mile Drive, as well as my letter to you dated February 18, 2003 (additional copy enclosed) . At issue are apparent violations of Article V, Section 18 and 19 and Article XIV, Section 75 and 76 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . The violations are a result of your commencing construction work within the existing building located there, without first obtaining a building permit, as well as converting the building from a school house to a mixed occupancy of a residential and commercial use. The current use is also not consistent to the permitted uses specified by the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance. During my visit I observed, among other things, the creation of a stairway providing access to an attic space (with the apparent intention of occupying the attic), the installation of a secondary kitchen on the premises, the altering of wall partitions, the replacement of exterior windows, and the apparent use of bedrooms in a former classroom and a non-habitable storage room . It is noteworthy that the storage room contained bunk beds (with children ' s stuffed animals present) and the storage room is located next to a high capacity furnace room . The storage room does not contain any windows. My February 18, 2003 letter directed you to file a building permit application showing the intended performance of work necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable sections of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, as well as to file an application to appear before the Town ' s Zoning Board of Appeals to address apparent zoning/land use violations. As of this writing, I have received an application for a building permit; however, there were no building plans or specifications included with the application and there has not been a Zoning Board of Appeals application filed. At this point in time, I am once again requesting you to file an application for a Zoning Board appearance as a means of commencing the abatement of the above noted violations. Additionally, as 1 indicated during my recent visit, I believe you will need to contract with a New York State licensed architect or engineer to prepare adequate building plans for the completion of your building permit application. This office is asking you to submit a Zoning Board of Appeals application (additional copy enclosed) by May 15 , 2003 with an anticipated June 16, 2003 appearance date . If this deadline is not met, 1 will be discussing the situation with the Town ' s attorney, with consideration being given to the issuance of a court appearance summons. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me . Si erely yours, IIJ— - - --- — Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning Enclosures ASF/dlh cc : Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor John Barney, Town Attorney 0 0 O T lu a � Co }+ 0 cu Pot O 0 0 LJ� L L 0 0 0 C D 0 L 0 . Do) 0 ,� 00 m 0 +L L Q N 'D Owom a) 0 a o > E 0 a) �® � QQ � ry ap U NM '41- L O �6 � Ell L 0 FF Q. o ^ 0 N 70 O � OL O O � OLM J 0 0 up r{�1 - , \ , 0 \ , E \ , , , �L \ 0 \ Q� \ , G \ C \ mV LO o / 00 / Y / / / / / / / / J / c / / / / / co , / , \\ Y h r / \ (V / X \ Cl) O O O N LO w CL m z 3 z T C C O m 3 3 N _0 of � n � L 0 H CL 3 E O _ ° rn O O O Q Q U U W - J (n LLJ I N Z I.L W J_ W LL LO LO o 00 N N ° m L L O fl. x �d W L � 0 W _ Big • • Page I of -I 79L, http://asmsdg.tompkins-co.org/imate/bigphoto.asp?ref=http://asmsdg.tompk'ms-co.org/imatei... 1 Printer Friendly Report Page l of 1 s Property Description Report Ithaca (Town ) Swis Code : 503089 Owner: Tax Map #: 31 . -2-15 GESSLEIN , KARL & FOX, C Status : Active WANAGEL, J & ZIFCHOCK, M Site : 1 855 FIVE MILE DR ITHACA NY 14851 Roll Section : Taxable Last Sale : Zoning Code : Neighborhood : 30020 Sale Date : 03/28/2002 Property Class : School Sale Price : $ 1 . 00 Land Type : 0 - UNKNOWN Valid : 0 Arms Length : N Size : 0 x 0 Deed Book : 2505 Land Assessment: $22 , 500 . 00 Deed Page : 7782 Total Assessment : $105, 000 . 00 Prior Owner: WiAELDORF SCHOOL OF Total Acreage : 0. 59 School District : Ithaca 2002 Building 1 : Year Built : 1970 Utilities : Construction Quality: AVERAGE Condition : Normal Sewer Type Private Gross Floor Area : 2535 Water Supply Private Number of Stories : 1 Utilities Electric Air Conditioning % : 0 Sprinkler % : 0 Improvements : Alarm % : 0 Number of Elevators : 0 Tax Information : Basement Type : Pier/Slab Taxes may not reflect exemptions or changes in assessment ! Building 2 : County Year $ 158 .67 N/A Tax : County Year: 2001 Site Used As : School Year $0 . 00 Tax : Use 1 : SCHOOL School Year : Total Rentable Area : 4695 sq/ft Exemptions - No Exemptions http ://asmsdg . tompkins-co . org/imate/coms/printable .asp 5/ 15/03 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Dani L. Holford, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary, Tompkins County, New York; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal . Notice of public hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on Monday, June 16, 2003 , commencing at 7 : 00 P. M ., as per attached . Location of sign board used for posting : Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of posting: June 6, 2003 Date of publication: June 9, 2003 o , Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning Depart ent Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 6th day of June 20003 . Notary Public DEBORAH-KELLLE'f. Notary Public, -State; of.NOW,Yock No. 01 KE6025073. y' Qualified in Schuyler; County ° Commission Expires, ay.17; 20 Town of Ithaca on Monday, June 16, 2003, in Town Hall, 215 North Tio a Street, Tiogo Street In. trance, Ithaca, NY, COM- MENCING AT 7:00 P.M., on the following matters: APPEAL of the Town of APPEAL of Linda Lerch, Ithaca, Appellant, Creig Appellant,Claudia Brenner, Hebdon, Agent, requesting Agent,requesting authorizo- a variance from the re- tion from the Zoning Board quirements of Article V,Sec- of Appeals under Article XII, lion 18 of the Town of Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,to Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,to be permitted to construct a extend a non-conforming municipal water storage building/lot with the con- tank 44+feet high(30 foot struction of additional space height limit) near 307 at 1014 East Shore Drive, Bostwick Road, Town of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Ithaca Tax Parcel No.31-5- No. 19-2-21,Residence Dis- 1.2,Residence District R-30. trict R-15. The construction APPEAL of Barbara does not enlarge the exist, Harvey, Appellant, Eliza. ing building footprint but en- beth Bixler, Agent, request- larges it skyward. Said lot ing a variance from the re- is deficient in size and quirements of Article IV, building lot line setbacks. Section 13 of the Town of APPEAL of Mark Zifchock, Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,to Appellant, requesting a var- be permitted to maintain on iance from the requirements existing carport/garage of Article V, Section 18 and with a front yard building 19 of the Town of Ithaca TOWN OF ITHACA setback of 19.2 + feet (25 Zoning Ordinance, to per- ZONING BOARD OF foot setback required) at mit a business known as the APPEALS 883 Taughannock Boule- Computer Gurus to operate NOTICE OF PUBLIC vard, Town of Ithaca Tax from 855 Five Mile Drive, HEARINGS Parcel No. 25-2-18, Resi- Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel MONDAY, dente District R-15. Said No.31-2-15,Residence Dis- JUNE 16,2003 garage constructed by a trict R-30. The Ordinance 7:00 P.M. previous owner in violation does not permit said busi- By direction of the Chair- of the Ordinance. ness, as conducted, to spe man of the Zoning Board of APPEAL of Shawn cifically operate in a R-30 Appeals NOTICE IS HERE- Gillespie, Appellant, re Zone. Additionally,the ap- BY GIVEN that Public Hear- questing a special approval pellant is asking for a de ings will be held by the Zon- under Article XII,Section 54 termination from the Zoning ing Board of Appeals of the of the Town of Ithaca Zon- Board that the occupants re- ing Ordinance, to be able siding within the structure, to add a second dwelling containing the Computer unit within the confines of Gurus, are occupying said an existing single family space as a non-traditional conforming home located at family. 881.5 Taughannock Boule- vard, Town of Ithaca Tax Said Zoning Board of Ap. Parcel No. 25-2-19, Resi- peals will at said time,7:00 dente District R-15. Said p.m., and said place, hear home was constructed 14.3 all persons in support of + feet (15 foot required) such matters or objections from the north side property thereto. Persons may sp- line, by a previous owner. pear by agent or in person. A variance from Article IV, Individuals with visual or Section 14 of said Ordi- hearing impairments or oth- nance, may also be re er special needs, as a p pro- quested. priate,will be provided with APPEAL of ' Stephen assistance, as necessary, Cummins' Appellant, re upon request. Persons desir- questing authorization from ing assistance must make the Zoning Board of Ap- such a request not less than peals under Article XII, Sec- 48 hours prior to the time of ti On 54 of the Town of the public hearing. Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,to Andrew S.Frost be permitted to extend the Director of Building uses at the Indian Creek and Zoning Farm stand, located at 273-17$3 1408 Trumansburg Road, Dated: June 6,2003 Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Published: June 9,2003 No. 241-25.21, Residence District R-15. The farm stand,which is not a permit- ted use in an R-15 zone, proposes to produce fresh and hard cider and to re- place a greenhouse struc- ture with a wood framed structure. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, MAY 214 2001 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 Monday, May 21 , 2001 , in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, N.Y. , COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M. , on the following matters: APPEAL of David Schaffner, Appellant, Barry Kasonic, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a non-conforming building/lot at 401 Winthrop Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72- 1 -3 . 1 , Residence District R- 15 . The enlargement consists of room additions and outside wood decks with trellises. A variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Ordinance is also being requested to allow said decks to encroach within the 30-foot rear yard building setback. APPEAL of Significant Elements of Historic Ithaca Appellant, Diane Cohen, Agent, requesting a use variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the use of an old school building for the operation of a commercial retail architectural salvage operation at 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 31 -2- 15 , - 16, Residence District R-30. Said Ordinance does not permit retail operations in an R-30 zone. APPEAL of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, Owners/Appellants, Ernie Bayles, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 1 ,080 square foot second story addition and 60 feet on the ground floor, at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, Residence District R- 15 . Said building is nonconforming as it extends beyond property lines, with part of the property being adjacent to Cayuga Lake. A similar appeal was granted on November 8, 2000, but has since been modified with a larger addition. APPEAL of Frank Rogan, Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article VII, Section 32, 33 , and 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to modify previously approved retail and food services at Franco ' s Restaurant and Rogan' s Corner pizza shop and convenience store to permit additional seating and the construction of accessory structures at 823 -825 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 404-2, Business District A. Said uses were granted previous approvals in the 1980s and 1990s. Additionally, variances from the requirements of Sections 37 and 38 of said Ordinance are being requested to allow for the parking of vehicles and accessory structures to be within the required front yard (setback of 50 feet) and side yard (setback of 30 feet). Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 : 00 p.m. , and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated: May 14, 2001 Published : May 16, 2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 MAY 2172001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED The motion was declared to be carried. The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Significant Elements of Historic Ithaca Appellant , Diane Cohen , Agent , requesting a use variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the use of an old school building for the operation of a commercial retail architectural salvage operation at 855 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 31 -2- 15 , - 16 , Residence District R-30 , Said Ordinance does not permit retail operations in an R-30 zone . Dianne Cohen , Historic Ithaca - Historic Ithaca is proposing to have an architectural salvage retail operation in the old Waldorff School building . We would use the building as it exists . Chairperson Sigel - Is Historic Ithaca the current owner? Ms . Cohen - No . Historic Ithaca has a purchase offer on the property , but it is contingent on the use variance . Chairperson Sigel - Are there any exceptions for non - profit organizations having a commercial use in a residential district? Attorney Barney - No . They need to meet all criteria for a use variance . Chairperson Sigel - A use variance requires that evidence be demonstrated that the property as it is cannot realize a reasonable economic return for all its allowed uses . Historic Ithaca is not the owner. George Lyons , Historic Ithaca - The property has been on the market for a considerable amount of time as a school . There has been no interest in the building as a school . It does not meet new educational requirements for a school . It would be out of code compliance for that use and very expensive to turn it into such a use . Mr. Frost - I received a number of calls regarding the property . I would have needed to refer the interested parties to the board for a use variance . Chairperson Sigel - Is the interior of the building set- up for use as a private home ? Mr. Frost - It was built as a school in the 1930s . I have had discussions with people who were interested in a Yoga School with related retail sales . Mr. Lyons - The building does sit on the corner of Route 13 and Route 13b . It is a traveled corner. Mr. Ellsworth - Is there a distance between this property and the nearest home ? Mr. Frost - Yes . Prior to the Waldoff School occupying the building it was vacant for a long time . It has been the subject of variances in the past . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 MAY 217 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - It would be good to see the building be used . Mr. Lyons - Historic Ithaca has a habit of saving buildings that they enter. We are dedicated to the preservation of this site . It is an early 1900s school . It adds to the history of the Town of Ithaca to recognize its historic structures . This building is in good shape and only needs minimal amount of work . Mr. Ellsworth - The building has all required utilities . Mr . Lyons - We only need to make repairs . We do not need to make any alterations to the site or building . We are currently out of compliance with the City of Ithaca with our timber frame structure inside the City limits . We do not have bathroom , office facilities , or the fire detection system required for the structure . Mr. Ellsworth - The area is also a potential location for a bus garage . Mr. Niefer - What do you propose to do with regard to the cleaning , repair and reconstruction of the old architectural facades from buildings ? Many of the items might have lead paint . Mr. Lyons - We deal with those issues on a daily basis . We are currently dealing with them on the Cradit- Moore House and State Theater. Lead paint is not as big an issue with this structure . We are not going to have a lot of young children running around . There are ways to encapsulate the paint . We are going to do what is best for the architectural structure and the environment . Everything we do is done in accordance with the law for abatement purposes . There are specific laws set up for how you remove and how you deal with lead based paint . We closely follow the laws . Ms . Cohen - There is ground level access to the first and second floors . We are planning to do refurbishing in a separate space . The retail showroom will be on the second floor. Mr. Niefer - Is there outdoor storage of items? Ms . Cohen - We currently do not have outdoor storage . We are surrounded by parking lots on four sides . There is no need for outdoor storage . Mr. Lyons - It is best for the materials that we are dealing with and for our ability to restore and resell them to keep them inside away from the elements . Historic Ithaca is not a junk shop . Our intention is to take these elements and put them back into use . It is not our intent to dump historic elements over the yard and leave things in a junk shop state . Our purpose is to make them safe and reusable so they can be returned to active use . Attorney Barney - What types of things are refurbished ? Ms . Cohen - Our main stock is doors and windows . We could use more space for porcelain plumbing fixtures . Claw bathtubs are extremely popular. There is a long list of details that include light fixtures and porch details . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 MAY 21 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Ellsworth - The board needs to make sure that the items are immediately stored inside . We have had other applicants before the board that have treated items differently . Mr. Lyons - Historic Ithaca is a quasi - public entity . We are worried about our public view . The public is involved with everything that we do . We are in the paper every couple days . We do strive to keep a good place within society . Mr. Ellsworth - Is this run by all volunteer personnel ? Mr. Lyons - Ms . Cohen is a full -time management person and I direct Ms . Cohen . We will have more full-time employees involved , as we are able to expand . We do have a stable volunteer base for the operation . Attorney Barney - Are the items sold or are they for reuse for Historic Ithaca projects? Ms . Cohen - It is a retail business for homeowners and contractors . Chairperson Sigel - What are the anticipated hours of operation ? Mr. Lyons - We anticipate when the site becomes fully operational we will be open for a full days operation , 9 : 00 a . m . to 5 : 00 p . m . We are transitioning from a small space into a large space . We only have partial hours at this time . Chairperson Sigel - What are the hours that someone would be working on items ? Ms . Cohen - There will be one day a week when we do salvage pick- up and refurbishing . Chairperson Sigel - Will items be restored other hours than regular business hours? Mr . Lyons - No . The intention is to have security at night . No one would be actively using the site . Mr. Krantz - The area floods easily and there is a small stream near the property . Mr. Lyons - We are taking every precaution . There are certain restrictions that have to be used in order to do this work . We are following those specifically . The first time it was in the paper we dumped lead paint into any stream we would certainly be up a creek . We do follow these restrictions . Any work that we do will be done very protectively . It will not be left on site or in an area where it could get into the water stream . Mr. Stotz - Will there be any large trucks on site ? Ms . Cohen - We will have a full size van or pick- up truck . Mr. Stotz - How many people do you anticipate being there at one time and what kinds of vehicles will they drive ? I ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 MAY 21 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Cohen - It will be similar to an antique store . There will be some contractors with pick- ups . Customers may increase on Saturdays . Mr. Lyons - The existing gravel circle can hold between 5 and 7 vehicles . It is unlikely that there will be that many people at the same time . Mr. Krantz - It will be less traffic than at the Waldorff School , Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 33 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 34 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . Mr. Smith - It does not appear that this proposal will have an impact on the unique natural area or the parking . RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -31 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Significant Elements of Historic Ithaca, 855 Five Mile Drive, Tax Parcel No. 31 . -245, 46, May 21 , 20016 MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Significant Elements of Historic Ithaca, requesting a use variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the use of an old school building for the operation of a commercial retail architectural salvage operation at 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 31 -2- 15, - 16, Residence District R-30, based upon the findings in the environmental assessment review completed by Town Staff dated May 10, 2001 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel - We do need to address financial hardship . It is a requirement of a use variance . Mr. Lyons - The building has been on the market for a long period of time as a school . There would need to be work done to the building to put it into code compliance for a school . Attorney Barney - How long has it been on the market? Ms . Cohen - It has been on the market for at least one year. Mr. Frost - The property was vacant before it was sold to Waldorff School . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 MAY 219 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Stotz - I am surprised there is not a representative from Waldorff School pleading their case to sell the property . Mr. Lyons - The Waldorff School has been very anxious to get us in the building . They have been pushing us . Our deadline is tomorrow after this meeting . Mr. Stotz - I would be interested in knowing what the implications would be for Waldorff School if they kept this property on the market . Mr. Lyons - The school is in ownership of the property . They are required to pay taxes and upkeep , but they do not have a school to build an income to put into the property . Mr. Stotz - Financial hardship is a critical issue in a use variance . Mr. Niefer - Would a delay in a decision impact your plans? Mr. Lyons - Yes . We were intending to be at the last meeting , but we were pushed to this meeting . Placing an additional contingency on the purchase agreement might mean that one or both parties would walk away from the deal . Mr. Frost - The Waldorff School is different than a normal business . The organization does not have full time staff left in the area . Chairperson Sigel - Have you been dealing with someone locally? Ms . Cohen - We have been going through a real estate agent . Mr. Krantz - Financial hardship is a reasonable assumption in this case . Chairperson Sigel - The financial evidence is anecdotal at best . Mr. Frost - The building was built as a school . We reviewed code compliance when Waldorff School bought the building . There would not need to be a lot of modifications . Mr. Stotz - It would be difficult to have the building available as a residence . Mr. Frost - I am not sure it would be qualified as a residence . I do not envision the Ithaca City School District purchasing the building to make a public school . Montessori School is one of the only private schools in the area . Mr. Stotz - Is the property a historic site ? Mr. Lyons - It is a historic site . It is one of the earliest Indian settlements in this area . The school building has been around since before 1866 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 MAY 21 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED . Attorney Barney - The Zoning Ordinance states that no use variance shall be granted without showing by the applicant a necessary hardship . The applicant needs to prove a hardship by demonstrating to the Zoning Board of Appeals that under applicable zoning regulations the applicant is deprived of all economic use or benefit from the property in question . Deprivation must be established by competent financial evidence . Mr. Niefer - Did you explore the requirements of a use variance ? Mr. Lyons - Yes . Mr. Salk has been advising us on the application . We can demonstrate our own fiscal need to have a variance put on the property . It is clearly evident that the allowed use is not the best use for the building . It has failed as a private school . Public or private schools have not expressed an interest in the property . I do not feel its best use would be a residence . Mr. Ellsworth - I think it is a perfect fit for Historic Ithaca . It is in a residential district , but set in a commercial neighborhood . We have not heard complaints for neighbors . It would be a hardship if tomorrow goes by and this is not settled . The owner has a hardship . The Town is probably wondering if taxes will be paid . Attorney Barney - The property could be sold for back taxes if the taxes are not paid . There are other uses permitted in R-30 . I do not know if other uses would comply . Mr. Lyons - Any use dealing with daycare will result in a remediation issue with the lead paint . Mr. Ellsworth - It would be a hardship to have to remove the asbestos , lead paint and other hazardous materials . I have been involved with old buildings . Buildings that age have asbestos under the roof tiles . Mr. Stotz - These items could cause a financial hardship . The other side of the equation is what causes the financial hardship . The person who owns the building could have substantial assets . Attorney Barney - The building is more valuable if it can be used without all the remediation . The problem is it is usually necessary to have dollars and cents . RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -32 - Appeal of Significant Elements of Historic Ithaca, 855 Five Mile Drive, Tax Parcel No. 31 . =2= 15, 46, May 21 , 2001 . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Significant Elements of Historic Ithaca, requesting a use variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the use of an old school building for the operation of a commercial retail architectural salvage operation at 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels Nos. 31 -2- 15, - 16, Residence District R-30 based upon the following findings and conditions: Findings: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 MAY 21 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED a . the applicant cannot obtain a reasonable economic return from the property; and b. this property has been up for sale since the Waldorff School closed; and c. the cost of converting the building to another permitted use exceeds the value of the building; and d. the requested use will not alter the character of the neighborhood; and e. the alleged hardship is unique; and f. the alleged hardship has not been self-created; and g. this property is unique in that it is bounded by two major roads on each side, it is a very small parcel and is not conducive to be occupied as a residence. Conditions: a . there be no outdoor storage of any merchandise; and b. all work done on the premises be done in accordance with all appropriate laws, rules and regulations; and c, that the variance be time limited for a period of ten years. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: Sigel, Stotz. The motion was declared to be carried. The third appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , Owners/Appellants , Ernie Bayles , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 1 , 080 square foot second story addition and 60 feet on the ground floor, at 918 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 18-5- 14 , Residence District R - 15 . Said building is nonconforming as it extends beyond property lines , with part of the property being adjacent to Cayuga Lake . A similar appeal was granted on November 8 , 2000 , but has since been modified with a larger addition . Ernie Bayles , 527 1 /2 North Aurora Street - Mr. and Mrs . Hinkin received approval last November for a variance for a non -conforming property to add a second story addition . Their plan at that time was to add the second story over the portion of the building that they thought made sense . The variance was granted . They then came to me to develop plans . I started to work with their proposal and made FILE ID �A DATE S �Zri - off RESOLUTION NO . 2001 -31 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Significant Elements of Historic Ithaca , 855 Five Mile Drive , Tax Parcel No. 31 . -2 - 15 , - 16 , May 21 , 2001 . MOTION made by David Stotz , seconded by Ronald Krantz . RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Significant Elements of Historic Ithaca , requesting a use variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the use of an old school building for the operation of a commercial retail architectural salvage operation at 855 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 31 -2 - 15 , - 16 , Residence District R-30 , based upon the findings in the environmental assessment review completed by Town Staff dated May 10 , 2001 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Stotz , Krantz , Niefer. NAYS : None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . Carrie Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , \ CL- "�r) UcAd Town Clerk/ Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 21St day of May 2001 . �� ( F+:7 � Town Clerk/ Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca EILE � DATE RESOLUTION NO . 2001 -32 - Appeal of Significant Elements of Historic Ithaca , 855 Five Mile Drive , Tax Parcel No . 31 . -2- 15 , -16 , May 21 , 2001 . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer . RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of Significant Elements of Historic Ithaca , requesting a use variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the use of an old school building for the operation of a commercial retail architectural salvage operation at 855 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels Nos . 31 -2- 15 , - 16 , Residence District R-30 based upon the following findings and conditions : Findings : a . the applicant cannot obtain a reasonable economic return from the property ; and b , this property has been up for sale since the Waldorff School closed ; and C . the cost of converting the building to another permitted use exceeds the value of the building ; and d , the requested use will not alter the character of the neighborhood ; and e . the alleged hardship is unique ; and f , the alleged hardship has not been self-created ; and g . this property is unique in that it is bounded by two major roads on each side , it is a very small parcel and is not conducive to be occupied as a residence . Conditions : a . there be no outdoor storage of any merchandise ; and b . all work done on the premises be done in accordance with all appropriate laws , rules and regulations ; and C . that the variance be time limited for a period of ten years . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer . NAYS : Sigel , Stotz . The motion was declared to be carried . (,UU Carrie Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , \ eC - �Cl r �� Town Clerk/Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 21St day of May 2001 . 1 Town Clerk/Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca t, y PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X_ If es, coordinate the review proces s and use the full EAF. B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 YES NO X If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: ( Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly : See Attached. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: See Attached. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly : See Attached. C4. The Town 's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly : See Attached. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly : See Attached. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05? Explain briefly: See Attached. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) Explain briefly: See Attached. D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES NO X If yes, explain briefly : E. Comments of staff CB , other attached. (Check as a pli cable.) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial , large, important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i .e. urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope, and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material . Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately address. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration . X Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Name of Lead Agency Preparer' s Signature(If different from Responsible Officer) Kirk Sigel, Chairman Name & title of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer - 2i - O i DATE: Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency PART II — Environmental Assessment: Significant Elements — Historic Ithaca 855 Five Mile Drive Use Variance — Retail Architectural Salvage Operation Zoning Board of Appeals A. Action is Unlisted. B . Action will not receive coordinated review . C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising from the following : Cl . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels , existing traffic affic patterns solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems ? No significant adverse effects are anticipated relating to air quality, water quality or quantity, noise levels , traffic, solid waste, or potential for erosion , drainage, or flooding as a result of the proposed action . The proposal is to use the existing structure at 855 Five Mile Drive for the Significant Elements Architectural Salvage Warehouse . Significant Elements is a non-profit program run by Historic Ithaca which advocates for the preservation and re-use of various building materials . The building would function as a showroom, warehouse, office space, and as part of the long-term plan, educational space teaching preservation and restoration. Items will be cleaned, repaired, and resold. Significant Elements currently operates out of a barn within the City of Ithaca which is not adequate for year round use with limited space . The former schoolhouse building is located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 -2- 15 while the entrance drive and some parking is located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -2- 16 . Both of these parcels are being purchased by Historic Ithaca. Parking on the site is limited. It appears that there would be approximately 8 to 10 spots to park along the gravel entrance drive and circle. The drive appears to be wide enough in most locations to accommodate traffic around the circle and vehicles that have pulled off to park. The operation does not customarily receive a large volume of traffic and usually only has one employee on site . It appears that the available parking on the site will be sufficient for the operation . If the business expands or changes the parking may need to be better defined or expanded . C2 . Aesthetic , agriculture , archeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? None Anticipated. No significant impacts to agriculture, archeological , historic or other cultural resources or to community or neighborhood resources is anticipated. Due to the ` r historic and aesthetic nature of the property and building, it appears that Historic Ithaca and the Significant Elements operation will fit well on to the site in being able to maintain and preserve the property and building. C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats or threatened or endangered species ? None Anticipated. No significant impacts to vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species are anticipated. While the existing building and drives are not located within a UNA, the northern portion of Tax Parcel No. 31 -2 - 16 is within the Fleming Meadow Unique Natural Area (UNA- 152) . A large wet meadow and wooded wetland is located within the UNA and it noted as an important birding site . This is one of the few remnants of the extensive cattail marsh that was found at the base of Cayuga Lake . The portions of the property' s to be used are currently lawn, parking, or the existing building. The existing trees and grasses in and around the wetland should not be disturbed for this proposal . C4 . The Town ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of land or other natural resources ? None Anticipated. The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan designates the site as "Conservation / Open Space," and it is zoned Residence District R-30. The area to the west of the site is zoned Light Industrial . The use of the property is being proposed to be changed from a school use to a retail operation. The proposed retail use appears to fit well onto the property and in the surrounding area. C5 . Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? None Anticipated, C6 . Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05 ? None Anticipated, C7 . Other impacts (including cages in use of either quantity or type of energy) ? None Anticipated, D. Is there , or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated. i PART III. — Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of it, and the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed. Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: Michael Smith, Environmental Planner Review Date : May 10, 2001 Wm� Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of., Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , NY ONLY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by A pplicant or Project Sponsor) 1 . Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name : 1415Toe- 1C 1TIMcll / 7JC . SICt /.tiF1CA1\17 EZEMtnlT5 - I1V4L- D01zF SvHow 3. Precise location ( street address , road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc, or provide map ) : g55 F ( 'V6- MILE D✓LI VE Tax Parcel Number : 3 I - 2 - 1 S 4. Is proposed action : NEW? EXPANSION ? MODIFiCATION/ALTERATION ? Z0n/ 71/h V,4721 /+7-\j C.F 5. Describe project briefly : ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans, and other relevant items) : 7a rLJ1L 0fA- S & gSs FIVE /1411' i Prc-i ✓e- /}\/O USe 7D 11005E= � .51GINIFICA -,o/T ELEMEWi3 51eiLVA—clE (/V4 /4LtH00SE SfclNl � i �ANT ELEMtN(� ! S /Van/ - �20F/i �/� ti 2Av�7 /ZI/ N ✓v `� /hSrV 21 C / rtfA-P-A A 0 VocA- 7Mh Po✓! 7/t Pi2r3cnVA-j7o.N A7,v-V 2E - 0 _5C OF vA-41 ' L) S eWll D / A� h /w,49--n �;if Ls . ;fit � � / moo /� w� Ll� rzA1C- no1'\l o0l b rc SPA c � i+� a r Ttt — � v1 / � c °�� S H-o w r i CV u ,C A-77o nl SPll-C E V .f-noN ej-j ✓ vttzS Iv 12 �{-7-ro (Attach separate sheet(s) it necessary to adequately describe the proposed project. ) 6. Amount of land affected : Initially (0-5 : yrs) Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres (> 10 yrs) Acres 7, How Is land zoned presently? 30 8. WIII proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES NO ✓ If no, describe conflict briefly : %7"H / S v✓ l c L p %LtTA / L , OPEYL /#'T%OrJf 7ftn. L-7�-OVLc �,✓E= 4A ASK-/M, � ✓L r4 J 5 � U I�✓ ce-. 9. WIII proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road? YES NO `� Public Water? YES NO Public Sewer? YES NO ^� 10. What Is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park/ Forest/Open Space ✓ Other Please Describe : &"&yLe O Al 97 1� ) 3 H / G Gf t-iM /) C01VIl %1- 5 C-74 HT LirjjF� 021 Ve/ 7Dwl✓ of Irotweq PI+Acc1. , NYS nor P.42ctZ ( 214(1 H7- v-F WA z N47vnfl ) , cAYL14A /1-6i/ TS RRI1� LIIVF . 11 . Does proposed action Involve a permit, approval , or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency ( Federal, State, Local )? YES ✓ NO If yes , list agency name and permit/approval/funding : Fv/✓DlA./k To part MC- F-yj'oM n/YS De)9i , 6F -ECoNow11' c / vEtvPM T 7nM / (44tiS Co(JNr`J 12 Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also , state whether It will require modification. i CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE i ApplicanVSponsor Name ( Print or Type) : /-j 1 S TV *2L / T7"I /a-c At / S 1 Ct ^1 F-r c /� L'Ze---Vt1 C�7v-i'� Signature : _ Date : `f k 0 Rev . 8/92 0 s `0 0 TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $80.00 215 North Tioga Street RECEIVED : Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273- 1783 CASH APPEAL CHECK - ( I ) to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer ZONING : and the Zoning Board of Appeals For Office Use Only of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to : S sf L ✓041�4 E D ►°�KrYr! �nl 5 I n! i Gi c .9� i L t t� +'I t�/`TS IV C /v1 I L r (DRIVE , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 _ Z - 1 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 Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary .) g� �2 2 � TgI � o / � o ��0 �Cfl� of 7ltc EXiSiNh /L30 2o . ln" fI✓ v ✓ L1> NOT c3F ABLE 7a EX— Sr l.11T-14 / rJ DIrt 4-rt A-cd-h�-o 0 e3cr -rPP6 /V 0 oJff. �2oti h By filing this application , I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application . Signature of Owner/Appellant: Date : Signature of Appellant/Agent ���� Date : o / Print Name Here : D 1 & i�j E CO f+ c�rj S t ry c r.ir L-tr �M rryTS n ( 1 .5 r�i c I T H /1e st- Home Telephone Number: Work Telephone Number: 27 �j —(o Co 3 3 NOTE : If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will gxpirg. Your attendance at the meeting is advised. ix III SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS A R C H I T E C T U R A L SALVAGE W A R E H O U S E A P R O G R A M O F H I S T O R I C I T H A C A , I N C Historic Ithaca ' s Significant Elements program was designed in 1991 to advocate for the preservation and reuse of architectural elements . We are interested in 855 Five Mile Drive to function as a commercial retail space for our non-profit operation . We will be selling such items as solid wood doors, windows, claw foot tubs, pedestal sinks, columns, wooden trim, and other architectural building details . Due to the historic and aesthetic nature of the property, we feel it would be an ideal structure to maintain and preserve under Historic Ithaca ' s stewardship, and a perfect location for our program . As a part of our long-range plan, we will also be providing education on architectural preservation, and the historic schoolhouse is a wonderful setting in which to house these programs . We are training Tompkins County Solid Waste employees to handle and remove salvageable material from the waste stream at the transfer station . They have constructed a staging facility on their premises specifically to hold materials they identify and save for donation to our operation . We will clean, repair and resell these items for reuse . Tompkins County Solid Waste and Superior Disposal Service are both enthusiastic about our program, and will be providing us with a substantial and valuable portion of our inventory . We are expanding our existing relationships with local and regional contractors in our efforts to remove and preserve materials from structures before they are demolished . A complete and detailed digital catalog of our inventory is being developed, and will be available for private and professional use on the Internet and in print form . We have a long-standing relationship with Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS ) , a low- income homeowner advocacy group . Since 1991 , INHS has been reusing materials from Significant Elements for the houses they restore . Our current facility is not meeting City of Ithaca code requirements . In order to be compliant, we would have to invest a minimum of $ 10,000 in renovations on a building we do not own, which would still leave us with a facility far too small . The current 900 square foot barn housing the Significant Elements program is being utilized to its fullest capacity and is notably undersized for the demand . We have had to turn away materials being offered to us . It is imperative that we move into a larger space in order to handle the materials that are currently being salvaged for reuse . While the current location is convenient to foot traffic , it is a structure with no insulation, plumbing or surrounding property for external storage or parking . Lack of running water makes it difficult to clean items effectively, and the lack of insulation makes it impossible to maintain consistent hours from November through May. Historic Ithaca is a non-profit preservation organization dedicated to the historic built environment . This project will expand the program ' s existing ability to salvage usable elements of historic value, to reduce the amount of reusable construction materials entering the waste stream, to educate the community and to advocate for preservation . W � m/ . I .rbmaM 3 w allw 1• N i- Of do ae 1 e 81 W err" .°0% Lim ly i n b , r y \ Lu 4r# J Ul o as w r y 4 4V 0 to a Q � � > d o� a 8 < Y • 3 01 C a / j 0 114 o j v 3 may° o � cr 4 N Op N ? sr / `� N W LL ## o nor b k � Lr) ' • yi 0 . � � Faf � E ul tl�. • � � � L NI � � YEI • � : � . OO �, ra tilt � j � tlap 3 W ' 6 LL W � i • e � bx .. L QQ o . IL f g df Ld o Cl to I� a z N 111 LU T W 1 ire 3e lid a � !tJ— 4o • dr LOL or � � x /) r n3 to _ 12? 00 91 4f _a T 4 xjr N �F L 7 — — - .. 3 ' z .. 7 a � d s I bn ai of v /4 �� N in � � � K in a A i � V OF .fit Q ►y , ' t yfor �pK to MOP .r' $ to V to 3 ►. e F �0 i 3 10 U I 1 1 1 U I IIA g I am II SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS A R C H I T E C T U R A L S A L V A G E W A R E H O U S E A P R O G R A I M O F FI 1 S T O R I C I T 1-1 A C A I N C MAY I I May 10 , zoos TOWN OF ITHACA BUILDING/ZONIN0 Town of Ithaca Zoning Enforcement Zoning Board of Appeals 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 1485o Attn: Mike Smith Dear Mike : Please find enclosed the additional materials you requested for the Use Variance application we submitted for 855 Five Mile Drive . These include a floor plan with intended usage for each room, as well as a sketch of the existing parking lot , which we deem will be sufficient for our needs and do not intend to alter . We have no work planned outside of repairs to the existing property . Best Regards , Diane Cohen Manager , Significant Elements tog W . State Street , Ithaca , NY 14850 Phone : 607 273 - 6633 Fax : 607 277 - 4073 Email : elements @lightlink . com L CM U) O kA r N Q N M m i .n � � 0 1 7 u 1 I I It r / '0 +a` o Ly kA � t O � iII ) .Ou N cu It ke% p� � N h j LLN o \ ce Qty 7 0 r 1!Xj - ... 9 ty N I % o ul tt a � ZI � � / N C to t � � y ' 0 0 � � d ILL � 1L _. . Y110 ;r K I J x • r �� •�- Ir 1 0 0 I Ott C4 l] z CD N o n �. t gm ' ILI V1 N � M � U - L1 Le P444 � X1 Sflnit� PA � K � � A ' -+L o PARCEL allows 31 .• 2 -1d � .. � ` p '��L � S Q F 1. o. is AqK� N - �. _ YS 0 31, - 2 -15 w �,.♦s �`,,\ , �/ I PARCEL • B " cr � V \ � C \ • ` CONRAIL = L ` v 311 - 2 = 14 'TOMPK 1 NS COUNTY, R .O. i � 311115 l j� i/� / � � / Significant FJamvnis Unique Natural Areas o � o - Q0 O N I of N �(�PGP ,°r ,m• R,°, °r ° a U o !_ 0 O Q Y u < tco l e-s� •K r O F o I = ') 14 O r @iv. Y o« I r7 g °°' 9w ° w •.� � �y�� Y 2� nY i yN a m Y u w 10 cl a " •� ti a ° 'ror a JO LLO �bS V1 p s _ - •°_` pro, u `� �y •�, a '� s LO '��_ r•Yn a u� o a1yfS, �� a't� aaQ` rym BHjS l Yt 'P oOU 0' 31<[t Au,e Iro'.. N� •^ m C� ,y �"_. °w tar - a g,,�rc •tn av' a d.�4'^,�a °oY '..�..�`\`. .t� N R � o � , < •tq� . °•yh. _ _.'4r _ ____ - _ 11 3 �r` •�. > N y. •.n m V ' ao g X • z" ❑ bR U 00 _ a3 6.7 y ° FOa R > e u .�Oo R N $ t]9 A< n•r � U oX oo �° � � _ �t.t lac _ N Y Z e .0 3 _ Cn LJ •�'. o�q. � U a er. N•U °w. V� �PO N Y O g• r b N G tit R � A a a ¢ o Property Description Commercial Status: Active SWIS: 503089 Tax Map #: 31.-2-15 855 FIVE MILE DR Zoning Code: Site: 1 Neighborhood: 30092 Building # 1 School District : Ithaca 612 School Deed Book : 714 Page : 45 Owner: WALDORF SCHOOL OF THE FINGERLAKES WALD SCH OF/FINGERLAKES PO BOX 6804 ITHACA NY 14851 7131/2000 File Photo Improvements: Site improvement Grade:AVERAGE Overall EFF Year Built : 1970 Condition: FAIR Size1: 57 Size2: 12 Year: 1970 Overall Condition : NORMAL Overall Grade : AVERAGE Structure Air Conditioning Percent : 0% Sprinkler Percent : 0% Alarm Percent : 0% Number of Elevators : 0 Last Sale: Basement Type : UNFINISHED No bale Year Built: 1970 Condition : AVERAGE Area Land: Land ype: PRIME SITE Gross Floor Area: 2,535 SgFt Acreage: .59 Number of Stories 1 Total Acreage: .59 Utilities Sewer Type: PRIVATE Water Supply: PRIVATE Utilities: ELECTRIC Assessment: Land Commercial Uses Total : 140,000 Number: 1 Taxes: Used-As: SCHOOL Total Rentable Area: 4695 SgFt axes may not reflect exemptions or c ange TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Dani L. Holford, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary, Tompkins County, New York; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of public hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on Monday, May 21 , 2001 , 2001 , commencing at 7 : 00 P. M ., as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of posting: May 14, 2001 Date of publication: May 16, 2001 � ^\ IN Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning Dep, tment Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of May, 2001 . LO Notary Pu.}�) CARRIE M SHORE- - NotBry No ,Public,1 State of H6052877`York _ Tioga County Commission Expires December M II • r . , COMMENCING "AT X700 6 = a ent' b� ern ' rsorr PMT on the following`maF. I y T 4 . .� ndivi uals ;with vi,sual tars . t v fieanng impairme`nfs or °! APPEAL of DawdtSchaffner other ' speCiol -needs 'f os Appellont Barry' Kasomc pPp---note 4 ill be, pro- Agent, requeshngg� au sided with aassistance; .as , ' thonzation from .the:Zonmy Necessary4- upon, reijue`st. I. Boord of-Appeals under'Arh persons desmngg assistarice: cle XII, Secton 54gof the must =m-ke ;such a request- ' Town of Ithaca Zon ng Ordi not less than`48 hourspriiir nonce fo�renlarggeya'` non to' the hme. of the ,publrc conforioingg ' bwlding/lot at fieann9 r_ r ' 401 VJrnthrop Drive Town j Andrew 'S. frost of IthacaYTax Parcel No , Duector,of 72 1 3° 1 .:Residence Drstrrct fiurlding and Zoning rR 15 The enlarggement con £273;1rT satsyof ioomtadditi rand ' Dated `May l4 ;2001 I wood decks'wrth fret r lyla 16 2001 ises' A v nonce requueme is of fArficle� Sechon T'4of the Ordmonce'i is also ,being `requested to allow sc id „decks 1. en,; crouch �withrn ihe-` 30-fooC rear yard°buildmg 'setback APPEAL of <5igniticontEle ments HofHistonc';; Ithaca,' Appellanf� <Diane ` Cohen; A enY rgquesting a:use,v_ari- aca fromtthe`requiremenits i of Arhde V�;Section 18of the Townao� Ithaca; Zoning Ordinance to permit the use of an oldschool building.fo:�: the opedhon�of gzcommer- gal,.retdil architectural ;`sal- v`age ope ohon aY`,855 Five Mile Driv"e� Townofµlthaca Tax 'Porce�s, No X31 =21'S, 16' Re"silence DrshictR-30: Said OFdmance '8oesno"t. permd 'retaih operations °in an R 30 `zone�v +�, APPEAIoftLmothy �and Linda°' Nmkm' iOwners% Appellarils x Ernie BI-A s; Agent ;_requesting, pii= thonzahon from th`e Zoriinq Board of:Appeals 'under Arts- cle XII' :"SechonaSA° of ?-.the Town of-:lthaca Zoning'Orli- nance, to enlarger*o 'non- conformityg bulldmg' ,with}the addihon'ot an 1 08,0 upre foot second storyy.�3a ition and 60xfeet on, the` ground floor of 918 East Shore Dnve Town of Ithaca Tox Parcel 'No185 ;1,`4 Resi- derue 'Dietnct R 15 Sai, -6mldmg=xis .;,nonconforming as it extends beyond>prop i arty filiries,�-wdh tpdrt}of tthe iAroperry ?bemg aljacent;,to ' CCayuga<Lake �A�smdar .ap- ppeal , , was � granted on fNovemkier 8x2000; but:fias s`mce been*modifiedevntli�a laxger `dddihon `f�«;� . .r, APPEAL;?of FFrankE Rogan, AppPellant requestingg q s cial ;opproval from the .Zol mg Board of Appeiils under Anc�le'1VII, Se' ti 32P733; and 34 of the Tov✓n16f Ithaca Zoning °rOrdmancii be permitted to . modify " Pre viously�dpProved-retail (prig food+.lse`rwcesyote Frai Restayront and Rogan s Cor- ner pizza shop= and,coiive mence- store to permit adli- honalseahngggnd srthe construction ot =occessory structures at 823=825 Danby Road =Town ; of lhhaca .,,Tax I Parcel No 404 2 ? Business Dishict A Said usesZwere �rgranted prewous ;appprovols; TOWN OF=RHACA'r ma the =1980s, ands 1990s' 'ZONIWAOARD 'OF Additionally vaiiarces;Eroir APP.EALSMOTICE OF`: the reguirements;oIf Sections P_UBLIC -HEARINGS 37 and 38�of sSid Otdi- MONDAY;'MAY 21 ,, nuance"are berngrtequestel =2001 7, :00 PM 5 $to allow.�for ,therparkmg . of �By direction of the;Chairman vehicles Mande ^accessory of the Zonmq .`Board oT Ap structutesr to bewithm -th'e 1 ols NOTI E`tls HEREBY required front yard (setback !GIVEN that Public Hearings ,of,50t-feet andsif a yard Fwrll Abe held�byn the Zoning^ (setback of-30- feet) . Board of VAppeals of the bold Zoning Board of App- Towyrrof lthaca..',on Monday peols wilt at swdrtime 7 00 Hall" 2215NorthNLo'gwga� all person's �insyppcport °Qf Street Tioga`-Street' En such matters or`oblechons ';: tra"rice It aca� > N Y" thereto:"Persons'rnavaoce or, r- TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY , FEBRUARY 9 , 1994 7 : 00 P . N . AGENDA Decision - Gary and Donna Hofstead Duffy , Appellants , requesting an interpretation as to the application of Article V . Section 19 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to the operation of the Little Brook Farms Horse Training Facility at 340 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 68 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Should an interpretation be made that finds the operation in violation of said Ordinance , the Appellants then request a variance from Article V , Section 19 , Paragraph 6 , to be permitted to conduct a riding academy and a facility to board and train horses . Appeal of Steven Heslop , Appellant , requesting a modification of a Special Approval granted by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on November 18 , 1992 , under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the construction of two 12 foot x 24 foot accessory buildings on a non- conforming parcel of land located at 175 Woolf Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 23- 1 - 16 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . The parcel is non- conforming because it has a lot width at the street line of 43 feet , whereas a 60 foot width is required . Said Board previously approved one 24 foot x36 foot accessory building . Appeal of Judith MacIntire , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the operation of a " bed and breakfast " facility for up to four boarders or lodgers at an existing single - family residence , located at 217 Eastern Heights Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57 - 1 - 8 . 126 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Ordinance permits only one boarder in a single- family residence . The Board granted a three year variance to the Appellant on December 12 , 1990 for said bed and breakfast . Appeal of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes , Appellant , Maureen McKenna , Agent , requesting a three year extension of the time limitation authorized by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on June 12 , 1991 , . under Article V , Section 18 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the use of a temporary portable classroom ( a 12 foot x 60 foot mobile home ) at 855 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 - 2 - 15 , Residence District R- 30 . The current authorization expires on August 31 , 19940 Appeal of Jonathan Albanese , Appellant , Thomas O ' Reilly , Di -Tech Corporation , Agent requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single - family home with a building height of 36 + feet ( 30 feet maximum height allowed ) , at 1111 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 15 , Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273 - 1783 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals February 9 , 1994 9 . That the variance shall be limited to a period of five years , at which time it would automatically expire , its . MacIntire to have the opportunity to request a continuance of the variance any time after two years . 10 . That the premises be operated as a traditional bed and breakfast facility , not as a boarding house . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , Scala , King , Hines . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . The fourth appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : Appeal of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes , Appellant , Maureen McKenna , Agent , requesting a three year extension of the time limitation authorized by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on June 12 , 1991 , under Article V . Section 18 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the use of a temporary portable classroom ( a 12 foot x 60 foot mobile home ) at 855 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 - 2- 15 , Residence District R- 30 . The current authorization expires on August 31 , 19940 Vice - Chairman Hines opened the public hearing . With no comments from the public , Vice -Chairman Hines closed the public hearing . Vice -Chairman Hines said he wanted to hear from Appellant , Maureen McKenna as to why she was before the Board again , for essentially the third time , to ask for an extension . Ms . McKenna , Director of Administration and Development , said there are several changes which have occurred since she last came before the Board with the appeal . 1 ) The Waldorf School has a very able search committee as a result of the school ' s long range planning process . She said the group is a very talented , well - educated group of people who are able to address the problem ( which is something the school was not always able to claim in the past ) . 2 ) The Waldorf School is now two years into its long- range planning process and has identified a lot of steps the school needs to take , beginning with a capital campaign and other things related to handling the school ' s site problem . Ms . McKenna said the site challenge has always been with the school since its inception because the school is a non-profit school with a relatively small enrollment and a small fund- raising base . Therefore , Ms . McKenna continued , finances are always a bit of a problem for the school . 3 ) The teachers are a little less willing to deal with the site constraints , as well as , the financial constraints because the school cannot pay the teachers as well as public school teachers . The school is always trying to figure out the best way to use its very limited resources . The entire site ( the main building and the temporary classroom/mobile home ) was always seen as a temporary site . The building does not really solve all of the program needs and constrains the program to some extent . 4 ) The parent body is a little bit better able to meet the school ' s tuition demands , as well as , to effectively deal with the level of challenges the school now faces . 'lawn of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals February 9 , 1994 5 ) The Waldorf School is now a bit more firmly established in the community , so the school feels that any capital campaign will now be met with better reception than it would have been met with a couple of years ago . 6 ) The Waldorf School now holds the mortgage on that property which was not the case a few years ago . The school had a complicated deal with a trust and had to deal with several other things . The school always . tried to find creative ways to address its financial challenges . 7 ) The Waldorf School is now in a better position to obtain grants for anything that it does to its site . Ms . McKenna , who has been with the Waldorf School for four years , wanted to talk more about the site committee because this has been a problem for the school for twelve years . She said the Waldorf School worked really hard in establishing several site committees that just could not deal with the challenges the school faced . This site committee has met almost every week since November and has really become very well addressed with the challenges the school is facing . She said the site committee came up with some possibilities , including the one she passed around for the Board to see . Ms . McKenna said she has a lot of confidence in the site committee . She said she has been with the school for a long time , stating that the education is wonderful , and the teachers are very , very dedicated , but are not paid very well . She continued that the school has a lot of parents who are not wealthy , despite the fact the school is non- profit , we charge a tuition . The parents have made choices because they believe in the education and the philosophy behind it . She said the group of people is not a wealthy one . Vice -Chairman Hines said the Board , because of the previous applications , is aware of the background . Vice - Chairman Hines addressed Mr . Frost relative to the conditions about inspecting the building . Mr . Frost said the building is inspected on an annual basis , which provides , essentially fire safety and an overview of the buildings . Mr . Frost said although he has not been in the trailer himself in the last year or so , his current assistant inspected the building two or three months ago . Mr . Frost said he would not mind again , as was conditioned in the last meeting , to have a licensed architect or engineer certify the building in regard to structural safety . Mr . Frost said the minutes from 1989 state that there be an inspection by a New York State licensed architect that would occur by October 12 , 1992 or sooner as to the fire safety of the mobile home classroom . He said he was not looking for the fire safety , but it would be nice to have someone certify the structural safety . Mr . Ellsworth wanted to know , that since this is a temporary structure and has been going on for some time , how is the building holding up in its inspection . Mr . Frost said he has not been in the mobile home himself for over a year , but the fire safety inspection did not indicate anything was wrong . Vice -Chairman Hines said that even though this is a temporary structure , it is not a flimsy thing . Mr . Frost said that mobile homes are not uncommon in a lot of rural school districts , and Cornell has even had some type of mobile home -type facilities which have been there , in some cases , for 5 or 10 years . Mr . Hines said aesthetically speaking , the building is hard to see . Mr . Ellsworth clarified where the building was located , and Ms . McKenna said it is the old Inlet Valley School where Routes 13 and 13A meet . Mr . King wanted to know if there were any structural changes made to the facility , and Ms . McKenna said there was not . She continued that the Waldorf School wanted to also consider it as temporary because the school has been trying to get rid of it for Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals February 9 , 1994 a long time . Ms . McKenna said -that it is only now with the site committee that the school is looking at other options . She continued that the site committee has an architect , two planners and a developer- - a very qualified group of people who are helping to address the problem . Vice -Chairman Hines wanted to know how many children occupy the building , and Ms . McKenna said there is presently an eighth grade ( 9 students ) in there all the time and the other half is used as overflow space for the seventh grade ( 11 students ) : She said it is not constantly occupied but it is variously used throughout the day . Mr . Frost asked if it was no longer used as a music room . 1.1s , McKenna said it is used for music , overflow space , remedial math and a few other things . Mr . Frost said he is particularly concerned that the building is unsafe structurally because it is on a foundation for a mobile home which tends not to be very permanent . He said that he feels that looking at that every three years with a licensed architect or engineer would seem appropriate . Ms . McKenna said a lot of changes were made to the structure to make it suitable for the Waldorf School ' s use in the first place . Vice - Chairman Hines asked how long the Waldorf School is asking for the variance , and Ms . McKenna said they wanted it for another three years . Mr . Ellsworth said the Waldorf School does not need it after 1996 , and he said he was curious as to why the Waldorf School wanted a three year extension . Ms . McKenna said because she had been before the Board so many times that she hopes that things can move along and the Waldorf School can find the financial resources and capital campaign which is an on - going program . Vice - Chairman asked what she meant by another site , Ms . McKenna said there are four things the Waldorf School is looking at currently . Ms . McKenna said a temporary solution could be done because there is an immediate need for September . She said a phased- in approach which would be building some kind of structure near the facility and then , eventually , building additional areas to replace the reasons the Waldorf School uses the trailer and to also solve the other problems the Waldorf School has with its program . Ms . McKenna said the Waldorf School could immediately expand on the site and ask the teachers to deal with what is now there , utilizing the trailer . She said that a really nice facility which is very aesthetically pleasing and works with the Waldorf School ' s current building is what the Waldorf School would like to do . Another option , according to Ms . McKenna , is to find a great new site that totally works with the Waldorf School ' s program and is wonderfully acceptable , would probably run $ 750 , 000 . 00 . Ms . McKenna said there are 2 kindergarten classes and grades 1 through S . She added that it is not a small school and the program is very rich in the demands . She said it is not just teaching in classrooms , that the Waldorf School has woodworking , and a movement class . Mr . Ellsworth asked the total enrollment , and Ms . McKenna said there are presently 96 children . When the comment was made that there were 20 of the children in the trailer , Ms . McKenna said there were 9 students in there all the time , and she explained how the second end of the trailer is used . Mr . Frost asked if the school still has the site in the City of Ithaca on Hudson Street , and Ms . McKenna indicated that the Waldorf School still owns it . Ms . McKenna said there are two kindergartens on South Hill . Mr . Ellsworth asked for the maximum number that is in the trailer at any one time . Ms . McKenna said probably 11 and 9 , 20 children . Mr . King reiterated that there would be 20 students plus instructors in the trailer . Ms . McKenna said that was not really the case because at times there would be a music class in there and that would involve 1 teacher and 1 student . Ms . McKenna said that the last time she was before the Board , there was one full classroom and the other half was either a faculty lounge or overflow space or music , stating that it varies throughout the year . *',own of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals February 9 , 1994 Vice -Chairman Hines said he has no - problem with this except for the safety aspect , especially if Mr . Frost can insure him that it could be assured . Mr . Frost said that from the fire safety standpoint , ( presuming that the smoke detectors still work and some of the repairs to the stairs have occurred ) he has no particular problem with it . Mr . Frost said that the long term use on the foundation that is intended for a mobile home deserves review every so often . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Vice -Chairman Hines read part III of the environmental assessment form , with the previous recommendations by the Town planning staff . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , the Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the proposed continuation of the use of the trailer as a classroom facility based upon the review by Planner I , Louise Raimando and the facts stated in the previous environmental assessment in July , 1991 comparing that there has been no significant change in those facts . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - King , Scala , Ellsworth , Hines . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . Mr . Ellsworth wanted to know if the building is heated sufficiently , and Ms . McKenna said it was actually doing fine and that it is electric heat . Ms . McKenna said it is not really toasty warm but there are two different zones and it is okay because the one room can be turned off if it is not in use . Mr . Frost stated that he wanted to let the Board know that he would not be comfortable in assuring the Board of the building ' s safety . Vice -Chairman Hines said he wanted to know if there was a mechanism by which the building can be known if it is safe . Air . Frost said that the annual fire safety inspection is done by the town ' s office . He said the last one was done over the summer . Vice -Chairman Hines said that he wanted a mechanism in place , and Mr . Ellsworth said that a structural assessment is also wanted . Mr . Frost said that he did want that type of an assessment and then , within the next 30 days , he would perform another inspection . When asked if there was an architect in the Waldorf School ' s parent group , Ms . McKenna said there were a couple of architects . Mr . Frost said that he would like to meet with an architect on site and fill out a written report with the architect after such a meeting . Vice -Chairman Hines told Ms . McKenna that she should report back to her group that this is going on ten years and it is a long time to be granting extensions . She said she understands that and that the Waldorf School would also like to get rid of it . Mr . King asked what would be a convenient date for the expiration of the permit which will coincide with the school year . Ms . McKenna said the school usually ends by June 15 and the space is not utilized at all during the summer . Discussion followed regarding dates . MOTION Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals February 9 , 1994 By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board extend the special approval to the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes , for the use of the mobile home for two temporary classrooms , as it has been used in the past , this being under Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 3 , Subparagraph ( b ) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the continuation to be through August 31 , 1997 , upon the following conditions : 1 ) That there be no more than 20 students plus faculty in the building at any one time . 2 ) That the Waldorf School have the building inspected by a New York State licensed architect or engineer within the next 30 days upon prior arrangement with the To;.m Zoning Officer , Mr . Frost , so that Mr . Frost can attend the inspection with the architect or engineer . 3 ) That such professional will give a written report to the Town as to the structural safety of the building . 4 ) That such report indicate that the building is in safe condition for the purpose for which it is being used and that the report be satisfactory in all respects to the Tom Zoning Officer . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - King , Ellsworth , Scala , Hines . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . The fifth appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : Appeal of Jonathan Albanese , Appellant , Thomas O ' Reilly, Di-Tech Corporation , Agent requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single- family home with a building height of 36 ± feet ( 30 feet maximum height allowed ) , at 1111 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19- 1 -2 , Residence District R- 15 . Vice -Chairman Hines said the height variance was due to the chimney . Mr . Tom O ' Reilly stated he was from Di - Tech Corporation , Mr . Albanese ' s builder . Depending on how you take the elevation , which he has included in the measurement , it is approximately 30 feet to the ridge that is very close to the chimney chase . With the chimney chase and given how the final .grade was , that ' s going to be 35 feet or 36 feet . Vice - Chairman Hines said the excess elevation is the chimney or the structure that surrounds it . Mr . O ' Reilly said it is a wood chase chimney . Vice - Chairman Hines asked how these things happen- -they don ' t design houses with roofs of 30 feet . Mr . Albanese said when he picked out the house , he measured from the ground to the roof and found they we were well within the 30 feet and then he realized after talking to his contractor that the chimney chase is included . Mr . O ' Reilly said , as Andy would agree , at least in the way it is shown in the elevation , it portrays itself as being 4 or 5 feet in an eighth inch scale over the peak , which is well beyond what code is , code is only 2 feet over the peak . It ' s shown OF I r TOWN OF ITHACA 2104 - 126 EAST SENECA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 MEMORANDUM TO : Zoning Board of Appeals Members DATE : August 28 , 1997 FROM: Dani &a, N SUBJECT : Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes, 855 Five Mile Drive On February 9, 1994 the ZBA extended a special approval to the Waldorf School for the use of a mobile home for two temporary classrooms until August 31 , 1997 . The mobile home has been removed . I ' ve attached the ZBA resolution for your convenience. . �� THOI�/IAS �J _ KL INS ARCH I TACT "14 -1 THt= COt�/1I\/1O NS ITHACA NY '14850 (607 ) 27T - 02o3 ' J Apr 20 , 1994 Maureen McKenna Waldorf School of the Finger lakes 855 Five Mile Dr . Ithaca NY 14850 Dear Maureen , In item 1 of my letter to you dated Mar . 21 , 1994 I stated that I would do a detailed inspection of the floor structure at the north end of the temporary classroom . I have completed that inspection . My report is as follows : The steel undercarriage appears to be in good shape . It is a reasonable assumption that if the crown in the floor was caused by overloading , then the steel outriggers would show signs of being bent . There is no indication of any bending or stress to the main beams or to the outriggers . I also inspected the interior of the room for cracks in the gypsum board and there is no indication of cracking due to movement of the structure . I also noted that the plywood attached to the under side of the floor joists is firmly in place and the concrete blocks and the railroad ties which support the building are in good condition . Therefore I feel that the floor structure continues to be sound and safe . If you have any questions or need further assistance please call me . Sincerel , Thomas J . Kline Copy : Andy Frost , Town of Ithaca i� , m Or- r> t 1 . •r 1. to Or i r. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , FEBRUARY 9 , 1994 7 : 00 P . H . 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 , February 9 , 1994 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , SHIEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters : Appeal of Steven Heslop , Appellant , requesting a modification of a Special Approval granted by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on November 18 , 1992 , under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the construction of two 12 foot x 24 foot accessory buildings on a non- conforming parcel of land located at 175 Woolf Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 23 - 1 - 16 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . The parcel is non- conforming because it has a lot width at the street line of 43 feet , whereas a 60 foot width is required . Said Board previously approved one 24 foot x 36 foot accessory building . Appeal of Judith MacIntire , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section" 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the operation of a " bed and breakfast " facility for up to four boarders or lodgers at an existing single- family residence , located at 217 Eastern Heights Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57 - 1 - 8 . 126 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Ordinance permits only one boarder in a single - family residence . The Board granted a three year variance to the Appellant on December 12 , 1990 for said bed and breakfast . Appeal of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes , Appellant , Maureen McKenna , Agent , requesting a three year extension of the time limitation authorized by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on June 12 , 1991 , under Article V , Section 18 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the use of a temporary portable classroom ( a 12 foot x 60 foot mobile home ) at 855 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 - 2 - 15 , Residence District R- 30 . The current authorization expires on August 31 , 19940 Appeal of Jonathan Albanese , Appellant , Thomas O ' Reilly , Di -Tech Corporation , Agent requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a single - family home with a building height of 36 + feet ( 30 feet maximum height allowed ) , at 1111 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer 273- 1783 Dated : January 31 , 1994 Publish : February 4 , 1994 CORNELL / COLLUM TEL : 607 - 257 - 6220 Feb 04 ' 94 3 : 49 No . 002 P . 01 February 4 , 1994 MEMO 1 TO : Andrew Frost, Town of Ithaca Building Inspector/Zoning Officer , FROM : Candace E . Cornell, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board, Chair SUBJECT : Zoning Appeal Applications : Albanese Residence and Waldorf School It Is unlikely that the height of the chimney casing will have any additional environmental Impact on the proposed building site. It should be noted that the project site Is within a Tompkins County Unique Natural Area ( IT-29) and recelved a thorough botanical survey prior to subdivision approval. The Town of Ithaca Planning . Board 's conditions of subdivision approval reflect their desire to maintain the environmental integrity of the project site . Waldorf School of the-Finger akes , It is unlikely that the increased occupancy will have any additional environmental impact at the existing site . The constraints of increasing the mobile home 's occupancy are health and safety issues. No further review will be necessary by the Environmental Review Committee , Thank you for forwarding these zoning appeal applications for Conservation Board review. Town Assigned Project ID Number - Rev . 10 /90 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART 1 - Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Spon3or ) 1 . Applicant /Sponsor : 2- Project Name : 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc , or rovide m4) : 855 6 )u M1 Le MNIE , Tn-VcA% , &SN/ 14�Sp Tax Parcel Number : G — 31 ' 2 — L5 4 . Is Proposed Action : NEW! EXPANSION a MODIFICATION / ALTER ATi0N ✓rEXTeNt>1q/Q 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : `[ IT41N IVCM1 N)EK17 Z y eP<rz-S, W E WILL. AOD -i1D DLXA TMd AN BOJ LE>JA �, CLJrClZZ0 1 1q 'i •tF t��lacl3t,� cLQt�.SC�aON` �-ta1.�5E5 au >= Ca2�E /b� D A� a�f 82F.� v�! Tzr=�Wl • � WE 1J1rLD s1�cE Utz M�vE�cl �T A�cTI �t � � k�/ o�DY�lo12.C.[ NEr , Mist c a,-,,�( iLa4GN'eoe; LcuoGe , IA3 'Tl-� MGk*. AMC. t>W2 LbA)C-� ctvC l= fit-/ 5�1 ��UC 6126 j MC I DED 10 Z>T " AT-7TH 15 SITE UAM L. A-T- LepcST Q.9 Co . W C W l U. f�oJn ,UtJ &7 IV UTlLl Z Trte lb9TAcbLE CLASSRDONL U&>rIL P&=Z NV4�ViJ i `S> CE' 1S CQA11�LeTEDI . ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) f � I 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) 1 Acre( (6- 10 yrs) Acres ( > I a yrs) Acres " 7 . How is the Land Zoned Presently ? 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES NO If no , describe conflict briefly : i 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : i i Public Road ? YES NO Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? ./ Residential Commercial F1 Industrial Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space Other Please describe : 11 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval/funding : trt>'ctE of NEW 10el< - VEFACTtAeUT of 1�S1?oeTAMa0 - e6PCL. . C-5rtAC - c /o R+.uL, yauC� E aor' (315 ) 428 - 45(4o7 ft�12M1T 32315 12 . Does anti aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval ? YES NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . ous abov,c •o no moctl cdAon needed I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE I Applicant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : NV>cV121✓ CJU G . N1C. i:�Eh4hlA - I Signature : e 1 Date : wAl. N P( " ScH oo L PART If - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary.) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO XX If yes , coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 6? YES NO XX If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency,, if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: (Answers may be handwritten, If legible) C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality, noise levels , existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly: None anticipated . C2. Aesthetic, agricultural , archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: None anticipated . C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish , or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly: None anticipated . C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? Explain briefly : None anticipated . C5. Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly : None anticipated . C6. Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - CS ? Explain briefly: None anticipated . C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) ? Explain briefly: None anticipated . D. Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO XX If yes , explain briefly: E. Comments of staff XX CAC other attached. ( Check as applicable . ) 5EL AL Z CA PART III - DETERMINATION OF SiGNIRCANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) `�•! �� . Instructions: For each adverse effect Identified above, determine whether it Is substantial, large, Important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (le, urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration ; (d) Irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse Impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. XX Check here if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this ^ 2armination. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Name of Lead Agency Prep ees Signature ( If different from Responsible Officer Edward Austen , Chairman Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date : Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency I�Vc�..� PART II - Environmental Assessment - Extension of Approval to Site Temporary Hobile Classroom , Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes . A . Action is unlisted . Be Action will not receive coordinated review . C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising from the following : 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 ? None anticipated . The proposed action is the extension of an approval - granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow placement of a temporary mobile classroom unit at the Waldorf School location . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character ? None anticipated . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? None anticipated . C4 . A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? None anticipated . C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? None anticipated . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - 05 ? None anticipated . A ` C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? None anticipated . D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? None anticipated . PART III A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the proposed action due to its location , size , and temporary nature . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Asst . Town Planner Review Date : June 12 , 1991 .FN r TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $ 100600 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : Ithaca , New York 14850 CASH ( 607 ) 273- 1783 CHECK S P E C I A L A P P R O V A L ZONING : A P P E A L For Office Use Only to the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , New York Having been informed that authorization is required to : tND ocwPpqr�4 a1VE Mo5tL:e VNr1' FqZ U5E pis Z. GV+cSSft'DOI S . at 666 fiVE MILE TE1VE Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' 31 Z ' 1 5 , as shown on the accompanying application and / or plans or other supporting documents . The Special Approval authorization is requested pursuant to : Article ( s ) V Section ( s ) ) 5 7F 4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this request for Special Approval authorization . ( Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) E4s u4F� ►n&[ t.2-e ylaVlc -b DeYW1Q vl p.►n�l'� U P,xba-VIG, bur 5i }e, 'ho GV eCI- c Mom c"srbovv\ � 62-cdlew &ky �pg &Cc-L14u cau 6f ect rOOM5 Lue Lvi ll nee 6L •NA&- 2.. ess YborYlS caws -./01u else •ivy 4. ►M.o10 i fee unit . 1 e FLAMibh 12 [a. r15 are. con1J"-cV1t 6r\ eRCds . fur Plan is -b rcwAai.yl at -N4: s 10Ca: i r a �easf uviave v� a rk -b riccowsh�u,�1a c 1 - S at -t�n.� s site. . vV0 jus+ MrlegorKalcd C) UV4 Movi 4Z -t� Md,uce. �exPe►ns s . Unfit we. naute, plav�s �o r si 4c esc pav►s� an , use uji l L use -t�� bS� bb i ! e urt i r one vuo(e_ PI US a c in [ subje�'t 5 A By filing this application , I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board . of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application . Signature of Owner/Appellant : Date : Signature of Appellant/Agent : Date : . Z, [ el9 Ar Home Telephone Number : 217 ' 37 g (p Work Telephone Number : Z Z 1 5573 NOTE : If construction of work in accordance with any approvals given does not commence within 18 months , the approval will expire . f_ She Wafdor f Schoof of the Finger Lakes Addendum to Application for Special Permit The Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes is one of 500 international Waldorf/Steiner schools . We have been in Ithaca for twelve years . We currently enroll almost 100 students. located at two addresses : 855 Five Mile Drive which houses the former Inlet Valley School , and two nursery/kindergarten classes at 602 Hudson Street , The Five Mile Drive location includes a temporary classroom to accommodate the eighth grade and overflow space for our seventh grade several. times each week . The school has been in numerous locations throughout our tenure in Ithaca , and moved to 855 Five Mile Drive in 1987 . The site was always meant to be a temporary site while we located a site better suited for our curriculum . However, the Board of Trustees felt it was necessary to help our future grades enrollment by seeking additional space for our Waldorf nursery/kindergarten programs . This meant at least these two programs had to find suitable space at a convenient location . We found this space in 1989 and the renovation necessary to meet Ithaca city codes and New York State day care regulations , as well as to reawaken a building which had been vacant for several years and make it suitable for our specialized program , stretched our resources to the point where it took several years to recover. In the meantime , additional staff was hired to handle the increasingly complex operation and to better plan our future . A consultant was hired to help the new long range planning steering committee coordinate a community-wide planning process for our future and primarly to deal with the ever- present site challenges we had consistently faced . This committee has been actively engaged in long range planning for over two years , and in August confirmed our present plan : to maintain both sites for at least three years and to prepare for an eventual move to effectively accommodate a Waldorf program . We then completed the next step - to engage qualifed individuals in a site committee to fully consider our options : expanding Five Mile Drive for grades one through eight , finding another location for all of our programs or planning alterations at Five Mile Drive and purchase an adjacent lot to accommodate all of our programs . Despite the fact that all of our parents must pay tuition , we do not have a wealthy parent body and finances have always been a challenge . This is why our site has also been a challenge . Our new site committee has met four times and in conjunction with the finance committee is developing plans that we will need time to arrange funding for. At the present time , we feel optimistic that we will continue to stay at Five Mile Drive because with alterations this site could be very effective in helping us accomplish our mission . However, we are considering other alternatives as well . We will coordinate a capital campaign throughout the next two years to effectively solve our site challenges , and the Board and two committeees are 855 five Mile Drive, Ithaca, :�&w York 14850 (60 7) 273 . 4083 fr I currently working closely on this project . We would like to solve our challenges in the most efficient way possible , and avoid marginally affordable but temporary projects that will only partially solve an immediate need and not address the long term needs . It has taken us much discussion , many meetings and two years to reach this conclusion , given our limited resources and very supportive but very busy parent body . We also needed time to recover from our budget- funded investment in 1989 and to solve some other outstanding financial constraints . Despite the fact the the local economy is not robust , our school is doing quite well . We have strong enrollment , an active and supportive group of parents , a strong faculty to help us in recruiting new students and an excellent program at a time when people are seeking new ideas in education . We also have a strong and committed Board of Trustees and several active committees to help manage our complex operation . Last November we renegotiated a new mortgage through Citizens Savings Bank and New York State renewed our Charter. We now have water and sewer service and we have been actively working on our site to beautify our grounds . We have always found the Town of Ithaca to be quite considerate of our needs and very knowledgeable regarding the necessary requirements . The Board of Zoning Appeals , has also extended us the time we have needed in the past . Your consideration and understanding of our situation is appreciated . We have taken the time required to address our site dilema and there are many qualified people working closely together to see that we continue to be viable members of this community . At this time , we feel it is necessary to continue to have two classes in the temporary classroom so that we may plan and effectively use our limited resources both now and in the future . We are committed to maintaining Waldorf education in Ithaca not only for our children but also for future generations of students . We all agree that Town of Ithaca residents will support our, efforts because we have seen rapidly increasing support from this community in Waldorf education . Without the temporary classroom , our efforts to provide a quality education will be greatly compromised . The commitment that is currently in evidence in our school is a strong force in helping us realize this difficult goal . Our ability to attract the necessary funding has never been better. We fully expect to no longer need the temporary classroom after August , 1996 , Maureen McKenna , Director, Administration and Development for the Site Committee & the Board of Trustees � r . PLOT PLAN INFORMATION TO BE SFlOWN : 1 . Dimensions of lot . 4 . Dimensions and location of proposed structure( s ) or 2 . Distance of structures from : or addition(s) . a . Road, 59 Nanes of neighbors who bound lot . b . ' Both side lot lines , 6 . Setback of neighbors . c . Rear of lot . 7 . Street name and number . 3 . North arrow . 8 . Show existing structures in contrasting lines . 6UR24E� du ccl ust , ► 993 �L -tA<x k1�cP �1�5E kl,sb �C� P c�c GN�j �aGU IrM �J3 -rr 5P6 mv C , Signature of Owner/Appel ) ant : Date : Signature of Appel Iant /Agents �OW.�t� Date : c -2L i r Osye•^'i "fly ,•- 1 : - + -„y ', �.i ' u w � 4 / �t", • :r M Q � TOD cr • f' � � �' 00 o r hM V� 1 u M 1 \ (0 I Ld S F Wa e to a i w �Oj d Ld14%I = w •% I Z I Ld i� sori v► _ �I a 1 d) * � x � ' y. .y ` 6 ' lo 40 00, 0 i ne to) Ov 114X 4p Ld ./ vre -1 u1 \ o Lt� d p' 0 cn Csi jr fA ( �� Uj rY� Q 0 owl 04 1 x • � OL 9 � ago Ld n- oh ^- a/ cr a� o° h' / ltd r `J► LL LO rd - �t cr . w v T .,�M s+ 4 n• I u C C u U, L u J i En N O1 to J L o L o EEE O l , 1 1 U O •u� �N o- U L t o w L E/ N N N L L o w O � r �jQ J1N 0. o � i Na L o _ L 1 LL i• � 01 ALL g e N J ? Q L:" N E 7! J O N N V - N � a O 'V '> 0. is VI n v d DA s u y,0 g � N Z a � L CL ..M F cc 'm .. 3 _ u 6 w 0 (n > �1 d tL m zl � �t 4j m C 0 N gg •-I u L z O z O F y ` ui L J N � L ... W z N 1 . V Iv N , r i Z? TAX MAP 4F= 20 K f'A. •�A 02 eE 4l 101 K \ M, ! K \ \ ¢y ♦ CITY Or ITHACA F" S TOWN OF ITN CA / / ' 1.1 2 \ 1. CAL / c • 2c u{ / • mj err • 2R� 1 JE.C4 O U K {{ ± li \ : I 1J7 01 e �� C � 11 \ 4111 .". I 1 K CAL .M Il16 EIl� I '. /; t Y [L, �" �c29.1 •te 5 t A ° If it wr.r adn ! 0 .0 CAL /"/ 1 /rK u\ . \ _ \ I errr awnw / y`r It » 1I tc CAL t1' SOS K CAL 6 © ® ' / ? tar 26 t.. Yst i At$$ ACC2L 25.2 / - 25.1 IS 2C. CAL 4 1 —'s K. .. 7 % lec ul ht fer \ nrn C••• 142 !!f 9 , / l2 K iL_ / � �� ..� , M d � 1 tars ht K.U. 2K � Y2 � _ r•- � 2 : 2071 •C CAL - / ' p..• 25I, KUL O 2 !r . IL! ' � QI yy 4 •c - 2.61 to QII /i'•' 21. 1 F' (# t 5 / • 23 A: 22K c► 20 CAL r Wit. . I: 1, , A Ctl. ' �.� KCti /,I! .s • rnj�/ � v - \ `CAL 11 e '� •A'r �€[1yS.i (so AC t � l f .. 0 AC is oil : . , os 2c I , fit , 1 WAhI - 33: LONG ARAISAL t OM PA" NY Fix - 1 . a , T roN I Jo N � {� 0 ) 0 H I I / ai 0 .. • ,` V J V H 1 I � N � r trl rd � .. 1p ' 2 Q OD u n Q N �• CIO : z 4 d' U n V Q V in _ co O< * tn Q N O ys [J oby o • ►� `` Lug 4, Co cli CO3 _ U I tab — Q _1 n[ b 1 W �► 1` C1 �7 IA N Q r u{ p , { Q Ol' • • o N e cR ♦ 3 /1 CO A M o� I o � • � � \C\ 1 to No o v U 00 ti Q Q a0 to oil 2 � r/o I o i f 1 I v Q o O ti Sac . M . • `�" N M CM O ... . _ . . . . J.I C~ A4a y.aaswr.�a ? 1 "T\ 1 �. - ,. .,-.--• - • : .f ^r., . , . • . ., - f : _. _ ' ,p. \ �T"'17T^T'.T7," 1 I look "d fee a�;'2/ • 1' ldtyti 0 .+ i1 . Yt • � vd1.i f _ rI•• . . . . ` ^ , . I 14 , 1 1. fell 1 ,, Fi '. r+ a1 f a f , r " r . ,.1i j. 1"77 . . .`` � .. � . . . ` '1'�.,, . + • . f• 1 ' / ••Yi I1 .IS : 'Vi Di11 511 `" ' _ . - A 'a n '�• 'it 5 / r l �• e :Y 004 its( a. l: AG u r 0 1 1 . ; . lot 4 .1 f to bk if Vol offal X\ i tl L: faVol Filly ; r• " ! L## lip to off af Off, f \ ` 1 � \ \ \ \ >✓ o0 \ I ff Y . fifit fall # 1V i • \` /O ` • �, r ` ,, , \ \-N / • ` R5 ' ~ � Q / �LI I ller 14'er�A . . a IN 17 �- x - >, ° c f.. nlel Valley %I\ \ foll 1 \ r _ 976 361• . ° ev I �\ Gem ' ( * u'' . t000l Voi Old C - - Z / � � \ reek G l e �✓ \0 . . Ill — 9P " R \ �Iffl ralllf� Z P A R Falls . • -__.��Q . I f , � "�.► . :� ' ' • f j;" w,w2 III � ! 99 1 \I. mpgrcaunacf � 46 ravel w W 1 P.1 11 ' \ to all ( 01IR11161 'Its raw � //"%.O Grevel Fill n �_ s l : is _ _. _ ._ .._ _ 510"000 I � Zl, jj . . 1 a � R5 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R5 C BUSINESS DIM,0 R9 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 D BUSINESS DISTRN poll A R15 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 E BUSINESS DISTRM R30 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL " . MR MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT I INDUSTRIAL ' Dtn OWN Op rMACA y�p.ER{Ii 6 PLANNING DEPT. A BUSINESS DISTRICT A AG AGRICULTURAL D SENECA 0"EET B BUSINESS DISTRICT B S SPECIAL LAND U AWACAONYO 49W fi [ 'D, c)elm 1j J STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE , N . Y . 13202 HARRY CARLSON FRANKLIN E . WHITE REGIONAL ! DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER August 24 , 1992 Maureen C . McKenna Waldorf School of Finger Lakes 855 Five Mile Drive Ithaca , New fork 14850 Dear Ms . McKenna * Re : Permit 32315 Attached is a fully executed copy of the above captioned permit for Use of State Owned Property . If we may be of any further assistance in this matter , do not hesitate to contact us . Very truly yours , HARRY CARLSON , P . E . Regional Director of Transportation By Pail A . o g Property Management Attachment AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ROW 75i 110/891 < NO. N - ' 04062 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Orig REAL ESTATE DIVISION Subs PERMIT FOR USE OF STATE. - OWNED PROPERTY Air xx Canal j 00 i _ 60 - 2c) j 32315 P . I . N . Inventory No . Permit Account Property Location 855 Five Mile Drive Canal Plate No , Project Use Code Map No . (s) Parcel No . (s) County Tompkins Town Ithaca City/ Village THIS PERMIT, made this 1st day of September 19 90 between Waldorf School of Finger Lakes 855 Five Mile Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 hereinafter referred to as " Permittee " , and the COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK , hereinafter referred to as " the State" , WITNESSETH : WHEREAS the State is the owner of the above identified property ; and WHEREAS the Permittee wishes to use and occupy said property ; NOW , THEREFORE , the State hereby grants this permit to the Permittee , subject to the following covenants and conditions : I . The property covered by this permit shall be used only for the purpose of Trailer site and for no other purpose whatsoever. 2 . The fee to be charged shall be : $ 100000 per year beginning September 1 , 1990 The Permittee understands and agrees that if the full amount of the fee as stated herein is not paid by the fifteenth day after it has become 'due , an additional late charge of two percent (2% ) per month on the outstan- ding balance will be due and owing the State . 3 . Payment of fee is due on the first of the month unless otherwise stated . Fee must be paid by check , bank cashier's check or money order payable to " Department of Transportation " and mailed or delivered to : New York State Department of Transportation Revenue Unit , Building 5 , Room 422 1220 Washington Avenue , Albany , New York 12232 Page 1 P:Fret 3 4 . Permittee, at their expense and for the term of the permit , shall furnish and show evidence of General Liability 4 JMA � Z Insurance coverage issued by an insurance carrier licensed to do business in the State of New York for the protec- tion of the State of New York and Permittee against any claims, suits , demands or judgments by reason of bodily injury , including death , and , for any claims resulting in property damage occurring on or in the proximity to the permit area . Such General Liability Insurance shall be in the amount no less than $ 1 , 000 , 000 (combined property damage and/or bodily injury, including death) single limit per occurrence, and name the People of the State of New York as an additional insured. The Permittee will furnish the State u certificate of insurance , with it ( 30) thirty day prior written notice of Lilly cancellation or major change in the policy conditions. The Permit shall be voided if insurance is cancelled , modified or lapses. Approval of this permit shall be contingent upon receipt , by the State, of a copy of a properly executed insurance certificate . 5 . Permittee is responsible for any repairs, improvements or maintenance work of any kind on the property at Permit- tee's expense. The State may, at any time, periodically inspect the premises to determine whether same are in good repair and maintenance, structurally sound, and that there are no unsafe, hazardous, unsanitary, or defective condi- tions existing. 6 . Permittee is responsible to maintain that the occupancy is in compliance with any and all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances , codes, rules and regulations affecting the use of the property . Permittee shall not con- duct or allow any use or activity on the premises inconsistent with law and shall not conduct or allow any use or activity on the premises which may require a permit or other approval by a government agency without having lawfully obtained such permit or approval . 7 . All arrangements of services for utilities, removal of garbage, rubbish, litter, snow and ice will be made by the Per- mittee at the Permittees's expe : ,se, unless hereafter specified . The State shall have no responsibility for providing any services not specifically set forth in writing herein . Permittee shall comply with all local and State building standards in"the installation or repair of any utilities including but not limited to electricity and plumbing. Permittee is responsible for keeping and maintaining the premises herein in a safe and clean condition , for the regular and prompt removal of garbage, rubbish , litter, snow and ice. Permittee shall be responsible for preventing damages to the plumbing system and premises caused by lack of heat or water damage from leaks. 8. The State shall have no responsibility whatever for the loss or destruction of any improvements made by the Per- mittee or for personal property stored or being used on the premises. 9. Permittee hereby agrees to admit State representatives and prospective purchasers or permittees to examine these premises during reasonable business hours. 10. Permittee agrees to indemnify and save harmless the State from any claim or loss including legal expenses by reason of the use or misuse of the premises under this permit and/or from any claim or loss by reason of any accident or damage to any person or property being on said premises caused by Permittee , its employees, agents or invitees. 11 . This permit shall be automatically renewed for successive terms of one month each unless cancelled by either party. Cancellation by the State requires thirty ( 30) days written notice , except for cause , in which event cancellation can be required on ten ( 10) days written notice . Permitttee may cancel this permit by giving thirty ( 30) days written notice. 12 . The parties acknowledge that this instrument is not a lease but is merely a permit to occupy and use and therefore a landlord-tenant relationship is not hereby created , and further, that since this is not a lease , Section 5- 321 of the General Obligations Law does not apply to this permit to the extent permitted by law . 13. Permittee will not sublet the premises nor assign or transfer the Permit to any other parties in part or in whole without the prior written consent of the State. Failure to comply with this provision may result in ten ( 10) days written notice of cancellation of the Permit by the State, and the State may immediately take possession and ter- minate all rights of the Permittee as of such moment . Page 2 � 4 14 . The Pcrmittee understands and agrees that the fee charged by the State may periodically be updated to reflect fair market value and the Pcrmittee will enter into a new permit for the new fee if it I wis hes to remain in occupancy . Failure to execute a new permit will require Pcrmittee w immediately vacate the premises. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, CANAL PERMITS ALSO INCLUDE PARAGRAPHS 1S AND 160 15 . No alterations, excavations, improvements or modifications of any kind may be made to the Canal lands or system without express written permission from the State in the form of a Canal Work Permit, 16 . Unless express written permission is granted to the Permittee by the State, no permanent buildings, structures or additions to existing buildings or structures will be allowed on the Canal lands , or system . Any existing buildings at the time of the issuance of the permit shall be used for seasonal occupancy only. 17 . Additional Provisions to Permit , if any : If any of the provisions of this permit are held invalid , such invalidity shall not affect or impair other provisions herein which can be given effect without the invalid provisions , and to this end the provisions of this permit are severable . Page 3 ACCEPTANCE: In consideration of the granting of the Permit, the undersigned accepts all of the above terms, conditions and provisions. Signed FOR INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On the i7 day of 19 before me personally came to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. MARTHA A . WALKER Netar; Pith ; ic: , `.; bite of New York _ O No . 4520018 1 GC Qlja ! ified in Tioga Coin // ( Notary Public) My Commission Expires +,3�y!l�. � FOR . CORPORATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On the day of __ 19 before me personally came to me known , who , being by me duly sworn , did depose and say that they reside at in that they ace the of , the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument ; that they signed their name thereto by order of the Board of Directors of ' said corporation . ( Notary Public) � \ RECOMMENDED : �9 L- _ _Regional Real Estat Date 11 1 APPRO ` g n Tr slraHp _ ! , 4•" for: ' �V4 ) .fl� to df�I e�v'1T�631�?_I . :_: .. . . � , ,. . , � AUG 19 1992 �. -�- _ . _ By Director , Real Estate Division Date Page 4 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Joan Lent Noteboom , being duly sworn , depose and say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York ; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the Sign Board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper , The Ithaca Journal . Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York on Wednesday . February 9 , 1994 , commencing at 7 : 00 P . H . , as per attached . Location of Sign Board used for Posting : Located at front bulletin board of Town Hall . Date of Posting : February 1 , 1994 Date of Publication : February 4 , 1994 lwtctv% . J00 Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 4th day of February , 1994 . d4lotary Public � ,� . 6/3o/9S 17 i y� ' v NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORK # 4646 427 WED., FEB. 91 1994 1992 , under Article XII, S.C. Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordi- time limitation authorized by rthaca Zoning Ordinance, to 1 7:00 P.M. Lion 54 of the Town of Ithaca nonce to permit the opera- the Town of Ithaca Zoning be oermitted to construct a By direction of the Chairman Zoning Ordinance, to permit tion o( a "bed and breakfast" Board of Appeals on June single-family home with a F of the Zoning Board of Ao- the construction of two 12 . facility for up to four boarders 12, 1991 , under Article V building height of 36t feet peals NOTICE IS HEREBY foot x 24 foot accessory or lodgers at an existing Section 18, of the Town o� I30 feet maximum height al GIVEN that Public Hearings buildings on a non - single-family residence, lo- Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for (owed) , at 1111 East Share ' will be held by the Zoning conforming parcel of land lo- cared at 217 Eastern Heighis the use of a temporary porta. Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- Board of Appeals of the Town cared at l 75 Woolf Lane Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- ble classroom (a 12 foot x 60 cel No . 19- 1 -2 , Residen of Ithaca on Wednesday, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel cel No. 57- 1 -8 . 126, Resi- foot mobile home) at 855 District R- 15 . February 9, 1994, in Town No. 23- 1 . 16.2 Residence dence District R- 15 . Said Or- Five Mile Drive, Town of Said Zoning Board of Aqpp Hall 126 East Seneca Street, District R- 15 . TAe parcel is dinance Permits only one Ithaca Tax Parcel No . peals will at said time, 7:00 (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, nonconforming because it boarder to a single-family 31 .2. 15 , Residence District p. m. , and said place, hear WEST Side), Ithaca N .Y. has a lot width at the street residence. The Board granted R - 30 . ' The current au - all persons in support of such COMMENCING Af 7:Od line of 43 feet, whereas a 60 a three year variance to the thorization expires on August matters or objections thereto. . P.M., on the following mat- foot width is required. Said Appellant on December 12 31 , 1994. Persons may appear by tars: Board previously approved 1990 for said bed and Appeaf of Jonathan Al- agent or in person . Appeal of Steven Heslop, one 24 foot x 36 foot acces- breakfast. banese, Apppellant, Thomas Andrew' S. Frost ',;TOWN OF. :ITHACA Appellant, requesting a modi- sory building. Appeal of the Waldorf O'Reilly, Di-Tech Corpora- Building Inspector/Zoning ZONINGt BOARD fication of a Special Ap Appeal of Judith Maclntire, School of the finger Lakes, lion, Agent request ng avari- Enforcement Officer OF APPEALS P 9 Y PP q g Appellant ,l l a n t , Maureen ance from there uirements of 273- 1783 - " . royal ranted b the Town A ellant, requesting a vari- P q McKenna, Agent, requesting Article IV, Section 11 , Para- February 4, 1994 NOTICE OIF of Ithaca Zoning Board of once from the requirements of g q g ry PUBLIC HFARINGS Appeals on November 18 , Article IV, Section 1 1 of the a three year extension of the graph 6, of the Town of TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1990 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, June 13, 1990, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,- (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y., COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M., on the following matters. APPEAL of Edwin A. Hallberg, Appellant, requesting the Special Approval of the Board of Appeals, pursuant to Article IV, Section 12, Paragraph 3, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for an extension of the one-year time limitation for the use of a temporary building necessary or incidental to the development of a residential area. The subject residential area is known as the Deer Run Subdivision, and the subject building is located near Whitetail Drive in a Residence District R-15 on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-44-1-4.32. APPEAL of The- Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes, Appellant, Maureen McKenna, Applicant, requesting an extension of the two-year time limitation authorized by the Board of. Appeals on November 30, 1988, pursuant to Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the use of a temporary portable classroom, (a 12 -foot by 60 -foot mobile home), at 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2-15, Residence District R-30, Said Zoning Board of place, hear all persons in Persons may appear by agent Dated: June 5, 1990 Publish: June 8, 1990 Appeals will at support of such or in person. said time, matters or 7:00 p.m., objections and said thereto. Andrew S. Frost Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273-1747 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 13, 1990 0 Mr. Frost agreed that' from the homes that are there, the building cannot be seen for the trees. MOTION. By Mrs. Joan Reuning; seconded by Mr. -Edward Austen. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an 18 -month extension of the use of the temporary storage building, with the following condition and findings. 1. that the Building Inspector inspect the building in 7 days to make sure that the debris surrounding the property, that is not new 'construction material, be removed and that the grounds 'be kept in an orderly fashion thereafter, 2. that the requirements of Section 77, subdivision 7, paragraphs a -f are met;'`' 3* no one appeared in opposition to the request, 4e there is a need for the building due to the "soft" market in real estate at'this time. A vote on -the motion was as follows. Ayes - King, Aron, Austen, Reuning, Hines. Nays - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The next matter on the Agenda was the following. APPEAL OF THE WALDORF SCHOOL OF THE FINGER LAKES, APPELLANT, MAUREEN MCKENNA, APPLICANT, REQUESTING AN 'EXTENSION OF_THE TWO-YEAR TIME LIMITATION AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS -ON NOVEMBER 30, 1988, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V, SECTION 18, PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, FOR. THE USE OF A TEMPORARY PORTABLE CLASSROOM, (A 12 -FOOT BY 60 -FOOT MOBILE HOME), AT 855 FIVE MILE DRIVE, TOWN OF"ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-31-2-15, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. Mrs. Maureen McKenna, Director of Administration and Development at the Waldorf School, explained to the Board that the School has been looking for a permanent site for several years and it has been very difficult to find. She said that as the Waldorf School's needs have increased for a site so has the enrollment in public school, so any big building that is Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 13, 1990 particularly suitable for their needs is. a,lso in high demand for the Ithaca Public School system. Mrs. McKenna stated that in the interim they have expanded one program into an additional site. Mrs. McKenna stated that she contacted the Department of Transportation about an,_extension and the Department does not foresee any change in the use of the road and they would be willing to support the School's request'that was granted to the School in October 1988. Mrs. McKenna stated that Mr. Frost had suggested that she address some life safety and fire concerns that the Fire Department has expressed and she passed. out copies of a letter to Mr. Frost regarding those issues... .A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit #2. Mrs, McKenna went -on to explain that the School would like to continue to use this facility as a temporary classroom, as they have been using it. She said that this is necessary because their enrollment is continuing to expand and they do not have an alternate site to move their entire School. She went on to say that part of her responsibilities have been to develop a capital campaign so they have the.funding to support an additional site. As a private school they tend to use their money very carefully and they are mostly supported by tuition.. Their original idea was to have a new site within two years but they found that to be an impractical possibility., So they are continuing to look for a site, and at the same time they are beginning to realize that in order to start this capital campaign it will be a long term process so their original estimate of two years was a little optimistic. Chairman Aron asked Mrs. McKenna to give the Board an idea of where,:they looked and why it was not feasible -to purchase it. Mrs. McKenna stated, that she has a list of about 18 sites. Beinga school there are very strict zoning' regulations and practical considerations and most of.�those;sites were impractical because of those reasons. So :although they looked for space, there was space available, it would not suitably meet the School's needs ..:..".Some, of, it. involved a considerable amount of construction work that the•, School could not. fund, so it was not just a case of moving into a site, it- was also a case of buying another site .and then renovating that site which was not .possible for the School;to.do. Chairman Aron asked Mrs. McKenna if they have been looking for land or real property._ IV Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 13, 1990 on Mrs. McKenna responded that they have decided at this point to seek land and then to build a -school, which they know would involve a -capital campaign, which they have begun. Chairman Aron asked Mrs. McKenna how many students there are presently at .the Waldorf School. Mrs. McKenna replied, 1117 students in two locations. She stated that their two kindergarten programs are in the old Speno mansion in -back of Oak Hill Manor on South Hill and -that involves 40 students,coming in the Fall. There are 80 students in their grades at their current location. There are 12 of those students who will be in the- temporary facility. Most -of the other children will be in the regular building itself. She stated that they use the rear end of the trailer for music lessons and things like that on a very temporary basis - a couple of hours a day - perhaps two or three students and one teacher, for 45 minutes. Chairman Aron asked Mrs. McKenna for how long she wants the Board to extend permission for the temporary schoolroom. Mr. Frost asked Mrs. McKenna if the main building fire alarm system has been connected to the trailer. Mrs. McKenna responded, that that is completed. Mr. Frost stated that there have been several fire safety inspections on the building. There were parallel inspections done, one by him which was done in conjunction with protocol set up through the State Education Department which involves numerous stages of the Fire Safety Inspection. book. He referred to the '.letter that Mrs. McKenna had handed out (Exhibit #2) and stated that that is a response to the specifics of this State Education Department booklet. He referred to a letter dated March 15, 1990, signed by Paul S. Hansen, Assistant Building Inspector, attached hereto to Exhibits #3,' which was a response to a complaint from the Fire Department. Mr. Frost -stated that -some of the problems that have been experienced in the school have been -more of a maintenance kind of situation, not so much a problem with the building. Mrs. McKenna replied, that she would like to extend it until 1993, a period of three years. She said that the School feels that in three years they will be able to make some provisions so they will not have to use that trailer. Mrs. McKenna stated that she does not believe that:there-is any life safety or any concern for the safety of their -.children in that facility. Mr. Frost asked Mrs. McKenna if the main building fire alarm system has been connected to the trailer. Mrs. McKenna responded, that that is completed. Mr. Frost stated that there have been several fire safety inspections on the building. There were parallel inspections done, one by him which was done in conjunction with protocol set up through the State Education Department which involves numerous stages of the Fire Safety Inspection. book. He referred to the '.letter that Mrs. McKenna had handed out (Exhibit #2) and stated that that is a response to the specifics of this State Education Department booklet. He referred to a letter dated March 15, 1990, signed by Paul S. Hansen, Assistant Building Inspector, attached hereto to Exhibits #3,' which was a response to a complaint from the Fire Department. Mr. Frost -stated that -some of the problems that have been experienced in the school have been -more of a maintenance kind of situation, not so much a problem with the building. 4 Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals June 13, 1990 Mr. Frost stated that the Fire Department offers Fire Safety training and he asked Mrs. McKenna if that has been pursued. Mrs. McKenna stated that that has been -pursued and -they will do that in September when school re -opens. She has spoken with Lt. LaBuff with the Fire Department and there will be training for the facility in the first week.of September. Chairman Aron opened the public hearing. -No one appeared to address.the Board. Chairman Aron closed the public hearing. Chairman Aron read a letter from Gertrude. Armbruster, (undated), which is attached hereto as Exhibit #4., in opposition to the continued use of the mobile home as a .classroom. Mrs. Reuning stated that she was:.approached by the Waldorf School to rent some of her space out to them and she had to refuse them because -she did not have --enough room, so she knows that the School has been actively looking for space. Mr. King asked. Mrs. Reuning.,,. as ,a resident in. the area, if she could speak to- the Armbruster complaint about the visual impact of this trailer.. Mrs. Reuning stated that she passes there every day and the trailer is down so far she does not`even_see it. Even when you drive on Five Mile Drive, you have to really crane your neck to be able to see it. L Mrs. McKenna said that plans are already .in the works to improve its appearance this summer. Mr. Hines stated that he agrees.with Mrs. Reuning.that it is very difficult to see the School from the road when driving by. Mrs. McKenna stated that at the current time the School does not own the building. It is something! that the Board is very interested in pursuing and it is on the School Board's agenda to discuss. - Mr. Austen.asked what the condition-of.the trailer is. Mr. Frost stated that in April of 1989 he requested a letter from Peter Nov.elli, who is a Consulting ,,Engineer, that the structural integrity of the building be certified and that was done. 1. Mr. Frost asked Mrs. McKenna if the smoke detector was ever installed in the music room. Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals June 13, 1990 Mrs. McKenna said they have purchased the smoke detector and it is in the process of being installed at this time. Town Attorney Barney stated that back when the original permission was granted, there was a contingency, or a condition, that the School obtain a use and occupancy permit from Department of Transportation because the building is located largely in the right-of-way. He asked Mrs. McKenna to speak to that. Mrs. McKenna said that she spoke with the local Department of Transportation person today. He claims that he has the School's letter in his file still to be addressed and he asked Mrs. McKenna if she had received any information from the Syracuse office. She is not aware of that but that does not mean the School did not receive it. She said she will check on it and follow up on it. MOTION By Mr. Robert Hines, seconded by Mr. Edward Austen: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an extension of the Special Approval for a period of 12 months, starting in August of 1990, with the following conditions and finding: 19 that within 3 months the School furnish to the Zoning Officer evidence that the State Department of Transportation consents to the occupancy of the space and any other building requirements that Mr. Frost may find are required by other ordinances or statutes, without prejudice to further extensions thereafter; 2o that the request is in accordance with Section 77, subdivision 7, paragraphs a -f; 3e that the School obtain an inspection by a licensed architect or a structural engineer of the building within a 3 -month period; 4* that the appearance of the outside of the trailer be improved. The voting on the motion was as follows. Ayes - Hines, Austen, King, Reuning, Aron. Nays - None. The motion was carried unanimously. r., ltot C 'A Ov ae- I, ''r'iTsa{!��."++�°°tiy',5.�`..M1..r;-....- .....�a- .. -. ..__........ ,.. .. .. ._ -. _, .... ..- --....-� n.---. -.. _._W-. --;Pw•-ear _ t+;rawt;2t`r-r:c+-+«v.� !+y .� iM i , .''Q.. Vy Kf n •. K. - h.,.R 1. ^ . } .{ ...'. <y,�^'y, 5.�`iki J'' tit FIII I, IF Cui .r. ! ✓ rh'ar syL t T IF IF Ir IF / y J MEMORANDi I`` r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , r TO: F. Hoffman, Regional Real Estate Group, Region 3 FROM: F. Grout Tompkins Count Resident Re ion 3 + :.'. P Y Y g t SUBJECT USE & OCCUPANCY PERMIT THE WALDORF SCHOOL OF THE FINGER LAKES ROUTE 13A IF 'DATE: October 19, 1988 Attached is a letter from The Waldorf School Of The-Fin-ger, Lakes seeking approval to a temporary encroachment ,^of'a:.'- . class room trailer on the right-of-way of Route 13A. Also attached is a partial print of a plan sheet upon `whichIF IF IF I have marked the approximate location of the trailer. It a.ppears to be totally on the R.O.W. ; This trailer siting will have absolutely no effect.upon the If 6 maintenance and operation of the highway system and'; we recommend a Use and Occupancy Permit be issued:. a w' FG:ms IF Attachments ' cc: C.'Ames, Regional Highway Maintenance Group, Region tit' :} . .. . ,! / l '(. it ; 1 .. • t h IF M1 1. 1 IF •�3 J1 %5I it IF ' It IF IF r �I W It II'F IF I S ,<. . r LI Ir J i '. F • ` �,� � \ CC`:�:��c�. �-Fes'^., `1v.5. , ?Fce Waldorf Sckoof of the finger Lakes RECEIVED BY OCT:71988 0IOMPKINS RES. rv�n�? NeYeF T Mr. Fred Grout New York State Dept, of Transportation 3rd Street extension Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Grout, October 4, 1988 The Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes has sited a temporary mobile classroom structure on our property at 855 Five Mile Drive in Ithaca. We seek the approval of your Department for this temporary (anticipated 2 years) siting with respect to the State right-of-way which borders the school property at the site of the structure. Thank you for your consideration of the above matter and I look for- ward to your reply. Respectfully Yours, Richard D. Kinner RDK/kml , 855 Five :'Mile Drive, Ithaca, fl&w Fork 14350 (60 71 ? 73.4083 F/ �- - -VPWqJ8FPW APPLICATION FOR APPEAL TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS We request approval of the zoning Board of Appeals under article V for an extension of three years to extend occupancy approval in the existing portable classroom at 855 Five bile Drive. The Board granted Special Approval for a period up to August 31,1990 with unanimous approval November 30,1988. The conditions that were established at that time have been fulfilled. We offer quality education and quality care for children based on the teachings of Rudolf Steiner and the Waldorf educational system - an alternative to day care and the other Kindergarten, pre-school and school systems in the Town of Ithaca. Our current enrollment is 117 children based in two locations - 855 Five Mile Drive and 602 Hudson Street. Enrollment at 855 Five Mile Drive is 80 students in grades one through seven. The Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes provides a service to the residents of the Town of Ithaca, both in the form of education and child care. We have a nine year history in this area (our doors opened in 1982). We are part of an international system of education - there are now 500 Waldorf Schools around the world. We wish to continue to use the mobile unit as a partial classroom and music room on the following schedule: daily classroom for sixth grade instruction, from 9:00 - 3:00 for not more than 12 students and one teacher - North half of unit (unit has two exits and is connected to fire protection system) music instruction for not more than four persons at any one time, from 12 noon to 4 pm - South half of unit Our original plan was to consider the 855 Five Mile Drive site as a temporary location for our school as we continued to seek an alternate site. In the meantime, we expanded our Kindergarten and pre-school programs at a new location (602 Hudson Street). We are leasing this location from San Associates, and we renovated the site to be in compliance with City Building Codes. This process took six months to complete. Because of the time and cost to meet stringent codes both for Ithaca City Building Department and New York State Department of Social Services requirements for a Day Care Center (since the Kindergarten is located off -campus from our grades) this project had a total cost of $44,000 over budget, as follows: loss of enrollment $259000 (10 students x $2500) loss of rental income 81000 unplanned construction cost 9,000 (project cost was $14,000) prolonged construction time 3.000 (estimate) over budget cost $45,000 The Kindergarten expansion is vital to the health of The Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes in future enrollment. We are a non-profit organization and our board approved a balanced budget for fiscal year 1989/90. We continue to seek a site for our school; our current site at Five Mile Drive is close to maximum enrollment. Indeed, our site limits our ability to expand enrollment at a time when our school continues to grow (our enrollment has grown 115% within the past three years at a time when other private schools are experiencing a decline in enrollment). We began a Building Drive and several new initiatives in August, 1989 as part of a long-term plan for the school building. We hope to build a school within five years. This plan will take at least two years to complete, and our efforts will increase during the coming years. This necessitates our continued occupancy in the existing structures at Five Mile Drive and 602 Hudson Street. Tuition will remain our primary income. The school site committee continues to seek an alternate site as our fund- raising efforts evolve toward a capital campaign. The Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes Board of Trustees has expanded its long-range planning since the time of our first request. We expect the portable unit to accomodate our enrollment for the next three years because expansion would be effectively handled within the building and at our South Hill location. The existing unit continues to be used on a small scale with resulting minimal impact. For the above reasons and because alternate sites are not readil .y available for a School with our needs, we need to remain in our present locations to maintain enrollment and increase our financial strength. Moving to another site is both a practical and a financial hardship for our school at this time, and may in fact so adversely affect us financially that we would not be able to continue to offer our services to the community. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 13, 1990 The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. APPROVED Henry Aron, Chairman Connie J. Holcomb Recording Secretary 0 JS % 14.16.4 (2187)—text 12 PROJECT I.D. NUMBER F ...... ......... ._. .. ._ . ...,,.,..,, _.. zr;:�r�.�„�°r.R�zt-•�^'tzca�x-m^^mrrr?nr�»-.-�.�sa; 617.21 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review %. SHORT ENVIRONMEN.UL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTEWAACTIONS Only PART I—PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) SEOR. 1: APPLICANT ISPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME `Y�Li�vJ�F S -10oG of TH44' 177"r Of ~z/49w Cl44Jr5RzlzyA( 3, PROJECT LOCATION: �y� w` 7" TIf /„ J i0r /�'P¢ -�0PyyCounty Munlclpallty ! 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) this assessment vo�-Aeb 13A (A4610'effl4e- P41 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: [RNew ❑ Expansion ❑ Modificatlon/alteration 8. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: O� �No�ricE" c�-s $�e oo �-t ane v�7r�E (%�«� 7'� �3E �.�/✓1�n�'Cr /.2.t�lrf�t/+e�7VT/it�D/TTd�C/c •t/ '&E' .7U7Gr. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: �Z' OZ Initially, • acres Ultimately _ acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ❑Yes WfNo If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ❑ Residential ❑ Industrial Commercial ❑ Agriculture arPark/ForestlOpen space ❑ Other L'JA Descrlbe:4V 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? LYJ Yee L, No If yes, list agency(s) and permiUapprovals 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? R�es ❑ No If yes, list agency name and permitiapproval 12. AS RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? UO Yes .[]No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE spy L' ��`���' AppllcanUsponaor name: / r�CJ��7E-C/ ���� `'�z ""' " � � Date: Signature:LJ./�//��� 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 1 ,..;r.,�..r mrc.... :. T..�.,—, ,..._-_ _•. _.. _ .._. ..,._.. .. ... _ .. _ .o-.�._,.r.... r.;w:ri`irWia '4'A:cepraaFx .S.'�'..A'.'CF,:Rwy A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR; PART 617.12? If yes, coordinate the review process and.use.the FULL.EAF. ❑ Yes ❑ No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a.negative declaration mpy be superseded by another involved agency. 0 Yes O No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH 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: /W C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood* character? Explain briefly: C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: M C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or Intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain /a C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be Induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in CII -057 Explain briefly. &a C7. Other impacts (Including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly. D. IS THERE, OR IST RE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? El Yes No If Yes, explain briefly 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 (Le, urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) Irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials,: Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse Impacts have been identified and adequately addressed, ❑ 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 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 on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination: Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Name of Lea Agency to 2 Tit a of Responsible Officer Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) . -. , 1 v. x.. t w ^k- Y P" ,m� ' i}.<.' f -. >.. p ... L £ r }r --'e r t! .: ♦ _..• •. -s r A �n .r.•L c _ .. t. , �i- w w nit 6IF ^hY _'.v,=Y•Jt`''+. r� 3;[ m Wi�'4'-x�..'.+r!a'S rhy�J,,.t'u ...a,�>-_c ':' �'b'3','t,' l+' f• L 3v ,:7 •i. .5'i'Ctii.•yy��.t p5 y. "k -eSl t�M f`� -i. Y Fefbbb ,�-. } ,`�w'• '� <�'' ;{�� i?"'v. r {i �.. at+, ,, � � '3^i w xc � C�`��A i 1' � �:�iM►p`. �iy.dt:,.r '�_ •: ifi il'� G} i§1 'Mr fi•'t Yj<�'" 5 '• ' 4a.yri�,{�`'v'i\.•. {"{� t�i: yr. :{ y - tI R f yy� 1 � 1" �c� �t 'f,$ �•'i�t�y, ,p ���,,,pyi' •a• � � -k 'b- � A tyK+,Sfp"�'1:, � Y_ / .y; .y-1+�.,�y<,•. z •- �,yhT �„ [}".p� •.':-., y7 "t+. X„f;. �A`/F����� R Y •t " v A. e. 'yt^ b+• "c 'x �.Y" � + . x7. a .,��yy y^l' W 'y ,�Y } Ui• J^Y��'�, ZfY . . ,4W'� aR@� ,�,s,�..i...a S .:i :.� �" ��.¢!_,,.�F'pa't a 4 "�k:•'lY. r. .� i it Y" ° _ L,-♦ '� e, ,? � cY.r • ]�:., r, f''+ �ti w-']- }• U:. ` -' �k k� "5- 4.s".p,r; a` y.r $ l p .� Ys,�- �te•-`` �• - 7S .i . �_ 4, ,T"` '.y F / ... ��, d)�� ir. L •i 5}.'ni -i y_yy§,� v'r:... fcYY'�Y x •w r.1 Mme.#� ii x_ -•v w T .Y s`yL1 kT`Tp y''`3i t y �',i'Y :_yr "4Y i -'�J' " 4 '� t. -^'' _ 'r�5kr'�e ipt�y��.Stc"..�J%xj . .. Y. ON ..� -a: "' Y •s" t" r�rF`a.. •. S $.tSS•.. N w.fR*%' R[�+'fdl' .:,F- G"' q x�r6r .'ji'C "• 6 r .�C y F YGx J.,? Y i 4 :1} a s^ d ,�'"�$'i� `fit,(( t r`�t�}T i�a�. ;'�s'� �.� i {{Y�y, s Y T'��i.:4w+r'1iNf•�.. �#�. M � AI S. r;.•.. n. •!�'1 ."'. ,. yl , ^0.... "1. .4 .5+4'i�Y:naa i .}`T ,. 44�~,e5'•i"g.�$ 1i�•/,a�Fa /'t rft K]"�`-.}�ljhelm,511 ,3.. K..i'sdrr n ]'rfl .: ypyY n/4..Ji r X' ^ YpY'IF t a�4 `, L% i•. Y d1 .', .I : �.>ixlWY6nr :.. irti.?s�$.:Yv 1. ✓?lPl',/Cey YaLMih'151....�. a..n$s wa,-7T.ln� '.n n�1-Yf!$n.N rl[ IM LLLLLLLLLLLL a h ,nyT�Y,r 'E„� *. hj3y Rtl''%•t.- fr tip"' a` �� ..�"t!• r r.t. ro tS5 `5.ii"< y-.. K 8'. x k.1,�VyH (�}��/, ) i y� a tr: ,�y�'Y/ry"y-3 . k ,hl \ •.. �d:h'�i � i 5.;..?J i r:.-�', E 7f ^u J$k"a Ery tk. •y0'a'_ PM!fa`.N a" \i��'F�`'w..(E� 'tT' yP1 Lp, . i T,f'2:4 �bY, kYY' h .1Y C+.fM . `rY rJ. S!%i�` S K.r Yk etf .y h 'vY":ey ... .5n �c� 43-., t "Y Y. 4'{r`' f7r.'�1'%'L�;.�`x�,.5( �C �wy ��NW� �� '.L 2 k� •- ` � � t # jl�s..+t( p I(y_+«r."%'`4:e 44J �x +,F.-e�4",� G�� M,L rv3 t SS•"� �'1-�J i-Fry�ir's�'-L #•�:y� K ' +: �ri. �: y, i ♦"amm i,}xSF 71 Zr}-it I'^.',iy ��q,FF Ci� �VR ..•� ,, n `r- '",.. �.. .. ... .. ._ _+,•1. ., .f.` t+5:, r< }?- ,'wY�?"i ,T#+.° .e. .+iteryy •7^.. „e.,.. W r ..0 � .f ,r...l:-x.. � . ,+ . . r3:F.. ,k . .'t!• Y .,?'t1; : _ h ��//''`•' + ��Y''''''yyY''' y. ., _. ef!ik.i 8; Z' /.�' - ..�:h•'. Ht.]f'V`: µ y ,I Y,E 4 lW. '/�tS .d�{i'SaY✓tfd'Y'(( 'v4,L �,a,iS n�`�h, i�9 f 1, '•+'n 'y4'#'.. Y::Ix ih'�,+a P%s SAY �}1��,5' 1r��% ),'f+f.yd�"+y�,yy�"�`�` hc,"' '� n; "Y+y4N.�ya°` •5` A3.1., ,� ,`i{:y%`�'Jfi.^T"i`�'•{' 'f ''�'"'dTJ(., �F' 33tt4.67a �i5•'� i'+ '✓ti'..W yj'Lf {`} TS' lF �,.JWeT• 4 i,.�}r} +�y. 'N.ae.•a Y3t�„a34, h y'yS,k'.(_w,r,!$^V1 ') } vs FF^ ... i" d. �'yj55t-'-1 CN;�;'1 ''''.., tb Z �i I� ']i •tI!'e r. .,ri°i1 .!, 7R\ ' )P•y��l' .v t. .a C &aa �a • � � � .R -+i ]7 i `.� R IN ri ./Fy�.y a• s)t{' ffi! `]"',..-.�y •"7aj xx�33�� t; �))), 3 z� �, K II 4 j +«; rrk' y-Vry.�a �, s Y' ii'.. hp Z �. ]+}. F / },+ .c 9 'fA'• x ...; ,.A s( •- r .-Jr - .y,-<`l..r tIL TiS'') Y J,"."' t t a.e •.x3 ��}}..4`�' z>51p ,�a�y '< >•?r� k m .M '.. Ni p : �r '4,s f.w Y` is "�'YiC "4"'• Aii ,(,- ?. t3 �y RR" t+ .-¢x:. Y,• 'y �;'�}�,.,, I MEN .. ,^" r y;.• _:a .. kvv g \. id •�� C. .„ m• r' 1vRM Cx`,r«•`� w A.,i' > 7a' "i`i,5 xwz�,�..f;. i +.:t• i #Y' -_t -v� Yuz� ''i �ytp�ci'att',Y-d'd b'+av I': ^+.., •X a 7# q31: -8' P"rp •%•'#F�„'S c. vYi . �t •k E �'' � 'f ,�. x '3= 4 i W k{i � � JgY a. �i•Ltt��z � .`Ae �' j n 1x>a•.-.�4� a 'ii.�. IL^�44 •'rh`; c -yf --�--, tE 3eYy <�' vy a r ..a5 ?o`rt+'S.>yJ.'yF } a Irt .., i i.d&T'i'�r5<1. �4.?]�'S'�, iSv�'f.4'i.F ,tri 4f]Y"f aJ:k,''i:? rw, r t P�-z $.,,y « P r.�am.�IF ,' k'e"ja'&Iv f It;*u'Ar.. u )"±`�t. wrov, iuy?�IY i.iv; i •'.:(k,T�`iti+vk iy P.Y y r 5.,� r K 1..•..P,G,,u*Er.. dh _ 'i1r't15. ,. l- .. ,... yr y#�'(:bK1{+Y4 .'•aa i s i �]�`�Fyyyr.• , y,e' - :.. i-ei "%-•yi^. a, n•¢Y-tt',,((..��yy��y+}}�� ..,..fi�rr }y y,3t+,1,:! �y� Vi i'4' Y'§f "'E'%'�wyy J4 1v�G YA i. -, - a+^.1 ff: ft..a bF'.k'1+a4'�1"G}`M,�Y1yflwT is 'y`!�Y-e. "f'W`fLpj.YYi:. 4S tPl 'Fl:, '{) `d "^ i S•r$ t�311i4 itx..ta .4 iv{° �.:r .T^I "N 4 {' - F..... :5 t3r4 ,✓f b z.. ..h+i v�"{'t*'�jj>iChM S•t4s.EA�'8X,''f�{••.�•�� `"Sr ]`�3 y t .�'•�,PGfri`! '..Si= ' x � "'�� 8 •tc� tial �YR . . =. ~a fu xya���iY�frT t t'. �:d � .yy eY ;r. 1 ., ��,',��.„LL_. .. }r9' 3 � E ;il.� y ,aaiim� � ..}},, _ 4 -Jr ` f 14,N� �r �i _ .Y; •_ .4.,. F, r'� tuM1 t'!J� n.tY1 P.. "? Alt +`J+,,*T^x.. ., ..I . -.... -..- .a --- s 5h l�W x9, , LL ..v .Y j • •+�'ti5 Vk " -w''i3 .RIFs Z. 1i \-."f - C') f ' ftel - •gam. r •a' t..sag'4 Ky , , �;}.5n , t ' ::;,;r k"';.w/- �y�'4i,'fc t, as.,;.]}.� J le, Y' .t.: ',# :< I '. :75 p.�i . 1R.... ^i �},T 5 �M: d� Fk.r•t4 C o , lr,. {hy['"!' t" ,.�'=r'E` } "{24c t �•-�h SriYan V! g a5,.•- „Yea. af. t•E1{. !,..41kr k'c ri..+v.,±-p -+ W'ak mss, �+"•. r, PS M t .F i r✓ .b3. u •+"r 'fYa Pi > ♦?' -..E4, yf, Q.r'L. _ ( Tx't b? rv: 3t h yv, {'� 4;P' 13' 7_K. fL'� Y 1 y�'i w qty AN' • f- 9. .•':•m ,. V�`Y .r' I ~ f .').Fid✓ P YTS .. 1 , �•/'i & -.. a. .7 •• lam... 4 ]i !A'ejp,(r3 g,^{v+.: 4 11�+/.>�"''f sy/i. ,3,�^ tt 1 kr... Y t l�kb�- •X $, i `}L, . "-;, Y ui'i+ ' .�,(}:.;�Pr a A A _ Fly' v>Yf.t'I' "}•�FeiJ �' Y 4 j7'.:sA •1��i',[t 'yo,,Rn 4 d�r, ie.r., 'at"YtV of �.. pv `st'll ''" . fZ - rt'; ;ys7�` alo "-..:n�a `•i. J ;:„�-ui,•d,Y•..rs" �,.�t-"y hu e"y 1+1p3,"�„ w us�.;gytt-k�5.4..`.� qYi.'�" i y. eXd�a.'�x' `�"•, '-,. 5f'r ,'',' -,•. 9.< `• >ti6n, i,v-•t.•'-" Will,.;Pr �.t: .✓ binkt'.''r a7',p-"RrPi, .;<. , _.4 y. t'.._..tG't{�`�f'✓.'t ... ... . .' AV. i kY .:t i,.t �'.r�, l<.t., [ I„{Y. k.Yil-'.�'X^'t, �- p�'✓w>.\i i6 ':Y t -K•>-ry r�i IF - v ' 'PW: % Y ' (, :.,.� _- C bs.,. R �'+�i'My$; jjNlC �'t,' 4 �n jj�„'7 }e' ;}- w of yy}5�y. :. P• v.F r� t• !r +, s.a�-, ]� :v r • '`xi ,lrI-f. •fi . .• Je...; 1:.. <?: f.s ?u.�} ,ir.S. isw tJ`� �e t.J.y.4v`,t� J> �+� E}T' �,` �.:} ,.... Z,•(5 +.f 'F F._ ..1T�♦i'1lyaiyl�. _"112A5 (A,14,4JYY A. ..'/'..i-.07%,lah' i:`F�_- � .�I. }... 1'Srt. J-. !nf SY v:-G•.fit.-vLY-•Ti} . -:---S- 2. dw •.: i'f,. y'vl _ •.rz,. >t.Ex3 ,SV'\`ye,+X. IY;^4:# '• `\Y�+ Ott{ar^ `,Cp'J V f >q-' '1� t?+h{: +L bit tr,.'".4A}t5.'4 1 .Y ftri:: rY .s..!t,.. I l"t( 6 y �v. - 5¢ giyay.' - _ °�.i*. �•,$!4 �. -^'k'c -�` sk: a f + .. y'' .xi �" :i wa3ip ', ;F,�e,..li. ;?` sc't ` ='d ` ":k' "" d'�i�- N � ' � VC'j . -ri. tff `�c�iS.?t RR - a2.' s✓•' t: ,y1,. 'Yt` 4j}' _'J K"f' �i•`id+� ^�{�.. L.;R u » f , .,I. P t EF-:cr,�* '�yz*tIF •' 'IAS �'- 'ti `"]-t' 'Qh'F-•w,'' I L.r: �J .?.. .,�,' _ � +,3�j�: �, FF �f1 Ar'wlt * .�+,;X', . - y� a �A. 7 fi „'f .a'- ✓' t� °', fr }?t.Ff. r:.•�'/ ��'< .+'' 'y t,. 'yd��g�k�3p h: -•'i, l,7* be 4J, �f 4�Y� _a 'µ"y'e":`. to %yy:�, `S $(. 1' A d�Fe4A m, � :,y.-••rPfgyyxw+ri{'.T` x.rit�"i'�?�fi�S•-�i- CSL„`;.."gtf'it 1' �S.yS ;.i srti iT' >,'at.$."' .5r�5,v;.._ 5 xk. yp{.,„�, �y.� St .�'- f r^. '�{�F� Y' "vvF•'a v,.yAra'.... i t•4 ,W.�(�(��Ft L dJ''''##+__,� 1,.� iA � �� S^`C:� "Y•i�£• � ^`.}"�.rvl8'�r'.� �/„ Yan . � 4�.+1�± h F � �.. �i n1d Y�rtl�� J�u�]$� F L( t� •fi N �] i a. � ]. ,Y>j$ �L � � .� y� 5 � NR� ni' is ii i�t I • # •'F ���=-� j� iF A �+ " k Y .. v #:�1��•# �' 4'#��k�ag�r/�; a vv'witrr_g�yQ ' >fii � `" �e���.1 -:. S 1 � #S�R"�,ywA{ ,� s .ri4•, - ,fig •J,,y.,rX t 5', ^ ri+ et,Y . ,.•^ 1A � . ;v j .,a , S:Yv c`G'4 '1•�"'A�.£ '�.yr*tik.,u9 $.P"�.' 't 4/d. ri�T,/. . �5 qa a ;'J�$-,�t +4i±:} ry �..y Wim=: '�£<.3i• 4 t�Y 5yj �x{{,� L. t'•. ''[.YaLSeYti lid• f_" M y A9: ribJC..%r .tX.' .•RI•]�--4 •4'r '- < Y. - 'I.'E 3,a.' a}`-a"�'��,3 ' 1 sir'"ya `k .'y3�.' ^ „A' ry.. . aux �,..xy ..,aC ^��s• . ^ 'yr-�2 py, ,f . .. ''•Era''.,+ �"' Li7Jf -� .>. e} - r� . �d: s l,A t' - t�.►; .� 17., RC1 :05 5� 1mma��� `� �. * . .... .. ,.-, k. 1 '. f ,y '{+F' ZZ j y t, i.�++....,,i.. ��{jjyy f'4A'Sy.x V n,a„i*i, rIJG{�,sy [ !v'."R .y:iW'} ;ei$'yc;. .fi •,NS✓.2.Y+-'i•• e - �'a:.. Sr+i7 y -Y j.+k • "Y�:' GY ,eJt 't'. •. s?l: N.'- 4E yN'P. T f , LY Tag01, }..'ri• t3':N hLS� tt U ms"1 ui u..r*Sr it G✓tri; �+w^:.' ii'.2+4.`H� !"•d. 3-i•, .de.y i" �Lro}d dy S: mil �'b" # A j'm�`rr�a�r w' J k• yF ars id° 't } 'zY'' 4 3 /i F�zn•6 ( y qar r -p yR p k: $� sF -.n ! ~i^' < �. S =� •', qty, F. �•�.i-'y4' R. . 4 t J rTOM; u,�S� '.li Y�, i fryj I a .lY : r1'�'•T".>ri ,.e .. -vn.'. �tLt>.rr r?+�Y^];itr rt:s%FLy"tyiay']yc5!/. /-°Y-Af'4' E�ikY,.9. 'z"3 ' G:Si!..Y,✓•kz...-',.4i' ^rNN"+a )w�,..pli/J.' "i..i-, ..'1'.iJ:•£ham ..L,i J'v` _ S _,..t -Cj :]. :a •. `W..P.'r},,�}�j+n"i,.i"F'!K L.r/n.-�„i�'i $,T ,,rt. -Y Sr. .tx.iY•H�,<niil; :YS fid' e� Ya Y'Y,¢,y 4.� 1� ,ir? 5k'•y}� ;1j•,Y, t�,y:}yy� �it r'% H' Ci .1 i,YJ' ,f ,: nt'Vi�i A� ]Y n ,'. M µ ]] ^YY . J _4+%9 t'•4 L•[tY\• tt �t=s A yy �_,iV 4r�r ,.� .r��M� Rr' ' e 'a: r• e ¢l. 1 .1 :4� !?:M:,a r9+ k t5F s ' 't4,xsis dy - ?:N+' ..d ''yr7 F 1a'.,, :•R.c rn;S a '+�.5' J.j t e.� ) .. b J Rt= 1Ytrpn'}++F. G�`x+. - ' fy�f."f•t 'o- SV ..1 I '4f�w 1vrF ^(¢E$^k'yi >+io- �+-[ aHipa'f'}*-.lid' RC1 ,•.y;>;, .g Yrt. ;x 2e/�i3' d yd��"y,� } t=. v� �'4LY' Jy (�.'X!: .. r}! 'X- E'(�j 7 a T,Y K I.e. V 4i5 . - Y !a J 4 y3 h ..e:Y .] 'N /'•.. tpfib'.:" `=p 4R. [[Ci,(:.`1!}y§Try:Y,ay)3n h`v �: r. K'>tt YT J. -�w`]' di +;,Eie�snc`.'^i .5r_ ..t• .: Y Y" i.,:a'tt ( ��mtiC�.`�f?�,"'`�' q••:. r ,iih 5 ihiN�sC�n„T f,A h� ^✓•f �4r 'E. /,. n+; s,++J �.�. /k _'� � � fi `t`'�4. . � _:.-. a, - .:5 ...,..;: S,by ,•;.1 .'it.T�. . zt`�j; 4 n, w� .rv;�- C� „3c, s - '�+L,i, �GZ C, '•; ,3{S ^Y -s. �4'Sr 7 3 �,• .�. n,� ',� Y5""`Y't`p; iY4, k_eci "4tlra s �f11+`-51 riA ,Nc' ka pvr � y, i t - • 'C'" odic`-,,.:. ,. ;.• v t+ .4i:'[u v, :.v.T„ ii ae Irr'aCE ss... . S•". / } t+'kS^.'S,Q. Ji ). .. +Y.:Y• i.KJ ,ttdp %� ty hFi'y6 ,..•d. -•ihvn rc, `�'f'4i ,. ,¢t r:.x.9 rti>ct .c �.x - .'- •r..s.. t.n,-{:-;., sf ..+•,,,i <,. �dy,' "•„s `"s:„E?3 J w:4- > Ys y�K, ,.,... , ' ;,,:.. -,t ;i ' 'b'... .. f. i. `fi •:,h, r..? rte- 'TL f-. 1 .x:,�'u,.. (,r :u,"iy r,atN t. ,:sc'u'd, i.`�". #.c :.,t+l Cit:, `Z! t 3 b.. L:. a. ,`"'..e k. .:.,}.a � •*r'r !'lyf✓ rv'0.' +{M1 ... nC�ar= W'±N'+ .'r..' t5`•,..±, Y't. y,E. ,r. jJ C.. .a�_.. ( ,'LNC i. .�?u ]Mi• pJ'... rj ei f� qei� Yr i#S.A.f.?� Y'� t f.i'�ry .4 aMl 1. :3+f �!C OY 15 w� �,�1^�e,5 .e'Y� Q'i♦w n. i.�ef� A.}'S..^.i` ,� ♦. E. yy }T.q>.,l x� s'„+F•: 'R.^n3 L- ='? i.: i 1. 3ii,t?'.'$:=t4•> cait:.,?6;'w i',r+ a4>S x i'i.a} �;^''Y �4` "i, 1'+:4R_S. �i iAG:�?4�. �i ' M -ME ,c;:.i. 1,J S Zc-"i��t s-lf,Yti -J +y. aw f v•• R • L $, .T L .. t^C 4t %� j9..,. vy a :N"+�Y 3w Kyt b -*S. J nS4 v$ r Ji S. w i. R 4 i ♦rW , 5,+ L J � Y q •.. ? _ }'r ^�'K&.`N .t2 •v� - 1iTc =t i�'7_ ", z5 +.. C s ., is ,, (Gi'�' ; �'`5 ^'7 Fi N•..;. ° +L }.'yi p tfF Ni R itA?�.w..,y�'�+' 4k1`YT y>k fi� tlaar�. i , i^p1�:p1t<sf{'y t +`. '-'k Y tWke iFt " TY� 5. s e All. ',O+�i •-a g' .S y3`V� f1}�. .i 'yk,2Y' 'P �♦ {�.1, 1 I;' �'tv'F'7ttv(. r yy�{, I3',.'it { 'b f..C}{}`{ i f:K iw i- if IX H`iT _ 4'' ..!'t'i T J•,"�: .!" { A T:N 3E'as`'t LyJ'.0 Y+. 1fi fi'ak'W if'}xJt rR. NF ' ±ib f�` .v�N :,•• '�'ke 1 k tb:.! ,YNn. '*'>^)""t ��L�ry{ '�#��••�, X41 �ti. 7 tt ip m Y 4'.'T•,._T'r;�1iM ^�+'1.yIF ..S e°.3t�•.w! "iti '1�'�'i4�"*' {E'Kd'¢:{ j.�a n te.�q±2.' ,.. •3'jr'4.!YYsR�-',:�'^t'ti }xi`s5`,'J ` 2,mew i • �•u`$,1 sfJk ra,61$ ff �6 4 'i 5Ci �^an 1L 'M �L. ^•. 5 Y Icy � ) h� 3, �y �" 3-•"7 " �{ _ ta� w': Y+�eMk�e, �c• "'"Si• 4' `'Jr' WWII 1 moi, Y:Y, iY } Y"^i;'`M d h . '.}7?i p t ;'yxG�., na. �) ri4-. if:,n �..F IF, t rnertt v .;. �,t'4 Td3y„ IF f? . K: + iz `:„'c'..r .0 x"w vi ser: `+d. aL 't M >'.d vr,�,.va:. i(4F: °v; "=` ro ri.rr- .il *i�zr, ' �Tcl 4�!iYa�tLa'^..v�.�Y ate+' ...'..•-Y •4 rt`if4'3'.fi!�/.4'i.ylr.Y,}vsX>i;. di�'k fi�T�i ac .Y ,1 Ilk, �j�7 •5•sAy� ll • Pkl Y 1? J. jA' + `sc.'' ZtR,M"✓ nY'T ?�� A>a Jas'�z1`v a .ae• ;:w rs�+t °,� Tn p� ,$+ .Pi 4.. C'/r. i, 'L'!'- „_ Y:. i,?^ t '!Y: #37 •'cu r y. l{i \3 .ESS` >1. i'�Y.`"�^.vfi• 1• 1 14 • . v'' x-.._'ro 5.� Sfi ' i .'.. :rc 4 i! .� ..��+!K.' va-Ya ,{1. i9F C.r�.1 Y. L,�. .?('"4; h4•l - ki 4.� }r xa in]-.'�'k f, i`YE t#,fit lY..NVSf f` 5a.5#4 47H1. g�c M.<r6 •`. vT.2- _ w,t' .^t., w+.,"'° t y.' s -.. �,'A,f,`j`;'y, ` xl... R '',ryhn... ytta7r"�'fx-;.:J" (`#\Y(i} »:1'ur <�y�. �,r ^,";�,"2°,'t`'trod•a�'.r-3neY'„6,Lr• S?±"ee�r }jyk;y, t' -t _ 4� ° - r 't.�, ,� ' - a-. �`�+. F'T,i ��!•'$ rY, ]3^x'3' '#Y t1 bC. n ., a l.-ii)(+4Y ;Ci ��yb4,i ;min �' � . .. aih•�ni'Y.v='. Y ii+:n�,'f •y/,�:y�fixt�i5t..•-Fr•TS •tii �Jtcfr ,i SyJr'�} 4*.f,(*� 'ecS' .w�.. a'VY) Y42 6^ i• '• A-,,� ` .an /i wt 't�'."�^v,ir:'nWk.y {Zh�... .. "' �3 ixt'{�Y.'ik.4.1 i {wY/'-4J+ja;,% y F�5...,•.'�y i ✓c� E+r• �'Jfi 8. ,5 i :Y ,..i "",�tt:.= r�i :d"-9 -d .-, '+13 -., .: 331'+ Y* 'lv...- rRR 3f S"}S•. -:{!] n`\JS4L .V i<-. 3 *-.. PX• 'tf2't`4 �te ppN Su 'v ,t�`315`'-..,,. d 4% xti: k yn. __ taZ ... tT' If a^Y.T1SA '$'i'i5�'FryL� '��y:', �yrr --:'frviyE".. 'v tyi'. x'is� Vit'. :, ,P^. )v'r` .K ,. Y'y1N'rt r..:�,ti 5 YK.d �" )}\ kl ':S il':,� E} w,. av' AL , -1 +��"-. A.•tiY . h.. 5 ./+WVC"$+'9'}. w«ik'$ "qi.•b flW-1�(T�%,�,�p�, 'r 'F"Yl Y[h3. ! 3e sS.r,,3. 4,C m rvi`_'}vr YJ,Ny.R, pyif4irpyt� 7 )t°c� i j � � 1 ;� ,� rs # �• kkkkkk ?Ar, i `5�.."' •i�p'Y" _'11�. �Z �.•t�]yc`t�f.By��Y�`' I M 'rt'31T4j. ',uq i`yx `F A",fi i ef' :s "}r i 4�4'f �+�! ,rvt- 4W: t-� (v. $a :Y' •,knd' K -}' 'c: sax •S i{ �•• '^$/�^'&� w y, h...; .c r t `�n!'i A.r%e t v -.,_ _ t4' n._: • i..'�V ! 1Y-� i , „f„�M ] ',� # Yw" -,:\,C : 3'x ' •. : • .Y• i t.�k', 3�k"•t+�' . ,^+'tit.+ -s r ,v-.emy.•c 4., r .w,.•1 t ..s c ..,.. � . '(� rgq. .�" -•1 i. + YN c.,/ � §F�: n {J U `$. Sc' ✓ § r a�,, Zi` I 5r W""{TR•F1'a,�.,y Fb tt{' A3 p- I �t, t'''4'Y(' f F _ A'kY- "•'•J ``nfx b .., a�g"Yr, g`v�t n'• 4 „si`^�"%�i".*�'t ar?sy-y.-'`.w5a c' -'g+.`+ _:. ./ c �v�..J- Y �" '�,x}t.si"u � - f,�• y �``` C Y Z'rv'J7,' . rv�(�' a t.�• F'.i ' •r'� ,p" - .SP., ., iF - "Y I_�� �. C. •. > " .4i 4 Yt. [[A`Agry, .Ar'1 -aL�"FilI` y{bY � �''''"�i � F .r f 1M n'Tfn� rl`ryi-R i wi "l `� ( ljei' +'>r. Yr M n rt•.v_. r ''.�*1 #.. A' _ � ]_• '..n ,Xxrk _Y,��F�% y `Y< T R t,x�•• r i^:' �Y''N, '� ' Y"e?` �' >;' •"' r i+'ri+f,._'�++ ,Al ,1}r .y�� y�.�, . Y:a x r . Y b r L t'}''t�.�r•'ci":t't�J'T„ .y 1 P� l"R'�� °Y� 5, taq`.C� y. .Y- ��l „t .� �tt`a i '=' +bS., ln I'+. � Ja. "L „`§ ��.•'S .!•.y.-., Y•i, �i (k}lm WU- Y �}i+^�n Y�.,:ly}apJ,{,4.e. YJ♦tfvi'. t% ay rft!4 k ){`] • 11%y'�` I f�'4:.F ) Qr'i •R. ±Y e� 4 ..-. i% .' 'it#•r'�Y-�...ir:j. f a ,:.e' 'x^ "y '+sX:��' �°f .: tAst'Y�'7:1 �. ;.f %"�l�F- m -+:Y n, a3� St Asi��.t � :�P � I,4„ is, 2 �a"t $: xi, �'* §' "� ••liki � iL�1 n < �<k C• �+ 5... 5, �.};'�` F is f 1Ti' z3� �, Y >+�<z:�2���i [ A,y�, 4 � §i...2,��s,�rz�� •`v„ :.'r,9ah't'!Si'.w.bif'eup w_ �•F:,.,*iY'...:e ,;fb�. y Fr- 3siF ,E.e, fiiii�� '�i.,,r+` ,l 'L`: i yyfrta.�iW.yC ✓S S> ,>tnmhJ<Itl FF �` Y'� Sy }y: FnJ.� � .'4�i- V�Y 4{. S -. �.t• �. t"' `t`Cri1 'v, ,-4�31.>c 5t`4 �'�'2 Dda,SSfff 4 vktu,y, J- k -'Slk u i � J, •I1`;' "•a Y p.. ... - � R.y,�• V _ �y b'T:' �,`�`' Ct�'i°t'ji"' i'¢\ Y is A�„itf � •'f.'t4J �''',� �tt t i?4•��bn�'�+, i5tt��.�'i S t� }e,.���i�.. L m �� s�1!;4� .: ,;:. �\�` x����•' Il��, '3 �;x t �.`d'id:_.iy _u'.a5 _. k. f��` :.:: 4,'+ "�vS.. f=7'�.� i'<,i#w ;4 di':--1iL ; iiY �"�!>�;d:.t Yvw23i9y::, ,.M+N`J;'.;:�=^i'a ry^iY fr. S�Fx i niPa x��'` F.zRt'.R't?•��!'1�"4t\'1 �.�..'C:�'�`��`1"t.�'�. '��}4 44����aY7i"aF. 9���.a�+'��t131�'`':i•vbi.� s.tz:-F..eR,:. e�.r•'aW':..--,..R � m°�','��.•`.f`f,.^.6r.'+%'•?S!i�v_t.::..... ,..,.n..,,.. ....K . i.. .. .n`N•:"SN-#`,'ri�t.� .,. -_, _.... - _.. _ ... _.-. .. -- ._ .... Nn!a•)ev:+..?,-sm.++w:rrkww roilwe.: %.ww..t.P.n _ - _ •-"""` = wa':!:vY ?ke 7Nafdorf School of the Finger Lakes Mr. Andrew Frost Building Inspector. Zoning Officer Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14950 Dear Mr. Frost: May 17, 1990 Thank you for your assistance in completing the ."College and Nonpublic School fire safety report". We have completed the items indicated as "non- compliance" as follows: page R - 1 D04 - emergency exit in fourth grade classroom is cleared and steps are secured page 9 - 7E05 - furnace room cleared of all combustible material page 10 - 4E14 - electrical service to temporary classroom is now underground and in compliance with electrical code (see attached certificate) page 10 - 5E 15 - all extinguishers have been inspected page 13 - 4E60 - smoke detector is being investigated for music room page 13 - 7E56 - main building will be covered by Symplex inspection and maintenance beginning fiscal year 1990/91 (July 1, 1990) Other items noted in your letter of March 30 that have been corrected include: 1. the school bell has been inspected by an architect (Tom Kline) and verified safe. This bell was installed two years ago, and is not part of the original school structure. 355 Five ?►Mile Drive, Ithaca, ;'dew Yon 14350 (60 7) 2 73 4083 Andrew Frost page 2 2. the railroad tie will be removed May 26: the pipe has been cut at ground level. Thank you for your continuing cooperation. Sincerely yours. Maureen C. McKenna, Director Administration and Development xc: Frank Alessandrini, Fire Safety Coordinator, Bureau of Facilities Planning for school 6106009987460002 and 6 10600998746000 1 W TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1736 PLANNING 273-1736 ZONING 273-1747 March 15, 1990 Pis. Maureen McKenna Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes 855 Five Mile Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear tis. McKenna: Thank you for correcting the majority of the items listed in my November 3, 1989, letter. I want to address in this letter those items still to be corrected as observed on my January 26, 1990, reinspection. The service cable between the main building and the trailer is 8 feet 6 inches from the ground, where 10 feet is required. The service cable is also accessible from the roof/desk area of the main building. I have spoken with your electric contractor, Pleasant Valley Electric, about having this situation corrected.. They agreed that it is their responsibil- ity to bring these items into compliance and would do so the week of March 19-23. After they have completed their work, please call me at 273-1747 so I may verify compliance. I am satisfied with the storage removal from under the trailer. The intent is to prevent any combustible materials which might lead to spontan- eous combustion. Please comply with this intent in the future After the fire involving the rags and linseed oil, the fire department suggested you take advantage of their fire safety education program. I also strongly suggest you have the fire safety program presented to your teachers and children to help prevent another such occurrence. If you have any questions please call me. PSH/ dlw Sincerely, Paul S. Hansen Assistant Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer a n015 , CTA'. r".. -C Cckool of the �in�er L44 � 0 January 26,1990 Mr. Paul S. Hansen Assistant Building Inspector /Zoning Officer Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Harris: You will note during your inspection today that we have immediately corrected items 1, 29 4 and 7 listed in your letter of November 3. Regarding item 3, the Bound for electrical service is located under the concrete pad adjacent and west from the downstairs entrance. I confirmed this with our Board members who managed the renovation project in 1987. All school main exit doors are unlocked when the school is occupied as a policy and all staff have been alerted again to this policy. Fire exits are posted in each classroom and we observe fire drills during the school year. I am investigating the costs involved with the service cable. This will be corrected as soon as possible in an appropriate manner although it is not a. budgeted item for us. The roof is off-limits to all children as a "policy and the Board is investigating how to store items to avoid fire hazards. I appreciate your attention to the safety.of the children, and the time you have spent with me regarding the Town of Ithaca's regulations. Sincerely yours, r.. Maureen C. McKenna, Director Administration and Development xc: After -School coordinators, Policy and Procedures 855 Five Mifz Drive, fthaca, f'&w Fork, 14850 (607) 273-4088 i E M 0 R A N D U To: Andrew Frost, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Town of Ithaca From: G. Armbruster, 850 Five Mile Drive, Ithaca Re: Continuation of Authorization of Use of a Mobile Home on the 855 Five Ifiile Drive Property The mobile home on the 855 Five Mile Drive property does not enhance the school grounds and depreciates the neighborhood. I would like to protest the extension of this authorization. ?ke 'INa[dorf School of the Finger Lakes Mr. Andrew Frost Building Inspector, Zoning Officer Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Frost: May 21,1990 I have enclosed the application for appeal for the temporary classroom that was approved in November, 1988 until August 31,1990. I am requesting an extension of the approval until August 31,1993. Enclosed is the following documentation to support this appeal: 1. the appeal application with two additional pages to describe the practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship to the school if we are unable to utilize the temporary classroom 2. a copy of the plot plan submitted with our application for November 1988 hearing showing dimensions and distances in lieu of a plot plan 3. a copy of the Zoning Map for our area - residence district 30 4. a copy of letter from Department of Transportation (dated October 19,1988) indicating their recommendation for occupancy 5. a copy of the Short Environmental Assessment form submitted for our application November 1988 6. a copy of the letter sent to 12 neighbors in our immediate area including those land owners ; list is attached with names and lot numbers 855 five Mile Drive, Ithaca, ;'dew York 14850 (607) 9734088 Mr. Andrew Frost page 2 7. New York Board of Fire Underwriters approval of electrical connection from main building to temporary classroom 8. We are currently completing the addition of a fire alarm to connect the temporary classroom to our main building. George Frantz of the Planning Board indicated to you and I that the Planning Board need not be involved again in this decision earlier this Spring. Approval of this structure is important to the school and 1 trust the documentation is complete for a hearing. Please consider our request for the next possible meeting and call me if there is any further information you may need. Thank you for your continuing cooperation. Sincerely yours, Maureen C. McKenna, Director Administration and Development '11WN Ut' ITHACA 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 A P P E A L to the L Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement -Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York . ai....O RECEIVED: "QO CASH CHECK - (O ZONING: For Office Use Only ravldec{, Having been fid" permission to c", d wi.OhLjC, LAftj-t a47 A c1ati5Vz)0w( Uv1,ii 1 at Wa A 6Dr� xkMI of the, 'Hviacvr Lakevw 355 b x)e-M i Ie, 1) yl Jr . Town of Ithaca Tax. Parcel No. (o - 31 - Z. - 15 as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the ex-ILv CL loaf dai<- +o ust 31) 1595 issuance of such permit would benin vlel t+en of Article(s) V Section(s) is 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 Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.) By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application. Signature of OwnerlAppellant0 Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: Date: 17 PLOT PLAN INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN. of Owner/Appellant: 1. Dimensions of lot. 4. Dimensions and location of proposed structure(s) or 2. Distance of structures from: or addition(s). a. Road, 5. Nanes of neighbors who bound lot. b. Both side lot lines, 6. Setback of neighbors. c. Rear of lot. 7. Street name and number. 3. North arrow. 8. Show existing structures in contrasting lines. I — W A<u'DDF)F 5C kAZ)0L - Signature of Owner/Appellant: Signature of Appellant/Agent: 5_ ZWINC1 InQK-6 ' & VZ uvl ,SAT usi*lk, CA *1 Wtc iA g 1(M S NMAc iP 4 - Zon)i KXi Mme' (a-z30E>'�- (et e-�u-i I �� �� Date. �7 188 �defcu�> (. s XFljooe 0000 ooe G S.L.P. rl_/, 000 yA6ppr� T6zN�� N/ TAX MAP No, 312-15 NDDL Itoosre �n t ta- LF u P. z3.4Z� per ( 23t539 g.2. P. S o o� ACRES GAs LINe. Se.s —HENT 5 CA . FY �, SEED REP. '� BK.6�/Pc..IoZB 91(,447 / pe . 4 ec) S.T. P. 1 k�` IutToalea.t_ / MO N V Mtl.lJ T / V r9 4' �v NW 6lNE FoKwtKLY Di STHACA-ELMj1kk RDA .j,Nte 4OA4F.\I�T� (.T),FIyMACA, / I" zj X 0 1 Warning: It Is a violation of Section 7209, SubdlvlsIon 2 of the New Toric State Education Law to alter, In any way, a map bearing the original seal and signature of a licensed professional. Only maps bearing such seal and signature may be considered valid, LANDS OF* RIGNARD BEFZG4REIl411 IE s BETr`( ,JANE BER4C�RE►.� —� LOCATED • 855 FIVE M1LE DRI\IE , PAIL. Lo -r 82_ -- �PA\4P„CF (T) I-rkAcA, 1 hereby certify that thismapaccurately represents an actual survey performed by me or under my direct supervision and Is subject to any state of facts that an up-to-date abstract of title may sho,a, u” r1 aa, ire nAUI Onll 1 r 1.nl n• O 4 1• Z P6 �� � � � CIZ Ao ZA Ina klr R7-IKl1 } y �'t"fut:+++�'.- n`&/' T'.4",.+/. tii} ti7'•iR n'Y f'. ,.--!^'''�ir+""i'v ;*q'vY r:.-. ,.rn.•:r r wn.1 �.y..r.. ,pr+: -s .�:, •ri5':'•_<---n. `. -. _r ^^r?.�,'!p" Aa-yi "x"ia'••-.s "r0. 2• "a. •. Al 0 v, hl ts$'.1 hi s t i lye. 4 tk �y �\ l Y •� I �3® n •Grave VIA 10 }°{` ;k� •'y,t �3r f 9 'N7^ L 0Air 7� At C y tt "3ti +,.i•O 1• ' 7 1` t.. t r, .` f � / t tl t� iC P.l Vl 'F �' i ± t h `l .It ij -J ' vim !A1 7�R C fif^fJrR S , ; t u�a ,r C'c 1 `1 - .� •" 4 - , l t t t`F . " .�....,/7 • �� :. 1iS4 ,. ick I, J�' `r, itt All }t °1 s'x� At. o �i• t1CY q , < , r ut i r ,,. 1 1 i , �.1 '�V ` YrJti ' 4°y� •i.. Q� lit m t Y l 4� i 5"M lw k' }♦ l r /. i i { `'...F7 . • d +i'. i +i•-`ifY+ ,i rnt. s f`Yf �° ' 1t+PIna,Sla .. �... ''�'P h, _ 4.`-5r• k�-• .�f R!r At \ r h r �'! sSn "•QC�1:4 • ett.Il I 5 `7 7• At It L{'�i�•lvt+ t'_7�� `.� ,�1" t —� . Gravel,��P�t r 1 r.'t Zr ,1 i�� ?yt f �- \ i��u d•_.'- Y +r 7Si •+�i{1 sAIj}''i �+ r1.hl • /Frailer :r�'7 l• ` � \ h /` - +r`Lu8 r < I N 1 Pat,'tl: ; Y/p Parts Tatt\ ° ° ° r /� �� \ rd ¢Alit +p , G \ • \ '\ Ca 1I •i� moi- r. ' ` +, ,� t .., `y r'•)�' /�` f t.-�. _`'�'��'' n0 e�$i • \ \ t CCeT.. t f7d ,J. ;tL+lf 'it r} Lei } c:lL . t " iCem , ' o \ ✓i !7< IY" +'<44" ' !n a..• ,ravel P�t\�._<78 a 3 *7y'_ yi 7 `T1 I,lla ( /P78 ' \ ••7• \ 1 \ �`__. ROAD. Ill �•.i s �♦ ii . ,e� .� '\ \\ pili .,. ,v f . j�: ,i If ,x '� ' •• dye _ , %A.A.rIV h11F11\ ta / 1 Y1; 111 3 All.M a A \ \ ` MR GW� ,Ik r� 1i 1} ';r ° T' �\I \\ .i/� 511• ' ° Ale -th .'� rte' r -s t ri'4, 1 - • L� y l ` - Oit \ \ • \ ° I 1 1" O t' r _ •'I \ \ �� ra, IlIlma -- . 1r1� MFxt.. y�`r 1,:31 'A \ a. Gra el Pitx \ ' \. / •` -j< � \ {;rJ�R°. 0 . n \ ma 11110.a INA 'a 00k 0014 44*wc \ I CCS nlet valley Ce \ .\ I o . m � f; ta td I Q l-1�• \ I r '•z.. \ Aft ti/ 0 1NNININ 1 .t+ s r AD 4,av ��_p 7 • ' ' • ;�\� C�47 4—_ i ,.R30..� A 1A t3 + � :i 5 �` / �. �.:.��'., \;` `• ;,27- .R30 e If r r Ir i? .,I.. s•r eek. G l e f L ta -Falla RR �' t \ g PAR Na.�_— ro e a _ . •♦ n ��` < 1 \ P 957 Fit\At ae, ala,% \ < a.at 1 °13 w Grave—_L --_—_� -p -�� "��1 \ . Pit n 3ddR Art IN Igaagggggg Viggiano\ \ IN �. _ o y'V Gaging Sla \' N. r ` •, �...\. a -. Gravel Pil`ANN . \\ �' r4 �,' '1. t' i` ° 1 5►'� / `� all � _ . _... _ \ PIPELINE_ ,.I a. ,a 510.000 I rl r,> r NS Ht MONO s4.} zdoo . �. ,tt . � rye '.^ Q R5 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R5 C t3USINESS DISTRi f.:4. IN - R9 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 D BUSINESS DISTRI r r! Yi : R15 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 E BUSINESS DISTRI R30 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 LI Ill HT''INDUSTRIAI It MR MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT I INDUSTRIAL, DIST t ., ' •, . Ila4I. a 0 pg .g . a"4 <,TOWN OF'ITHACA' Ey(pMEERING & PLANNING DEPT. ;a- { 12G EAST,SENECA.ST�IEET n 5 .1TH�►C''N.Y.:14850 P4 Al l:. l ` 1 A BUSINESS DISTRICT A B BUSINESS DISTRICT B AG AGRICULTURAL.', D S SPECIAL "LAND, A 4 Ys 1 Al { -- * ;l N ; � It v Q 't tid — Q dILI 0 J U V 4 +" d-DVI Q �6 n F u :.:ems '...► . ��� V f! (D (Q r r3 r °° VO H iI - C� � I M a�. Z O m# a �C o OD a U m U 0 Q Q \\ L IV N. 1 n a 1t V" Q QL CN 00 _.\ °Itt . v s n C\l OD Oen~: I °" ae6 � ®� s` f l� Q M 0 \� U J N 1n 0 19� ` e•C \ (� Q _1 v MQ J (eke So`®3�6b� �. N Q n Q J act q OS _ nj U "' o ,n 14 «I N Q N :, N �) m;` s epeeOGI m Q I 00 � rJ OD I - N 1 ' / I` N LO N ,.i ' os, ^' NU 4 V Gn s .' r z. IlJ ° i M G7 U <( .: a 6 00 N V :ate` �" Q M N o o ' N is if) M rlhe 7Nafcforf ScFioof of the Finger Lakes May 16, 1990 Dear 1Jeibhhoc: We have formally appealed to the 'Town hoard of Appeals for an extension of three years for our temporary classroom located at our site, 855 Five Mile Drive. We have been running a Waldorf School at this site since 1986 and the Town approved use of the portable unit until August 31, 1990. We have met all fire and safety codes and continue to maintain the school and these classrooms. Our kindergarten programs have been moved to South Hill and our student enrollment will remain below 100 students at this site. The Board of Trustees has been searching for another site for our school but there are several advantages to this site. We plan to remain here for the next three years, and to continue to be responsible for this site. If you have any objection to this request, or if you support this request, please contact either me or the Town of Ithaca within the next twenty days. Sincerely yours. Maureen C. McKenna, Director Administration and Development 855 Five ?►dile Drive, ftFuua, New Fork. 14850 (60 7) 273-4038 Neighbors who abound 855 Five Mile Drive including nearby neighbors; Map 31-2- 14 - Tompkins County 15 - Inlet Valley School Trust (for Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes) ' 16 - Allen S. Becker - directly abounds lot 17 - David Snrka Map 31-3- 4 - Burkhart Service Inc. 3.1 l - Benjamin and Stevenson Real Estate 3.12 - Mancini, Earland and Robert 3.2 - Gertrude Armbruster Map 31 - 2 18 - Tidd, Norman E. and Lillian E. 19 - Loran S. Marion 20 - Alfred and C E. Cook 21 - William F. Jr. and Lynn lS. Murphy 22 - Edith Becker 23 - Clarence D. and Edith Becker Ih WYYIYnSY.Aw.Lr.�...._.•....1.4�I�..u.Nw..u......u...�v......v.✓.+.a..........1�..�..JY.a•f�'F�IYiOR�MAt11iMb^�.'IMYb.a.\YYtiWYilP��tyK!Ny _. _ a I iaiii t. if � f !i'•' W 3 p„ Stu fss ... ,I'.O' WW if 11 fl,?dill W ci rim DIM 4 i:; !i' LI J.IcfIN. I is Cl 43 rj $ c !I x it„11.5i H O b G t� `u I t w s `III ~ F-1 •Ili0t x 6A Cz ci Illklil t ff ui at moaq ;• ii..ht G It t,l o = H til :a co, fic cc us al: one Ii .�Y U a o ui p -- -- � � .. E. 5 c ul opt W: w.� U '° °14 N twl wION41,11111 wt Ih WYYIYnSY.Aw.Lr.�...._.•....1.4�I�..u.Nw..u......u...�v......v.✓.+.a..........1�..�..JY.a•f�'F�IYiOR�MAt11iMb^�.'IMYb.a.\YYtiWYilP��tyK!Ny _. _ 'JS £i'�c:.^t, s t �r �Jiw'v.�ww:u w'.' ^v,4x., .y-..�,�•�. ,' School of the ,finger Lakes Mr. Fred Grout New York State Dept, of Transportation 3rd Street extension Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Grout, RECEIV BY QCT 1988 1OMPKINS RES. N.Y.F " ') T October 4, 1988 The Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes has sited a temporary mobile classroom structure on our property at 855 Five Mile Drive in Ithaca. We seek the approval of your Department for this temporary (anticipated 2'years) siting with respect to the State right-of-way which borders the school property at the site of the structure, Thank you for your consideration of the above matter and I look for- ward to your reply, Respectfully Yours, Richard D. Kinner RDK/kml 855 Five Mile Drive, Ithaca, :'&w York. 14350 (60 i) 2 73 4083 y':- ?; �� -- �;, _ ^ _ `' I ., �` � � �, �\ ., ��� ' � �. � / \ � �'" . 1 ,� L. _ .. . � • i.�l J.y I _ � � � • � � � ` \ � - - � . ,. 1. + J ^ �� -` . � - _ \ `� ` \ \ � -.-rte _ r .. � � .-. �-+-. . �� \ _ �� \�� � -- ., . �_ � `�; �< \���`' � \� � �_'.-` - moi, \�` _ _. — � — , .. _ . .. . M ... rw. n .., -✓.0 yt .....4'a � � �� � A" ,.... , 1a..Jl.,KiRySYYIfC����.dw'+�w�w���`YY'w�� .. .. �, . ... .. _ .. .., w.. - ri /,.- •�/: ' �++'j1:� ,�: R.r �� �i14a,W� t llla.e,�w...•,r. �~-`. ,. .;. .. . _-'..0.:+.,�', i Yl � �Y.� �I1.�d iY�i.� , !�n. S,•M.tiM Y1 '•..!'� ��'� °.w i f4 `��r' ilL//����'S 7. '`1~'~r, . r'l.. `` � ,� _ � ... ._ /L ; w �� .eq, a .�•..s�'... a°.4_.:i:is:i,.:..._. . M°a.at V /rrM+�, / .1y>�rrrY ,:�- i. � �, .�' .1rry�F,,, w.Wr .`. .•..... ,s AO * al"m L .p. .. ° :,'-• Imo-: �,... `.�' 7 iv-Pi ;y a i . .. .. . `..�. r °'✓'✓... `.'� IYA..rw. � f-: `�IasitFi��s�A.�� ��idr � .. .' „._. _... ...- ...... _.._- J l,',ll_� iJ' I J , w'1 .rmm�. �,� W ,y t '.Iwi'lC /.i i.•:Y� ��1 F • ' J ,• . „ .�.. . q _ _.a� ,.�4"•,�F }�•.!� F,kl`" f.c',:�. :j i'�;'.: :Y�t rtti• yva ` •ir r��'1 ����-. .•sirr?rysi•�\ fir/ -.w — r i _ ..... w • a –d V Nn j" ' yR ..r'� �"a` '�` _a . 777.- .. ' "w'.. - wr V l,� /y'' f .,Ji,,s,. � � .'rw � A��-77 �•' _ 04 y W ! ' J lrA � r"`,•,•.ku:. J{ j'�Mra�_ �,. .�, . � i1+ly •f4!yy t '�°,��? O�a6 "k:� Nil ��i �f�Y-11d►�.: V r# A .a -M.1 ,?' 'M 'i�M' � r ^ 1• � � ^i� . �vW •--W', . , I Iti.,t' a v vert `�, `a •yam rl wnt � r✓1�M1%�?` � A1L'��. _.a.r►.a{M'..� ��V �.A ��y'WW ..r .. -. . �.. e. ;7 of, r TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I. Jean H. Swartwood, being duly has sworn, depose and say that I am the Town Clerk Town of the Town of Ithaca, the Tompkins County, New York; that the following Posting: Notice has been duly posted Date on the Sign Board of the Town Clerk 8, 1990 of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York on Wednesday June 13, 1990, commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used tot Posting: Located at front entrance of Town Hall; outside of front door of Town Hall; outside door of Town Hall meeting room Date of Posting: June 5. 1990 Date of Publication: June 8, 1990 Jean H.'Swartwood, Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 12th day of June, 1990. LEAN Be CARPENM jual" in Tompkft Coe Nee 4797177 The Ithacai'Journal = Frida TOWN OF. ITHACA ZONING, BOARD sOF' APPEALS ,';NOTICE OF;�;P>UBLIC._HEA;_NGS* ,WEDNESDAY;~ JUNE;;13, 1.990, 1 1 i Vi -June 8, 1990 B.y direction of ,the Chairman of.the._Zoning:Board of Ap- peals NOTICE IS, HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the . Zoning Bnord of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, June 13, 1990," in Town. Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, • N.Y., COM- MENCING AT,7:00 P.M., on the following matters. '` APPEAL of Edwin A. Hallberg, Appellant, requesting the ' Special Approval of the -Board of Appeals, pursuant to Article IV, Section 12, Paragraph 3, of the.Town of Ithaca Zoning Or- dinance, for on extension of - the one-year time limitation for the use of a'; temporary' building necessary'or inciden tol-to tFie;deJelopment of'a' reside ntiaL;areo:;:Thi' subject• residential- nreo' is :known os. the Deer Run Subdivision, and the 'sub 'Iect building is located near Whitetail Drive in a Resi- dence District R-15 on Town of Ithoco Tax, Parcel. No: 6-441- 4.32.. APPEAL of The Waldorf•School of the, Finger Lakes,' Appel- lant, Maureen McKenna, Ap,-, plicont, 'requesting an ezten-.; sion of' the" two-year , time limitcition.,6ythorized' by the. Boo:d' of Appeals' on : Novem-' ber 30, A 1988; pur`sucint to'Arti- cle V, Sectioml8, Poragraph.4;, of the Town of ' Ithaca, Zoning, Ordinance, for the use of a temporary, port&ble class-: room,. (a 12 -foot by 60 -foot mobile home),' at 855 Five. Mile Drive', :Town of Ithaca Tax - Parcel fVa. 631-2-150 esit* dente District R-30. Said Zonirigg'Board of'Appealit will at sold time; 7:00 pp.m:•, i and said place, .hear air. sons in support of.such matters. or objections thereto.. Persons may .appeor by agent or in. person. Andrew S. Frost,..Building In- spector/Zoning Enforcement Officer, Town of Ithaca t'; '�.:ri;`Mw1747 June 8, 1990 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND AGENDA 30 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER X 1988 7:00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the lZoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings., as appropriate, will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, November 9, 1988, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N:Y., COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M.., on the following matters. APPEAL of Ivar and Janet Jonson, Appellants, requesting the authorization of the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article 'XII, Section 54, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the reconstruction of a single story, single family dwelling at 934B East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-18-5-91 Residence District R-15. Said Parcel of land is non -conforming in size and the dwelling proposed for reconstruction was non -conforming in yard setbacks, however, said dwelling is proposed to be located within the same footprint of said previously existing legal non -conforming single story, single family dwelling. Should it be the case that the previously existing legal non -conforming dwelling has been abandoned as a use in the Town of Ithaca for more than one year, the Appellant has entered a request for variance from the requirements of Article XII, Section 53, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of The Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes, Richard D. Kinner, Trustee/ Agent, requesting the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 181. ;Paragraph 4, of the .Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the temporary (up to two years) placement of •a portable classroom (a 12 -foot by 60 -foot trailer), at 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2-151 Residence.District R-30. APPEAL of Muhammad, Khurshid, and Zaffar Razzaq, Appellants, L & P Builders, Inc., Applicant/Agent, requesting variance of the requirement of Article IV, Section 11, Paragraph 2, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the maintaining of a two-story, two-family dwelling absent a basement, with each dwelling unit thereof being of equal floor area, located at 1414. Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2-39.5, Residence District R-15. Said Section 11, Paragraph 2, permits a two-family dwelling provided.that the second dwelling unit not exceed 508 of the floor area of the primary dwelling unit except where the second dwelling unit. is constructed entirely within the, basement area, it may exceed 50%.., APPEAL of James and Julie Rogan, Appellants; William P. Grover, Applicant, requesting modification of a use variance. granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 24, 1987, permitting a pizza/sandwich delivery service with seating for 19 people at "Rogan's Corners", 825 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 6-40-4-2 and 6-40-4-5,.Business District "A". The modification requested is the replacement of said pizza/sandwich business by a retail boutique and gift shop. %GENDA ITEM: DETERMINATION by -the Zoning Board,of Appeals with respect to environmental rev ew and DECISION by the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the Adjourned.Appeal (from.September-141 1988, and October 26, 1988) of John E. Rancich, Appellant, Michael .J. Morusty, Applicant, requesting variance of the requirements of Article IV, Section 11, Paragraph 2, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, whereby only one residential structure on a parcel of land, with up to two dwelling.units with occupancy by either two familes or a total of three.. unrelated persons in the entire ostructurej is permitted. The Applicant currently maintains two residential structures, each containing three dwelling units, on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nob -25-2-32, known as 845-847 Taughannock Blvd., Residence District R-15. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7:00 p.m., and said dace, hear all persons. in support of such matters. or objections thereto, as appropriate. Persons may appear.by agent or in person. Andrew. S. Frost Building Inspector/Zoning EnforcementOfficer Town of Ithaca 273-1747 a� ►ated: November 1988 publish: November ,, 1988 a5 . TOWN OF ITHACA 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 0607) 273-1747 A P P E A L to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to L,f73C (- r) S S r< �2vvY\ ( -'( P(z) � L FEE: $4000 RECEIVED: CASH CHECK -� ZONING: For Office Use Only at e �1 ��n` ' i- {i rte. \j `� _ Town of Ithaca' .. Tax Parcel No. as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the..: issuance of such permit would be in violation of: Article(s) Section(s) ti 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 Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL.: DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as.follows: (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.) Signature of Owner/Appellant: Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: l Date:�z)l-�� _ r pr,.7fat N� IV � Z 1. P. (P.o.1•) ` 0 S �o O� 0.540 sQ ACRES G*As LINA 539 �Sle. 7wT Q PG A 8�l 'DEED AEF, , SS�.P/ i BK.6��P6.1028 `/ r \ H�traR�CA1.. / \ MONVMtl.IJT \ / o / l¢ / tea• Nw LINE FaRMLR LY -f —TTHAGA'ELAIJRA RDAA S�N�C GoH JE.��� to �7�oF ZEN AG �. �GAL.C) 07 Zoning Board of Appeals 1' November 30, 1988 .4 - and filed with,the,. -Secretary , of State in July , 1987:. He . said ,that ..his., first -:visit ,to Mrs.�.:Jonson! s property was in April 1988 and her •first, application to, construct..as..she. originally.' proposed was in :March 1988 so, she was :we1-l_ within. the..yeails.:time.of when -it became: Town property.' 'Mr:? King stated ; thati it; is :7his„opinion that, ,theI,City 's statute would not let, -her rebuild .or reconstitute anon -conforming use that had been:,more than 75.%.,demolished.% He pointed out... that .,the- Towns, , ordinance,;. ,> Section,. 56 .4 _.says 'restorat=ion of..a damaged a building _when _ the:, damage constitutes an amount less.v than 75%1.. -..,He ,.questioned: the. word. ,I damaged I . Mr. Sovocool,responded; that.) he would assume that the word damaged meant. something,,.,,. beyond a. - .person's- control such as :.fire, windstorm, etc:. = �He-;said that -.;he would , get :;;the . Board -more information.1 He. stated :that he is assuming that, - this. building was torn down with the City's ,knowledge that there was going to be a .submission of plans to rebuild due to,. the condition of .the -building. j- -Chairman Aron stated that he is in concurrence with Mr. King -'s questions-. of �Atty. Sovocool.. The :.other:, _Board.-, ,members agreed. Atty. Sovocool said that he. will. come back to the Board with, detailed plans showing the floor planexactly. as well as elevation; plans -..with figures,.4on them. Mr.,King suggested that Atty,. Sovocool provide copies.to Town Attorney Barney also. Chairman ;Aron agreed- with Mr..•,-•King.'.s suggestion , and made a motion. as-. follows; A RESOLVED,- That the matter be.;adjourned,unti•1 the information requested by ,the Board has:, been received ,at which time a date will be set•for•;an adjourned hearing.,,; Edward Austen seconded:the motion. :,.,_ The voting was .•as. follows: = Ayes - Aron,- -Ruening., Austen, King,. Hoffmann _ Nays - None _ The motion was .unanimously.,carried o ., The second item on,,the agenda was,as;follows: -; APPEAL OF THE WALDORF SCHOOL:OF;THE,FINGER LAKES; RICHARD"D. 17 KINNER, TRUSTEE/AGENT, REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING -BOARD. OF -APPEALS .UNDER ARTICLE V, , SECTION. 18 ; 'PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE, TOWN OF ITHACA- ZONING. ORDINANCE, FOR, THE ---TEMPORARY .(UP ;TO TWO YEARS) PLACEMENT OF A PORTABLE, CLASSROOM (A.- 12 - FOOT ;BY 60 -FOOT. TRAILER) ,. ,AT .855 FIVE. -MILE DRIVE,. TOWN -- OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-31-2-15, RESIDENCE DISTRICT•.R730...- Chairman. Aron stated, that, before the Board.?goes, into the appeal he would like- to point- out that -this matter. ,had<., been before the Planning ..,Board and that; that Board made some Board of Zoning Appeals November 30, 1988 -5- -recommendations to the Zoning Boar& of Appeals. For the record, he wished to point out that any recommendations made by the Planning Board to this Board does not necessarily, mean that the .ZBA adheres by it. He said that when it comes to decision - 'making, the Zoning Board of Appeals listen but they make their own decisions. Chairman Aron expressed concern about the safety of the trailer that he has seen on the property at the school. He asked Mr. Kinner why the school did not .come to the Board to ask for an addition to that school instead of using a trailer. Mr. Kinner replied that the school board agreed that the trailer is not the best situation andthey would have liked to have built anew addition, but before they commit to.an addition they have to know that theyhave a..commitment from the parent body that the children are going to be enrolled in.the school.: Chairman Aron reiterated his concern about putting children into a:trailer for schooling. Mr. Kinner responded that he does not -feel the trailer is unsafe and he explained all the work -that was done= to insure that 'the trailer was safe to•be -used as a classroom. ' He stated that the "school community is very happy that,the school was'able to do this. Chairman Aron asked for an exact number of children and adults that -are- using the- trailer. -Mr. Kinner :responded that there are 13 children in the trailer on a daily basis, and 1 teacher. The public hearing was opened. Mr. _John Thompson,. Virgil,New York saidtthat he has two childreninthe Waldorf School and that" he is4a member of the school board and a trustee. He stated that. their school board checked with -several schools in regard to temporary classrooms, and -how the- different 'schools handled their variations in enrollment, He said that it was the school board's feeling that in bringing in a trailer and meeting the code, :that -it would be fine. He said that with'13 students and 1 teacher and 2 exits he would have no qualms about putting his two children in the Mr. Richard D. Kinner, Trustee/Agent, addressed the Board. He explained the reason for, the trailer that the school is using asa classroom is because of the growth of the school. Chairman Aron referred to the Minutes of the 1987 meeting that Mr. Kinner appeared at. He stated that at that time -Mr. Kinner said -that the property was formerly used as a school for -.about 66 children �and.that it would be its most suitable use. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Kinner how: many children they now have enrolled in this school. Mr. Kinner responded that there are now 88 students.. enrolled and that includes 24 in the kindergarten and on any one particular day there are approximately 79 or 80 students that will be present. Mr. -Kinner gave background information on the growth of the school and the enrollment situation. Chairman Aron expressed concern about the safety of the trailer that he has seen on the property at the school. He asked Mr. Kinner why the school did not .come to the Board to ask for an addition to that school instead of using a trailer. Mr. Kinner replied that the school board agreed that the trailer is not the best situation andthey would have liked to have built anew addition, but before they commit to.an addition they have to know that theyhave a..commitment from the parent body that the children are going to be enrolled in.the school.: Chairman Aron reiterated his concern about putting children into a:trailer for schooling. Mr. Kinner responded that he does not -feel the trailer is unsafe and he explained all the work -that was done= to insure that 'the trailer was safe to•be -used as a classroom. ' He stated that the "school community is very happy that,the school was'able to do this. Chairman Aron asked for an exact number of children and adults that -are- using the- trailer. -Mr. Kinner :responded that there are 13 children in the trailer on a daily basis, and 1 teacher. The public hearing was opened. Mr. _John Thompson,. Virgil,New York saidtthat he has two childreninthe Waldorf School and that" he is4a member of the school board and a trustee. He stated that. their school board checked with -several schools in regard to temporary classrooms, and -how the- different 'schools handled their variations in enrollment, He said that it was the school board's feeling that in bringing in a trailer and meeting the code, :that -it would be fine. He said that with'13 students and 1 teacher and 2 exits he would have no qualms about putting his two children in the C Zoning Board of Appeals November 30, 1988 -6- trailer. He does not.believe there is a safety problem. The public -hearing was closed. Mr. Austen inquired of. Mr. Kinner -.as.. to why,:.a building permit was not applied for before the trailer was moved.=onto the property. Mr. Kinner explained that the school felt it was in a corner, having made a commitment to�-..the community, the parent body, and the teacher body that the. school would accommodate a certain number of students and -when the space that the school had arranged for fell through, it did not, allow any time whatsoever in order to investigate the process. He. stated that the trailer -became available on a certain day and it -was delivered and .the whole -process got started at the same .time, He said.that as soon as the trailer was on the land: he 'contacted -the : Town Planner to see what the process was going to have to. be. Mrs. Hoffmann asked when the trailer was moved onto the site. Mr.• Kinner replied that the .trailer was put on the property in August.1988. He gave background information on his search for extra space for the school and their students. Mrs. Reuning verified Mr. Kinner's search for space for the Waldorf School. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:• Chairman Aron read Part 3 o the Environmental Assessment, dated -November 1, 1988 and signed by George Frantz, Ass't., Town Planner,as follows: "A negative determination of. recommended due -to the small the proposed project." environmental, significance is scale and temporary nature. of Chairman Aron questioned Mr. Kinner�-as to what.: the. school means.by a temporary. classroom. Mr: Kinner responded that the nature of the school is to -grow. 'He . stated that the, -trailer. is ~: not .an ideal situation for, -them to be in'. What would: be ideal would be for the school, to obtain a piece of land -somewhere :and put up a school that would allow the school to grow, either the first 'grades initially :and then. grow into others - or- build one through twelfth grade if they: can arrange to do :that., He stated that it .is a temporary building because within a two year period the school is going to be -in a position to make a decision about expansion or rebuilding in another location. Mrs. Hoffmann asked how the Zoning Board of Appeals knows that the Waldorf School will not put another trailer onto the site to accommodate their enrollment. Mr.:.Kinner responded that that would not be feasible. He presented information ton the school set up of classrooms and space. Atty. Barney asked Mr. Kinner for assurances to the Board that --there will be.no other trailers or sheds or buildings moved onto -that property. Mr. Kinner replied that there will.not be, not without the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals.. ... ti Zoning Board of Appeals November 30, 1988 A motion as to the Environmental Assessment was made by Edward King as follows: "RESOLVED, that based. on;.the review- by Mr. George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner, 'dated 'November 11 1988, and on the facts that the Board already knows that this school and property and placement of the trailer are below -grade of the highway, that they are all shielded from the highway by a fairly high embankment, and -the fact that the Waldorf School has received from the -Department of Transportation a permit saying that it As, alright by them that the trailer is actually parked within the technical State right-of-way .for a highway, and on the further facts that -the reviewer finds that there are no .impingement of this structure on the wet lands or flood lands which are adjacent to- the site, and upon the understanding that the proposal would not extend. beyond two years, the Zoning Board of Appeals makes a negative declaration of adverse environmental impact. Joan Reuning seconded the.motiori. =-The voting was.as follows: Ayes Reuning, Aron, King, Austen, Hoffmann Nays - ' None The motion was unanimously carried. Mr. Frost stated that in his -opinion the buildirig•' is sound. The . school did recently receive- a certificate. of% d6m_"pl.iance from the Board of Fire Underwriters for its electrical system which was -re -done. He also -stated that he does not believe that mobile homes or trailers ate%,restricted from being used as'.classrooms but that.one of things that he was .contemplating.in listening�-to the discussion is to limit the number of students' within the trailer. Edward King made -,a motion as follows: 'RESOLVED, that this Board grants Special ..Approval under...the Zoning.�Ordinance, Section 18, subdivision 4, for the -maintenance by the :Waldorf School of the.' trailer _ which has P�been placed on'-the'site of the 'permanent school building, Aipon 'the understanding that.:the permission is granted for a period not -to' :extend beyond August 31, 1990,= and that the approval:ds subject to the applicant. obtaining a building permit.: -.and complying with applicable building and fire prevention codes -and sprinkler law requirements, if they apply . as the.- �Bu&il.ding Commissioner determines upon inspection .of the property, and further thattheoccupancy of the trailer not. exceed, 25 personsf at any one time, and also that there' be an audible "alarm added -to the trailer, and be it further % Zoning Board of Appeals November 30, 1988 -8- RESOLVED, that the New York State Department of Transpor- tation , issue a w use ,and. occupancy permit . for . the, .location of the trailer. in ,the State sright-of-way: IL '. .f Edward ",Austen seconded the motion. The voting was as -,follows* III Ayes--.Reuning, KingAusterij Hoffmann,, Aron -Nays None ,The.motion,was unanimously carried. The next-��item. on -the agenda was the following: APPEAL OF MUHAMMAD,-.KHURSHID, AND ZAFFAR RAZZAQ, APPELLANTS, L & P BUILDERS, INC.,"APPLICANT/AGENT, REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF.ARTICLE IV,.SECTION 11, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO PERMIT THE MAINTAINING OF A TWO-STORY;::TWO.- FAMILY ..DWELLING ABSENT A BASEMENT, WITH EACH DWELLING UNIT THEREOF BEING OF EQUAL IFI-AREA•,• ;LOCATED AT, -1414 ._SLATERVILLE .ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA 1. TAX PARCEL NO. 6-58-2-39.5, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. SAID SECTION 11, PARAGRAPH 2, PERMITS A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING .,PROVIDED THAT THE SECOND DWELLING UNIT NOT EXCEED -50% OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT EXCEPT WHERE THE SECOND --DWELLING .-UNIT. IS CONSTRUCTED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE - BASEMENT AREA; IT MAY. EXCEED. :50%. ....,r Chairman Aron : stated for the record. that he will -excuse :.:'himself from chairing -:this appeal.: because- L .&. P Builders has,,.done ~ some.. construction -'work: on;;r•his house::,;:) He asked Vice -chair ,Austen to Chair thet.appeal.; Mr. James Smith addressed the Board, representing L & P Builders. He stated .that, he ,would have to admit that the contractors are a little bit .low othe soil n level, about 7" for :the: most 'part and is .little. ;bit more -on the back side of the house due:.a_o a bow:.ywindow:.. He explained to the. Board that L & P 4 - Builders -. ran z nto some :problems- .•in:.the - back of ---the house with some, w,ery . old_ red .clay., field the and there is no way that can cut off ---the flow.,ot -water in:.that area.. He said that to keep the .awater.= on. I the, plot so asf,,it would not flow -onto the neighbor's ,.property, t,,and._.becauseF.:the-. property is so . steep, : that is the :.reason why they ended.. -!up,, with the soil levels. Mr. Smith explained-that.rthere was no.intent on the part of,the contractors Ito deviate .from any:.codes:;it just happened to be with the areas ..on ,the sides:IIof:.the; house : that they, had to deal. with. and because . of that particular tile- they.. Chad : no, control- over ; it,., Mr. Smith showed the 'Board where the tile is on the sketches that were provided to the Board. TTT�C��T T T 7C TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TTTT z`�TTTTTT TTsCT�� Frank R. Liguori PE Commissioner of Planning, T7�TTT TTTT��TT�C 7CT n T �. Y.�Y XT T]CT n T� TTTTTTT T � �'�� TTT�YTTTdETT�YTTT�`��'CiETTTTTTTTT TSCT T�.�TT n �`ETT� 7� TicTT�C'�i�3G'�C 7C�C'7Y�C n T.TT##TTTTTT T . TT TTT�`F TTTT T November 7, 1988 To: From: Re: Susan C. Beeners Frank R. Liguori, Commissioner of Planning Town of Ithaca 88-15 Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law, Case: Site Plan Approval,application of The Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes, tax parcel #31-2-15, 855 Five Mile Drive (state highways) This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239-m. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, county, or state interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice. Biggs Center, 301 Dates Drive, Ithaca, New York 14850 1 (607) 274-5360 TOV1 OFITHACI 126 EAST SENECA STRIP ffHACAr NEW YORK 14830 September 13, 1988 Mr. Richard Kinner c/o Waldorf/Inlet Valley School 855 Five Mile Drive Ithaca, New York 14850• Re: Violation of Zoning Ordinance Dear Mr. Kinner: It has come to my attention that a mobile home has been sited on the grounds of the Waldorf/Inlet Valley School at 855 Five Mile Drive. This mobile home is intended to serve as classroom space for your school's operations. On 6-2-88 the school received a "site planapproval" from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and subsequently a "special approval" from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Neither of these approvals includ- ed the placement of a mobile home on the property. As I believe you are well aware, a site _clan approval from the Planning Board and a "special approval" from the Zoning.Board of Appeals is required under Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 3,.of the Town of Ithaca's Zoning Ordinance for any buildings relative'to a school use. As such, the placement of this mobile home is a viola- tion of Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 3 of the Zoning Ordinance. I am asking that as a means of abatement of this violation that you either remove the mobile home from the property or make an appli- cation to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and Zoning Board of Ap- peals for their approvals by 9-26-880' Finally, should approvals be granted, a building permit from this office will be required and a Certificate of Compliance will be necessary prior to any occupancy of the structure. I also feel it will be necessary to determine if the New York State Department of Education would approve such a building for occupancy as a classroom. Should you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me. cc: Noel Desch Susan Beeners Henry Aron John Barney Sincerely, Andrew S. Frost, Building Inspector, Zoning Enforcement Officer 7 TOWN OF I THACA 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 A P P E A L to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to L A S S (L :J��cjvY'\ (. T L i_ FEE: $40.00 RECEIVED: CASH CHECK - O ZONING: For Office Use Only at �— �. !� �.� �J5 Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No., J 1 1 ,� 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: r` -X!ArticleCs) � Sections) X114 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 Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: CAdditional sheets may be attached.as necessary.) J, �_ t h `� V �i j L IVY' -.-N Sri t .ro f( l �?JU'Jit-I��,�'z`�C�crzvV�*��cc��l G (7(,.�J r) C_ Signature of Owner/Appellant: Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: Q Date: 0-540 ACIMS GAS UNIL 4 �� S.i.P �c� � 23� 539 s w . FT•� � gK �ic *�T P4. MAP Ko. pesp lLrrF. sx Y / n Q y /�/� 312 -IS ` 8K.6doIPt,.IoZB ,� Ile a sTORICA.L ,KO K v 0 ;00 mP*L. I-I&osr. gk- 0 14w '.%HE F-KAtK Ly --F -TTHACA -A'skA ROAa -4f - (T)of TJMACA Y..<</ GALE ! l�J,d�t:.T ollzp , 74- PINomLAKm 4rwE M l LE r)lz w -E IT+bbefAl NL4 4M (1\1444AV> JOJ Q 7=D1 : 70 �5 CTS A. T�eH-P oT1 u6 g: T*a._712 t L..E;R� 1'2` x In cam') )L2 � C�� � �+_._ _� rte. _��. nom,.► C � �' x �c� � ) A660 m M ot),&TI ter .13 -15 45TU'DF- A Nm A I t*J T4�E: nr4 . O-L-A'�-- Ute' IL �lX-i-f "I" I M E �F47. _ ., fk lL:I>f C 1� 3� v&MLT: _.. �_�.. Tb- .- • _ . - d1'Vl,� � tir�,�?,� �- -rte{ u�R -� � �� :._' l.:i__!�-i�1►z- 5`l��E.0 , I' �l r � F Ii ^Z61%A t7T ! l�J,d�t:.T ollzp , 74- PINomLAKm 4rwE M l LE r)lz w -E IT+bbefAl NL4 4M (1\1444AV> JOJ Q 7=D1 : 70 �5 CTS A. T�eH-P oT1 u6 g: T*a._712 t L..E;R� 1'2` x In cam') )L2 � C�� � �+_._ _� rte. _��. nom,.► C � �' x �c� � ) A660 m M ot),&TI ter .13 -15 45TU'DF- A Nm A I t*J T4�E: nr4 . O-L-A'�-- Ute' IL �lX-i-f "I" I M E �F47. _ ., fk lL:I>f C 1� 3� v&MLT: _.. �_�.. Tb- .- • _ . - d1'Vl,� � tir�,�?,� �- -rte{ u�R -� � �� :._' l.:i__!�-i�1►z- 5`l��E.0 , I' �l r � F Ii VIIJ U �G In *NJ d oo� 14 115-4 t2187)-1ext 12 PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 617.21 SEAR Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART [—PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1. APPLICANT /SPONSOR F/ z1r 2. PROJECT NAME OF Thli!5� 44 '1771VZT' O F /ho i�iL� C114�52u�r� 3. PROJECT LOCATION: �, / ��` _ Munlcipality '7�N PF_ /7� County /�y Oma' ' T^ �Nf5 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) ate' 77o7ol/ this assessment 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: Da New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: .3✓r��rti- �' �ro�i��- c'�-s s�� m �'r� u�7vi2E ("r��-scE�� 7-z3 � ��•��1r�i�/�i�D�TTD jt/ c��t/' �' .�lJ7L-T 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially OZ acres Ultimately OZ acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ❑Yes YJNo If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITYOFPROJECT? El Residential El Industrial U Commercial ❑ Agriculture XParklForestlOpen space ❑ Other Describe:y -N.�- OV77& Gf� c ;5tf 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? L✓J Yes I No if yes, list agency(s) and permit/approvals 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? RYes ❑ No if yes, list agency name and permit/approval 12. AS A 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: �OC1jL/G2T� L �rll Date: 1 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 1 J A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR. PART 617.12? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL_ EAF,. ❑ Yes ❑ No 'B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTION; IN 6 NYCRn, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. FJ Yes O No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH 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: /W C2. Aesthetic, agricultural; archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood'character? Explain briefly: �0 C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: M C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly. je , C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. /PV C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-05? Explain briefly. �f✓ C7. Other Impacts (Including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly. D. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? ❑ Yes No If Yes, explain briefly 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. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed. ❑ 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 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 on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination: Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agencv Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency !Name 2 e y 1 itle of Responsible Of icer Signature of I`reparer (If different from responsible officer) feY j+il. .�FiC -1 rr-¢i.L �-t 5 snE;•. .r I 1 DAWP, TT Y.. &4-0 A. ,. t.: ....z-.,zr�?c't'?1i 4�;.L4."3.:t'r+ -.!' .. .�. I,4T x.. _ -<. ash w�rtrner�+sl �eeeeewnew�- ee*4- D.. .•1.,. n1 ...r...«....�. . �;h{ 2b 4 Schaal Rc R aa 0 1 } r c rrS.i1.+,.a t' toA a s i 'cm ly tti l' Fktr* } ''Action is'..`an unlisted action. �� t, .<:,,ri f;. yY;,-��, .yt t b,/)a•y�Ia',.y4 Be Action will receive coordinated. review: (Town. of Ithaca; Ir A+ s{. lannin Board Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of. Appeals,;. New;:Yo: P g State Department of Transportation) �.° : w; fib, ;. WOOWAS • • • - 11 No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. Proposed action is the temporary placement of a 12'x60' portable class- room/storage structure at an existing school for up to two years•. Proposed classroom will accommodate.13-15 students. Parking on th i e s to appears adequate to accommodate the needs of the exist- ing school and the portoable classroom. C2 Aestheti n. aari cu? jura1, archeological: cal ; historic; :or ..... ,. ` �,,.. i other natural or cultural esources or community or neighborhood 11 No significant adverse. ' Suri .+. ^•i+'x f s>��_ f} vzv2 FiT'3�"' rv' r e impacts area anticipated. *t° Proposed�11 �. �'��� . temporary classroom represents expansion of:an ex stip fuse ''and"z+n � r "A is not expected to adversely impact the character of the existing F. •,tt...'. r,O, .neighborhood, which includes mixed light industrial, commercial; ;�� residential, and public and - nrip_ a, private wetland..and. floodplain areas. �,�,,,, _ Y `The proposed structure is largely screened from view byy �a, $�'`� anticoy lr i. u�f6�FY 'ryi"Gy Wr�ir' •-' adjacent highway embankment and trees y{.^jr,�v� j'f'Fl� Yx ayia6r}di"��*+,,f r F`O'mi..4e-W4�J i LR l f �um'!r•- '�`}. `� + yt]ti- ..K .. .-..•r' . kn.Q a ...,.:_# Sia'N".!'Y ; �13'�'.• i �4r`03, 4 C3. Vegetation ell" VIA. or na• fish. shellfish' or wi tr�l �f,� 4... sPQciess. _signfi.Qant habitats, or threatened or endangered sDecies�_ .- - m .. .. m>+. %rjwim !' -S}.l tr..Li l}'+11C' Fam,{%�' t-nf ` k c r .,sr vft'+xix'i` 4S+i 1;s,1}.tlr+ There are no signific, ant'' sped ies or 'habitats o the sita^er °L ." !!J'��+, wC>ii'.r.`C% �'a?'m sm$+ 'i so tE 1 I ° + that would be adversely affected. Proposed,structure�is not' z_' sited in the vicinity '-of wetlands arid_'f I:oo"dpl'a'inSL gad jacent f`tothe= site. A. ' 7. 7T C4. A_community' s existing nor Pians Or goali77as Offi� adopted ,g_a change in use or intensity' of4 use of' .And h natural ���.{:'.:itA 4 14 At., , At F, �"o� aw ;. tr �_ •ss y r..1 ; No significant adverse impact on existing community plans or goals as officially adopted, or change in use or intensity of use.•,-..,s;N . of land or other natural resources Tis"expected: ." o' �'`-to be induced the Aroyosed = agti„on2 ; -,~,r, r ; r a^:IxaU�tSY�to� 'h ,tst rd 6®E,9 si tviricw4gtLy"'><iA M; LOW 4 rR groi�oTxno�afn development ori -the "site is'expected 'to`ti tie :in lice edr structure. Further °expansion ,would require ap F nT.gr!lgC Y. ,r xTdx s nt„.Towns, ot,{.rithaca agenciesr,priorr�to',constructiono.!c lati �'`-to be induced the Aroyosed = agti„on2 ; -,~,r, r ; r a^:IxaU�tSY�to� 'h ,tst rd 6®E,9 si tviricw4gtLy"'><iA M; LOW 4 rR groi�oTxno�afn development ori -the "site is'expected 'to`ti tie :in lice edr structure. Further °expansion ,would require ap F nT.gr!lgC Y. ,r xTdx s nt„.Towns, ot,{.rithaca agenciesr,priorr�to',constructiono.!c r. 3e •1.: :ix L'ti'. }-f;4# I'.i �i :-•:vY��l �., t rfaS'aEi!i.;rJRI.. «i ._ ... �'`-to be induced the Aroyosed = agti„on2 ; -,~,r, r ; r a^:IxaU�tSY�to� 'h ,tst rd 6®E,9 si tviricw4gtLy"'><iA M; LOW 4 rR groi�oTxno�afn development ori -the "site is'expected 'to`ti tie :in lice edr structure. Further °expansion ,would require ap F nT.gr!lgC Y. ,r xTdx s nt„.Towns, ot,{.rithaca agenciesr,priorr�to',constructiono.!c r. 3e K i- e-•— ._•• . i ; �'`-to be induced the Aroyosed = agti„on2 ; -,~,r, r ; r a^:IxaU�tSY�to� 'h ,tst rd 6®E,9 si tviricw4gtLy"'><iA M; LOW 4 rR groi�oTxno�afn development ori -the "site is'expected 'to`ti tie :in lice edr structure. Further °expansion ,would require ap F nT.gr!lgC Y. ,r xTdx s nt„.Towns, ot,{.rithaca agenciesr,priorr�to',constructiono.!c None anticipated. None anticipated. D. Is there, or is there_likely to be, controversy related to Potential adversg environmental imp ca ts? There is no public controversy at this time and none is a expected.. r PART III .,5r rete. •tm,. „�-`•..,... .. .... ., . A4ne ative determination, of environmental significance, i"iv .� •y Ste.-_-••rr,: 'At.I& :its r' try .. ,..I i•, +^'"� unrT`.^..3 J. _ r®commended.. due to '"the :s�a.l_ 4cale and temporairy nature , of x 1 proposed project. �*}"~ Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals m ; r ' � Reviewer: George R. Frantz Asst. Town. runner h Ii Ta t; -A rReview Date: (il9g i;Z0 irg,r k ad. x c '�� _ .. ...' r r� > !` nL Srr 'w �•Y` R .i rnr C��'�v�� i3`s+ 3^s` r fa i w mow- mit +, ra5 n _ x� sir `n'lr'tT:c''.$fz % y kwlaw�ZT1 r r; •1. t. a`ffy - , ra ti��Itir�''x,�` tY5 .. "A t..ui... P _< i wt .•.*1 Y.:t +34. I '• w 'Kk'h fryM u r j FsK,Cy." `1y r �dt�',it3 4F i ti s. 01 V i.i Gi`.r`aRalmm b'' `♦' � `t d r. 3e None anticipated. None anticipated. D. Is there, or is there_likely to be, controversy related to Potential adversg environmental imp ca ts? There is no public controversy at this time and none is a expected.. r PART III .,5r rete. •tm,. „�-`•..,... .. .... ., . A4ne ative determination, of environmental significance, i"iv .� •y Ste.-_-••rr,: 'At.I& :its r' try .. ,..I i•, +^'"� unrT`.^..3 J. _ r®commended.. due to '"the :s�a.l_ 4cale and temporairy nature , of x 1 proposed project. �*}"~ Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals m ; r ' � Reviewer: George R. Frantz Asst. Town. runner h Ii Ta t; -A rReview Date: (il9g i;Z0 irg,r k ad. x c '�� _ .. ...' r r� > !` nL Srr 'w �•Y` R .i rnr C��'�v�� i3`s+ 3^s` r fa i w mow- mit +, ra5 n _ x� sir `n'lr'tT:c''.$fz % y kwlaw�ZT1 r r; •1. t. a`ffy - , ra ti��Itir�''x,�` tY5 .. "A t..ui... P _< i wt .•.*1 Y.:t +34. I '• w 'Kk'h fryM u r j FsK,Cy." `1y r �dt�',it3 4F i ti s. 01 V i.i Gi`.r`aRalmm b'' `♦' � `t d • ter- ' MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO: F. Hoffman, Regional Real Estate Group, Region 3 FROM: F. Grout, Tompkins County Residency, Region 3 SUBJECT.. USE & OCCUPANCY PERMIT -THE WALDORF SCHOOL OF THE FINGER LAKES ROUTE 13A DATE: October 19, 1988 Attached is a letter from The Waldorf School Of The Finger Lakes seeking approval to a temporary encroachment of a class room trailer on the right-of-way of Route 13A. Also attached is a partial print of a plan sheet upon which I have marked the approximate location of the trailer. It appears to be totally on the R.O.W. This trailer siting will have absolutely no effect upon the maintenance and operation of -the highway system and we recommend -a Use and Occupancy Permit be issued. FG: ms Attachments cc: C. Ames, Regional Highway Maintenance Group, Region 3 s R,r, RA I„ 17,r....0 school of the Finer Lakes Mr. Fred Grout New York State Dept. of Transportation 3rd Street extension Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Grout, October 4, 1988 The Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes has sited a temporary mobile classroom structure on our property at 855 Five Mile Drive in Ithaca. We seek the* approval of your Department for this temporary (anticipated 2 years) siting with respect to the State right-of-way which borders the school property at the site of the structure. Thank you for your consideration of the above matter and I look for- ward to your reply, RDK/kml lR f 1 Yours, R' Kinner 855 Five ;'Mile Drive, Ithaca, New York. 14850 (60 7) 2 73 -4033 Tne waldori Scnool os the Finger Lakes 855 Five Mile Drive Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board, November 1, 1988 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: The Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes 855 Five Mile Drive Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board, November 1, 1988 MOTION by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov: WHEREAS* This action is(the Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a Request for Special Approval, pursuant to Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for a temporary classroom located at The Waldorf School lof the Finger Lakes, 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2-15. 2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review of this request for special approval. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the Tompkins County Planning Department, and the New York State Department of Transportation are involved agencies in coordinated review. 3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on November 1, 1988, has reviewed the 'proposed site plan, environmental assessment form and review, and other submissions related to this proposal. 4. The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action. 2. That the Planning Board, in making recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determine and hereby does determine the following: a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location; be the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected, and The Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes 855 Five Mile Drive Repott to the Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board, November 1, 1988 -2- c. the proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town. 3. That the Planning Board. report and hereby -does report to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for Special Approval for the temporary classroom be approved, subject to the following conditions. a. That use of the temporary classroom cease prior to July 11 1991, and, that the temporary classroom be removed from the site prior to July 1, 1991. 1 . b. The granting by the New York State Department of Transportion of an easement, or other form of use permission, for that portion of the Route 13A/Five Mile Drive right of way occupied by the temporary classroom. c. That the premises be constructed in full compliance with all applicable building code, fire. prevention code, and sprinkler law requirements. Aye - May, Baker, Grigorov, Langhans, Klein, Kenerson, Lesser, Miller. Nay - None. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. November 4, 1988. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Jean H. Swartwood, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town 'Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the Sign Board of the Town .Clerk of the Town of`Ithaca and that said Notice has been.duly published in -the local newspaper# The -Ithaca Journal, Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca:*..Zoning Board of.Appeals in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca New York on Wednesday, November 30, 1988 commencing at 7.00 p= as per attached. r Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Located -at front entrance of Town Hall., outside of Front Door -of Town Hall, outise.door of Town.Hall Meeting Room. Date Of Posting: November 22, 1988 Date of Publipation: November 25',1988 Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPPKINS ) SS. s Sworn to and subscribed before me.this December , 1988. 2nd day of P •r, The IthE J fit ��L•�i rtLegals � i TOWN 'OF"'ITHACA� ZONING I BOARD.OF APPEALS I ! NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND AGENDA WED., NOV. 30,`1988, 7P.M.--` By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Ap- peals NOTICE IS HEREBY. GIVEN that Public Hearinnggss, as .appropriate, will be held by .the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of. rlthoca on ,Wednesday, November 30, 1988, in Town Holl, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), r Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT I 7:00 P.M., on the .following matters. ' ;APPEAL of Ivor and Janet Jon- son, Appellants, requesting the authorization of .the Zon- ing Board of Appeals, under Article XII, Section 54, of the `Town of Ithaca°Zoning Ordi= .nonce, for the reconstruction , ,of a single, story, single family dwelling at 9348 fast Share j Drive,, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- t,cel `,No. 6=18=59;• :Residence; tDistrict R-15. Said :Parte of lond,is non conforming in size and tK6 dwelling proposed for reconstruction was noncon- forming in yard. setbacks, <however, said dwelling is pro- =posed.to be,locoted;witNin the same footprint of said pre viously, existing' legal nano 1 iconforming singgle story, sin- I iggle-fan;ily;dwelling.'Shic itI be:the case.thot.the pratrsausty !existing legol-non-cort4arat+irig dwelling hos been ,abon cloned as a use in the Town'of Ithaca for more than one year, ; the Appellant has entered a request for, variance from the .i firequ rements- of Aiicfe Xtl, <Section 53, jof Oahe :Tonin .of I Xnr - Trustee7Agera,_ sre- t uesting the opprowd >vr she' i:Zoriing_Board of Appi un- der Article V. Section 18, Par- `a'groph.4, of,the Town of Itha, co Zoning Ckdinonce, fer the temporary (up to twoyears) placement of a portoWe cfow L room (o 7'2'.foot,by 60'foaYtro- iler), at 855'Five "Mile -Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcet;No. +6-314=.15, .Residence Mistrict tAP.P.E'AL of iMiihommadi, Xhurshid, and Zoffci Razzoq Appellants, L 41?1 Builders; -Inc., Applicant/Agent, ,re- questing variance of the ie= quirement of Article IV, Sec= tion 11, Paragraph 2, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordi- nance, to permit the maintain; ing of a two-story, two-family dwelling absent a basement, with each dwelling unit there= of being of equal floor_ area; located at 1414 Sloterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- cel No. 6-58-2-39.5, Residence District R-15. Said Section 11, Paragraph 2, permits a two- family dwelling provided that the second dwelling unit not exceed 50.% of the floor area of the primary dwelling unit exce t where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area, it may exceed 50% , APPEAL of James and Julie Ro=: gen, Appellants, William -P,. Grover, Applicant, requesting modificotion'of a use variance granted by' the Zoning Board of-Appeals•on June 24„1987,, permitting a; pizza/sandwich delivery service with seoting:'i for 19 pe, 'p at "Rogon's Cor- ners” 825 Danby Rood,:.Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos: -6-40-' 44 and 6-40-4-5, Business Dis-. trict"At' The:modification'. re- quested is the,replacement'of• t said pizza/sandvich"biisioess ,by a retail boutique and gih'+i hshop.'. �? AGENDA ITEM: DETERMIN ATIONby the Zoning_Boord.of.. �,Appeois with iespect to envi-:1 (.ronmentai review. and DECI- { SION by the Zoning :Board of it with, respect `totihe 1, Adjourned Apppeal (from;Sep 1 temberl4,' 1988, -and October 26,-.1988)_of John'n'E.),'Ron6cK i of the requirements of le .IV, Section 11, Pat. ph 2, of the Town ofiltho- oning Ordinance; where - only one `'residential mes or a total i red"person's in iture; '.is, Dern each containing IN ing• units; on Town Tax. Poicel No: . R-15.:. will at said time, 7:00m.0 and said place, hear ;all -p. per= 1 sons in support of such matters or objections thereto,�as _/ap- propriate. lTersons' .:may'4 op. peor.by::agent qr in person. AndreW,S:Jrost Building 'lnspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ith'oca November 25"'1988 273 1742 A TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1987 7:00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE 7S HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be field by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, June 24, 11987, 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 May 13, 1987) of Marie Louise Frown, Appellant, Randolph F. Brown, Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoni_ng_Enforcement Officer denying Building Permits to rebuild a non -conforming barn destroyed by fire and to build increased storage and sales area, at Indian Creek Farm, located at 1408 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24p1T25.21, Residence District R15.. Permits -are denied under Article XII, Sections 54 and 56, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, whereby no non -conforming building or use shall be extended except as authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and, whereby substantial restoration of a. building damaged by fire may take place within six months provided such damage constitutes an amount less than 75% of the replacementcost of such building, and whereby such time limit may be extended by the Zoning Board of Appeals in cases of practical difficulty -or unnecessary hardship. APPEAL of James -C. Rogan_, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Building Permit for the construction of one additional building, 2,G48 square feet in size, with a north side yard of 10 feet in width and a north buffer area for a City of Ithaca residence area less than 50 feet in width, at "Rogan`s Corners". 825 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6�40�4- 2, -5, and -8, Business -District "A", to be used as a laundromat, 1,024 square feet in size, and a pizza/sandwich delivery service with seating for 19 people, 1.024 square feet in size. Permit is denied under Article VII, Sect -ion 32, of-.the=Town_ of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, whereby a laundron-tat and restaurant -are -not specified uses in Business District "A"e Article VII, Section 37, Paragraph 2, of said Ordinance, whereby a side yard of 20 feet is required; and Article VII, Section 380 Paragraph 5, of said Ordinance, whereby no .structure may be placed nearer than 50 feet from any residence district. APPEAL of Herbert N. Monkemeyer, Appellant, Andrea B. Coby, School Administrator, Agent/Applicant, from the decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission for a School Use, pursuant to Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, whereby approval of the Board of Appeals is required, for the operation of the Montessori Elementary and Secondary (Continued on Page 2) Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Notice of Public Hearings June 24, 1987 Page 2 School of Ithaca, proposed to be located on East Ring Road, Residence District R-30, on a two -acre±- portion of Town of Ithaca Tax. Parcel Wo. 6-43-1 3.2 (46.96 acres). Permission is further denied under Article. `, Section 18, Paragraph 16, of said Ordinance, whereby no building or structure may exceed 30 feet in heigh.t,c applicant is proposing a school building with a tower 43 feet in height. APPEAL_ of -Richard Bergcren, _Appellant, Natth.ew En.aelhart and Richard Kinner, Agents/Applicants, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zonir.Ia Enforcement Officer denying permission for a School Use, pursuant to Article V. Section 18, Paragraph 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, whereby approval of the Board of Appeals is required, for the operation of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes, proposed to be located in the _former Inlet Valley School building at 855 Five stile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2p15, (.54 acres, iF approximately), Residence District R. 30. Permission is further denied under Article V. Section 18, Paragraph 21, of said Ordinance, whereby a. side yard of not less than 40 feet in width is required, and under Article V. Section 23, Paragraph 1, whereby the minimum lot area required-_i.s 30,000 square feet. Said Zoning Board -of _Appeals will at said time, 7:00 p.m., and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Andrew S. Frost Building Ir-Lspector/Zoning Enforcement Offi_ccr Town of Ithaca. 273-1747 Dated: June 16, 1987 Publish: June 19, 1987 Zoning Board of Appeals -24- June 24, 1987 Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca duly closed at 9:35 p.m. APPEAL OF RICHARD BERGGREN, APPELLANT, MATTHEW ENGELHART AND RICHARD KINNER, AGENTS/APPLICANTS, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR/ ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DENYING PERMISSION FOR A SCHOOL USE, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V. SECTION 18, PARAGRAPH 41 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, WHEREBY APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS IS REQUIRED, FOR THE OPERATION OF THE WALDORF SCHOOL OF THE FINGER LAKES, PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN THE FORMER INLET VALLEY SCHOOL BUILDING AT 855 FIVE MILE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-31-2-15, (.54 ACRES, APPROXIMATELY), RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. PERMISSION IS FURTHER DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V, SECTION 18, PARAGRAPH 21, OF SAID ORDINANCE, WHEREBY A SIDE YARD OF NOT LESS THAN 40 FEET IN WIDTH IS REQUIRED, AND UNDER ARTICLE V, SECTION 23, PARAGRAPH 1, WHEREBY THE MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIRED IS 30,000 SQUARE FEET. Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Chairman Aro n.referred to the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Richard D. Kinner for the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes under date of May 18, 1987, and reading as follows: "...Having been denied permission to re-establish a school (The Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes) at 855 Five Mile Drive (Rt. 13A) ... The existing structure (the school building), which is intended to be renovated, does not meet the 40' (forty foot) side. yard requirements of the Ordinance. The highway right of way interferes with the side yard requirement. (See attached.) The property was formerly used as a school for about 60 children, and would be its most suitable use. (Proposed 65-70 people.)" Chairman Aron stated that he had visited the property under discussion here and noticed a stone marker located on the site. Chairman Aron stated that, in his opinion, the wording on the marker was very appropriate to the matter before the Board, adding that he would like to read these words to those present. Chairman Aron read: On one side of the copper plaque -- "Cayuga Indian Village which was destroyed September 24th and September 25th, 1779, by Sullivan's Army led by Colonel Dearborn and Colonel Butler." On the other side of the plaque was an Indian prayer -- "Oh, Great Spirit, Send thy Peace of Sleep and Make the Morning Dew Wash the Evil of this Day Out of our Eyes that We May Better Serve our Children, our Neighbors, and our Neighbors' Children." At this point, Chairman Aron asked Mr. Richard Kinner of the Waldorf School to review the following material which had been submitted. `Zoning Board of Appeals -25- June 24, 1987 1. Short EAF, signed by Richard D. Kinner, as reviewed by the Town Planner, dated May 28, 1987. (Exhibit 11).. 2. Letter from Yvonne Fogarty, Development Coordinator, Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes, to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, dated May 19, 1987. (Exhibit 12). 3. New Survey Map, dated June 23, 1987, entitled "Lands of Richard Berggren & Betty Jane Berggren, 855 Five Mile Drive, Mil. Lot 82, signed and sealed by Gary Bruce Davison, L.L.S. (Exhibit 13) . 4. Letter from Richard Ewald, Public Health Sanitarian, Tompkins County Department of Health, to Richard Kinner, dated June 24, 19 8 7 . (Exhibit 14) . 5. Variance Request on letterhead of Tompkins County Department of Health with respect to the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes, initials RE, dated 6/24/87. (Exhibit 15). 6. Site Plan, Waldorf School, dated June 8, 1987, prepared by Peter D. Novelli, P.E. (Exhibit 16). 7. Letter from Richard D. Kinner to Scott Heyman, Tompkins County Administrator, dated June 19, 1987. (Exhibit 17). 8. Drawing, entitled "Inlet Valley School Real Estate, 855 Five Mile Drive, Ithaca, Proposed Site for Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes", dated June 24, 1987. (Exhibit 18). 9. Official Order of the State of New York, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, dated July 6, 1938. (Exhibit 19). 10. Letter from Richard Kinner to Fred Grout, New York State Department of Transportion, dated June 18, 1987. (Exhibit 20). 11. Adopted Resolutions of the Planning Board, June 2, 1987, in the matter of the Waldorf School. (Exhibit 21).. Chairman Aron noted that the driveway into the property was rather narrow and also noted that there is an old rusted gasoline pump on the site and next to that pump there is a 3 -foot by 3 -foot hole approximately 5 feet deep. Chairman Aron stated that that hole should be filled in and covered for safety purposes. Mr. Kinner responded that that matter will be taken care of. Mr. Richard Berggren interjected that that cavity is for drainage. Mr. Frost, commenting that he also had noticed the hole, stated that a grate placed on it would suffice. Mr. Kinner stated that he had received a telephone call from one of the adjacent property owners, Al Becker', who said that 'he owns a portion of the property,' however, according to Mr. Grout of the NYS DOT that is a State right of way. Mr. Kinner stated that he will be in contact with Mr. Grout to clear up the confusion as to the Zoning Board of Appeals boundaries. -26- Chairman Aron asked if anyone against the matter of the Waldorf Aron closed the Public Hearing and motion with respect to SEQR. June 24, 1987 present wished to speak for or School. No one spoke. Chairman asked if anyone wished to offer a MOTION by Mr. Jack Hewett, seconded by Mr. Edward King: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the request for Special Approval for the operation of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes at 855 Five Mile Drive, make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for this Unlisted action, conditioned upon the following: 1. Approval of the septic system and water supply system by the Tompkins County Health Department; 2. Compliance of building renovation with all pertinent codes and regulations, 3. Driveway improvements, substantially as shown on the plan presented, to the satisfaction of the Town Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer, with the driveway to be widened to a 16 -foot roadway with 2 -foot shoulders, and with the proposed shelter to be subject to the approval of the New York State Department of Transportation, and, with the provision that any necessary easements or permits that may be required,.in regard to the use of the driveway from Floral Avenue and the proposed shelter location, be provided. There being no further discussion, the Chair polled the members for their vote, as follows: Mr. Hewett ............... Aye. Mr. King Aye, Mr. Aron Aye, The MOTION was declared to be.carried unanimously. Chairman Aron asked the Board to turn to the matter of the area variances. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Jack Hewett: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, finding that strict enforcement of the terms of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance would create a practical difficulty and impose unnecessary hardship upon the applicants, and also finding that no one has appeared in opposition�to the proposed operation of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes at 855 Five Mile Drive, grant and hereby does grant area variances to permit a southerly side yard of 10-12 feet and a lot size of 23,539 square feet, 40 feet and 30,000 square LZoning Board of Appeals -27- June 24, 1987 feet otherwise being required. There being no further discussion, the Chair polled the members for their vote, as follows: Mr. Hewett Aye, Mr. King Aye, Mr. Aron Aye. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Jack.Hewett: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, pursuant to Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordiance, grant and hereby does grant Special Approval for the operation of a private school, known as the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes, proposed to be located in the former Inlet Valley School building at 855 Five Mile Drive, subject to the following conditions. 1. Prior to the building being put into use for this purpose, the applicants shall obtain Tompkins County Health Department approval of the septic system and water supply system. 2. The building shall be brought into compliance with all pertinent codes and regulations, particuarly those with respect to life safety, to the satisfaction of the Town Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer, 3. The driveway access road leading from Five Mile Drive (formerly Floral Avenue) southeasterly into the site shall be improved substantially as shown on the plan presented, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and the Town Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer, with the driveway to be widened to a 16 -foot roadway with 2 -foot shoulders, and with the proposed shelter to be subject to the approval of the New York State Department of Transportation. 4. The applicants shall provide any necessary easements or permits which may be required in regard to the use of the driveway from Floral Avenue and the proposed shelter location. 5. All other improvements as proposed by the applicants shall be completed substantially as shown on 'the plans to the satisfaction of the Town Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer. There.being no further discussion, the Chair polled the members for their vote, as follows: Mr. Hewett Aye, Mr. King Aye, Mr. Aron Aye, The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Zoning Board of Appeals -28= June 24, 1987. Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes duly closed. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairman Aron declared the June 24, 1987, meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Mary S. Bryant, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Henry Aron, Chairman. TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING *W* /, „ Frank R. Liguori PE Commissioner of Planning nn n ♦n'n 3EA is d: nn7,n;: , ,rY n n is i, June 23, 1987 UVU�--'i 4 JUN 2 51987 . TOVVN GF ITHA .A Town of Ithaca 87-15 To: Susan C. Beeners From: Frank R. Liguori, Commissioner of Planning Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law, Case: Special Permit application and Area Variance appeal of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes at 855 Five Mile Drive (state highway) (Parcel # 31-2-15) This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239-m. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, county, or state interests, Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice. Biggs Center, Building A, 1283 Trumansburg Road, Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 274-5360 fo-6 Nl GOA weo�t 1`6�101 soA rp-,opo--,eo U.ldoo-f S(-,WcL gss five, Mile - —oo� a O� ' TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1987 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, Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M., on the following June 24, 1987, in Town Hall, 126 East Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y., matters: ADJOURNED APPEAL (from May 13, 1987) of Marie Louise Brown, Appellant, Randolph F. Brown, Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying Building Permits to rebuild a non -conforming barn destroyed by fire and to build increased storage and sales area, at Indian Creek Farm, located at 1408 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-1-25.21, Residence District R15. Permits are denied under Article XII, Sections 54 and 56, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, whereby no non -conforming building or use shall be extended except as authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and, whereby substantial restoration of a building damaged by fire may take place within six months provided such damage constitutes an amount less than 75% of the replacement cost of such building, and whereby such time limit may be extended by the Zoning Board of Appeals in cases of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. APPEAL of James C. Rogan, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Building Permit for the construction of one additional building, 2,048 square feet in size, with a north side yard of 10 feet in width and a north buffer area for a City of Ithaca residence area less than 50 feet in width, at "Rogan's Corners", 825 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-40-4-2, -5, and -8, Business District "A", to be used as a laundromat, 1,024 square feet in size, and a pizza/sandwich delivery service with seating for 19 people, 1.024 square feet in size. Permit is denied under Article VII, Section 32, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, whereby a laundromat and restaurant are not specified uses in Business District "A Article VII, Section 37, Paragraph 2, of said Ordinance, whereby a side yard of 20 feet is required, and Article VII, Section 38, Paragraph 5, of said Ordinance, whereby no structure may be placed nearer than 50 feet from any residence district. APPEAL of Herbert N. Monkemeyer, Appellant, Andrea B. Coby, School Administrator, Agent/Applicant, from the decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission for a School Use, pursuant to Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, whereby approval of the Board of Appeals is required, for the operation of the Montessori Elementary and Secondary (Continued on Page 2) q b - Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Notice of Public Hearings June 24, 1987 Page 2 School of Ithaca, proposed to be located on East King Road, Residence District R-30, on a two -acre± portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-43-1-3.2 (46.96 acres). Permission is further denied under Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 16, of said Ordinance, whereby no building or structure may exceed 30 feet in height, applicant is proposing a school building with a tower 43 feet in height. APPEAL of Richard Berggren, Appellant, Matthew Engelhart and Richard Kinner, Agents/Applicants, from the decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission for a School Use, pursuant to Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, whereby approval of the Board of Appeals is required, for the operation of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes, proposed to be located in the former Inlet Valley School building at 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2-1511 (.54 acres, approximately), Residence District R-30. Permission is further denied under Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 21, of said Ordinance, whereby a side yard of not less than 40 feet in width is required, and under Article V, Section 23, Paragraph 1, whereby the minimum lot area required is 30,000 square feet. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7:00 p.m., and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Andrew S. Frost Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273-1747 Dated: June 16, 1987 Publish: June 19, 1987 TOWN OF ITHACA 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 7.4850 (607) 273-174.7 A P P E A L to the Building Inspector and Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to /L eEm>70�4434; ! i; t Z5 �1`LE�.�!! i 3000 Parcel No. 6'3 _a -is FEE: $10.00 RECEIVED: U CASH CHECK - ( L)/ .� ZONING: � For Office Use Only Town of Ithaca Tax 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) Sectionfs) gp��.q of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfullysubmits 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: W �'l5i10,, 5monm N;e 0 >fti.4N6e Vl wirH Tk�C 5ipu 55 , v1k�EM ENi: Dated: J g ` Signed: top- elk m t LD d 40P dF J � n r; / J / t J ;, -' �—Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes /855 Five Mile Drive 'Planning Board, June 2, 1987 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board, June 2, 1987 MOTION by Mrs. Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS: -1- 1. This action is the consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval of a School Use, pursuant to Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the proposed location of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes into a former school building at 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2-15, Residence District R-30, 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for envi.rommmetal. r.evi_ew. I'}�e 7'ompki_ns County PlaTill i.ng Department, the Tompkins Comity IIQ,-i.lth Depa.r.tment, and the New York State Department of Transportation are potentially -involved agencies which are being notified as to this action. 3. The Planning Board has reviewed the proposal at a. Public Ilear_ing on June 2, 1987. 4. The Town Planner has recommende(1a negative detet:mi.tiati_oit of environmental significance, subject to cer.ta_in cond.i.tiotts, which are part of this report. THEREFORE, I`i' IS RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board r_ecomiiie >d and herel.)y does r.e�co line to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative deter_minati.on of environmental significance be made for_ this act_iot►, conditional upon the following: a. Approval_ of the septic system and water_ supply system by the Tompkins County Health Department. b. Compliance of building renovation with all pertinent codes and regulations. c. Installation of fencing substantially as shown of satisfaction of the Town driveway to be widened to shoulders, with the fence and driveway improvements, t the plan presented, to the Bui_ldi_ng Inspector_, with the a 1.6 -foot roadway with 2 -foot in its proposed location to be `Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes 855 Five Mile Drive Planning Board, June 2, 1987 -2- subject to the approval. of the New York State Department of Transportation, subject to the and with the approval. of: the proposed New York shelter also to be State Department of Transportation. comprehensive plan of development of the Town. 2e That the Planning Board determine and hereby does determine that. a. There is a need for the proposed use in location. the proposed be The existing and neighborhood will not probable be adversely future character affected. of the c. The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town. 3. That the Planning Board report and hereby does report a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals that Special Approval as proposed be granted, subject to the following conditions: a. Approval of the septic system and water supply system by the Tompkins County health Department. be Compliance of building renovation with all pertinent codes and regulations. ce Installation of fencing acid driveway improvements, substantially as shown on the plan presented, to the satisfaction of the '.'own 13u.i ldi.rng Inspector, with the- driveway hedriveway to be widened to i 1.6 -foot roadway with 2 -foot shoulders, with the fence i_n its proposed location to be subject to the approval of the New York State Department of Transportation, and with the proposed shelter also to be subject to the approval_ of the New Yorl: State Department of Transportation. Aye - May, Grigorov, Langlians, Klein, Kenerson. Nay - None. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy Me Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. June 4, 1987. 14.16- (2187)—Text 12 ^' PROJECT I.D. NUMBER y y 617.21 SEAR Appendix C 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. APPLICANT /SPOCNSOROfZ. O� 1 r1 G N(��R 1 -LX 7 2rjPROJECT LS MC lr*66d,i N� 3. PROJECT LOCATION: �7 y Municipality 14 County r M 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, promine t landmarks, etc., or provide map) Assessment Form before proceeding 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: ❑ New ❑ Expansion Modification/alteration B. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: vy 19E AT'Rt.I(4rVr. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFEWlia Initially VNg' &L;'acresUltimately G,���I/�1Y acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? Yes ❑ No IfNo, describe jbriefly C 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ❑ Residential El Industrial A Commerccii�alA ❑ Agriculture POlPar}k/Forest/Open space❑ Other Describe: xV Q) yV 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? Yes ❑ No If, yes, list agency(s) and permit/approvals 1. A-rt�N fW(hi f M•�"�tn-trt.t St�-� � � ti r� A� Cott�u`fy 1���•1 CoDE tZctXn P..i�M efvTf . c,� Co►uVVP 11: DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? Yes ❑ No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval r $v* Awl 9we4cT "WoVK,CWNpMCuter, DyfZ•,- R0 3. 14"9.40LW -.9 . 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑ y'bs No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF.MY KNOWLEDGE 11C�! WA'w�D '"� �" '" ® � ' `90� 114W Applicant/sponsor name: Date: - �� `�' )rL(g1NJWt)T)* K• lAlf 9 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 1 PART II—ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To t e'comple'ted by Agencyy A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.127 If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. ❑ Yes �o Be WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.67 If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another Involved agency, as ❑ No -:5e-L- e,' ' 4 (ites! C �. Ce COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, If legible) Ct. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality cr quantity, nols5 levels, existing traffic patterns, solid weste production or disposnl, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Expl'aln briefly: ��>k- L 'n -I., A C., kr L C2 Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other nalurzl or cultural resotrrres; or community or neighborhecd character? Explain Wind; C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife speales, signifira.nt habllzPs, or direr:toned or rindangered species? Explain Dlicfly: C4, A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or Intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly] C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be Induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly, C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not Identified in C1-057 Explain briefly. C7. Other Impacts (Including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly, D, IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO F OIENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMr ACTS7 ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, explain briefly PART 111- DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether ii is substantial, large, imporlwit or otherwise slgrl;!carr, Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (!,e, urhan or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) dura.11ann; (d) Irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessaryr add atlarl;ments ;r reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse imp2rta have been identified and adequately addreled. ❑ Check this box If you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse Impacts which WAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration, Check this box if you have determined, based cep the Information and analysis ebovc and anv supportivq documentatlon, that the proposed action WILL NOT result In any significant advnise environmt,. 'n.! Impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination:C.(.. J )f�f, fbZa rJ , or Type N e o nsrble Agency esponsrore Uthcer in Lead Agency e of Lezd ! genr-y ate K i Title of Respon0l)Fr 05Hjcrr _(.44;76�L.(1 t 1 -�UL�' �'�,A�. Sienature of Pr1eparer (If aiiTJent tram respansr e ol'�iccr) PART II - Environmental Assessment - Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes A* Action is Unlisted Be Action will receive coordinated review (Tonipk.i.ris Cour)ty Planning Dept, -- N.Y.S. G.M.L. 239-111, Tompkins County Health Department, N.Y.S. Department of Transportation) C. Could action result in any adverse effects ori, to or arisil� from the following: — - Cl. Existing air quantity, noise levels production or di flooding problems? s sal uality, surface existing traf potentia.]_ f or_ f i_ c or_ .groundwater duality or patterns, solid waste erosion, drainage or No significant adverse impact is expected. No major_ site alterations are planned. Tompkins County Health. Department approval will be required for the site septic system. it is recommended that the driveway be wi_dened to a 16 foot roadway with 2 foot shoulders for adequate site access. Any work in the right of way of Five Mile Drive (N. y, S . 13--a would be subject to the approval of the New York Sta de Department of Transportation, The Ithaca City School District has indicated the feasibility of school bus service, with pickup and dropof-f or► Five Mile Drive. Proposed parking is adequate for the proposed use and meets zoning requirements. The site is nearby, but not within, floodplain and wetland areas, The distance of the site from these areas is adequate to anticipai_e no si_c{r�i if -pate.:►n t fndver_ sF, impacts to these areas as R result of School operat.iol►. C2. Aesthetic, --_agricultural f arc ►elogi.c.t]=,--h:i.sl.(DJ: i_c, c�Y ------------- -- ------ other natural or cultural resourc es or c oI Hun_i. t or tt(,i }i1Jor1►ood character? -- - ----- — ---y `.4hb Proposed use repr_esetits the cor► or,�at_ i_o,► of }►i or.i_ca building, and the .restoration or ?_1_ ot, , ,, ,,, a. school. There would hbcli nO�clt adverse mixed a i.r�It1(.0 thpt-. ,,};?�i la('(cnf�nn��>or� i hP communit residential uses, and public, at►d ;�r:.i.vf� f. �•;�I.a.:�.nd a►ici (:Iloc,c{p l 3 .>> areas, C3. Vegetation or fauna, --fauna, - Iie_1.1fisJI �r:i_:Lc]]_ii:c_ species, significant habitatsor_ (_hieatei)ecl� o.i -- c>>Idii tc erect species? --- --- --- —__ There are no significant species or i_tats that would be adversely affected. Spocli(,�s and adjacent wetland and floodplain areas would not subject to approval of the Gi_te sepl=i_c system by County Health Department_ o►► the s i. t be i_mhacted , f -J) o Tompk i n ^ C4. adopted, natural A communit or a change resources? 's existin 1.ans in use or intensit or goals of use of as officially land or other The site was recently rezoned f:z-om R9 to R30 , in which respect the lot is 3.11legal non-conformance, and is not considered of significant adverse impact provided that the septic system is approved by the Tompkins County Health Department.Because of the amount of State Highway ]_and adjacent to the si.t.e, the side yard deficiency on the west side of the building i., not considered of any significant impact. Variances were previously granted for this site (July 24, 1.961; variance to use bui.ldinq for medical laboratory: December 10, 1.986; variance to use building for sculpture studio and second studio/ar.ti.saz► shop) The change in use of the site from its inactive status to the proposed school use is of no significant impact in regard to land use intensity, and is of benefit to the community in filli.nq an educational need. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed act oil? No significant growth or subsequent development is expected on the site, nor will the proposed school_ operation s i.f_icantly induce growth or development in the l,i.ve Mile Drive/Elmi_ra Road area. Any other requests for development in the area would be subject to further review. CG. Lonter_m, short terzn, cU.Il1U.J.ative, or other.. offccts not identified in C1-05? — — - ---- ----- Not expected, subject to the con(7i_ti_onc of Part:. J7: 1. below C7. Other impacts (includi,)g than es J-)) �_n tzsr c� of eithe. quantity or type of ever Not expected. D. Is there, or is there likely t(-) }» eon trovers zc latcd t_o potentia) adverse environmental iilrpacts? - " -- There is no public controversy at t})i. s 1=inu� �:11) none J- 19 anticipated. PART III A negative determination of recommended. The site is removed and site capacity is adequate .for the following: a. Approval of the septic Health Department, b. Compliance of bui]_di-z)g codes and regulations nThe ntri si_(.tn.i_fi_(7ar)c0 is froi)I rnsi�lent:i a.l 1�.rope.r.ti_e , the proposed use, subject to =ysteJn bj� rC310va.tion 'Yomp);:i_ns County 4,�1.t1) a.1 ] p rti.neni. c. Installation of fencing and driveway improvements, substantially as shown on the plan presented, to the satisfaction of the Town Building Inspector. Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Boar(] of APpeals Reviewer: Susan C. Beener_s, Town Planner �" l Review Date: May 28, 1987 �1��T"� I ! 4 Waldorf School of the Finger_lakes 54 Gundexman.Road . P.O. Box 4551 Ithaca, NY 3-4850 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 126 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Sirs, May 19, 1987 In reviewing our initial zoning packet we fee)_ it is important for you to know score of the history of our school; its current status; our governing body, and our involvement in the Ithaca catrnunity. Waldorf schools were started in the 1920's by Rudolph Steiner. Currently there are over 400 Waldorf schools in 160 countries. There are seven in New York State alone. Our school, started by involved parents in 1982, now serves over sixty children in grades kindergarten through seventh. These students represent forty-eight families, many of whom moved to the Ithaca area because of the Waldorf School, The Waldorf School of the Fingerlakes is chartered by the New York State Department of Education and sponsored by the Association of North American Waldorf Schools. We are a non-profit organization governed by a Board of Directors composed of parents, teachers and community members. In the past five years our school.has provided workshops, lectures, study groups, and holiday faires for the general Ithaca community. We are currently providing jobs for fifteen _Tompki_ns County residents and expect this figure to increase in our 87-88' school year. We have become an established institution in the Ithaca cc munity and are excited about the prospect of acquiring a permenant facility. Our two current sites; Cayuga Heights School and the Danby School are no longer available to us. The Building Committee has searched for the past year for adequate rental property and found there is a shortage of available sites suitable to house a school. We feel the Inlet Valley School site is the best opportunity for the future of our school. Please consider our plans with this in mind. Sincerely, Yvonne Fogarty Development Coordinator Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes ,h TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I. Jean H. Swartwood, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of .Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, that the following Notice has been duly posted on the Sign, Board of the Town 'Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local. newspaper, The Ithaca Journal, Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the To -vin of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca., New York on Wednesday, June 24., 1987 comnencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Postings Located at front entrance of Town Hall; outside of front door of Town Hall, outside door of Town Hall meeting room. Date of Posting 0 June 16, 1987 Date of Publication: June 19, 1987 'Town of Ithaca STATE OF NE-ini YORK } COUNTY OF TOMPKINS } SS,: Sworn to and subscribed before me this June , 19 87 Notary Public 20th .day of -It The Ithaca JournaV Friday; June 19, 1987 TOWP4. OF rtliACA ZONING,. BOARD::0174 APPEALS, NOTICES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY,JUNE 24, 1087/ 7:00 R.M. Bdirection af'sho- Chairmen. of the'. Zoning Bcard of Ate' peals; NOTICE IS HEREB S GIVEN- -1hct..Public Hernim will tie, hcfd bo the-.Zoiiin% Boor& of'Ap9cc(s of the Tor+ of Ithaca an WrdnesdJune, 24, 19S,ii f n Hatt 126p East. $eneca: Stre (FIRS' May 13;. F. cer aenymg oucc�rg-rte o to rebuild o non-confo=..irg barn destroyed tr;_fire u-_ d -to build increased=storvice=-ondl sales area,-ot-lndiom Creek Form,: located c 'fi4?S Tru -I mansburg Road, Town_-of-Itho- co 'Tax- Parcel No. 6-24-1-i 25.21, Residence District -.R15.'; Permits are denied under Arti cle XII, Sections. 54^cnd:56, o� the Town of. Ithaca Zoning -Or- dinance, whereby' -no- non-' conform ing'buildino-lor-use-I. shall be extended -except as authorized by --the - Zoning ; Board of -Appeals, and; , whereby substantial =restoro-•' tion of a building damaged by fire may.take place withinsix months 'provided -such dom-- age constitutes on -amount less than -75% of the replacement I cost of such -building, and i whereby such time -limit may, be extended by the Zoning -Board-of Appeals in -cases of practicoL-difficulty-or unneces- sary hardship:' APPEAL of. James C. 'Rogan, Appellant, from -the--decision of the Building Inspector/Zon- ing Enforcement Off icer -deny- ing -o Building. Permit for the !. constrvc ion -of -one additional i building; 2;048 square>feet_in l size,-wieira-northside yard of 10 feet -1 =widthmonc[=Lnorvh buffer area for a:Gty'a' Ithaca residence area=less_than_50 -feet in -width- of"Rggon's Cor- -ners" 825-Dcmby-Road,-Town of Ithoco-Tax'Parcels No. 6-40- 4-2, -5, and -8, Business Dis- trict "A",-to-be:used as a loun- dromot, 1,024 square feet in size, and a- pizza/sandwich delivery- service - with seating for 19 people, 1.024 square j feet -in -size -Permit is denied under Article "VII, Section 32, - of the Town- of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, whereby a loun- i dromot and restaurant are not specified -uses in Business Dis- trict "A"; Article VII, Section' 37, Paragraph 2, of said Ordi- nance, .whereby -a side yard of 20 feet is required; and Article VII, Section 38, 'Paragraph 5, of said Ordinance, whereby no structure may be placed nearer than 50 feet from any residence district. APPEAL of Herbert N.` R9onke- meyer; Arpp�flont, And eo B. Coby, . Schoot Adrnirt'rstrotor, Agent/Applicant, from.thede cision.of. the ,Buildinc.Jnsnec-; .. tor/Zot?ing Enforcement Offi-' -cer denying p�rrnision for c2 Schod,Use, pursuant to Article- V, Seciion 18, Paragraph 4x'69 the Toren, of Ithoca Laninq,Wjy dinanca; vrhercby cpprovaiL the Board of Appecla istr!a quired; foo the cperafiv! ai.na the Montessori Eleracai ,., and Secondary School of-lt r, co, proposed. to be.loccomd!o:IF East King Road, Residence Dis- trict R-30,, on`e two-oae plu : -or- minus -portio: of -Town of- Ithoca: Tox Parcel No., 6-43,1 3.2 (46.96 acres). Permission is further 'denied: under - Article- V, Section -18, Paragraph 16, of soid.Ordincnce, whereby no building - or structure may exceed 30 feet in height; op- plicant is propc;ing a school building with a, -Tower 43 feet in height._: APPEAL of Richardf Bercgren, Appellant, Matthew Engelhart and Richard, Kinner; Agent- s/Appliconts,n fromthe deci- sion of the Building Inspec-. for/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission for a School Use; pursuant to Arti- cle V, Section 18, Paragraph 4, of the Jown of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, whereby approval of the Board of Appeals is re- Tuired, for the operation of e Waldorf School of the Fin- ger Lakes, proposed to be lo- cated in the former Inlet Val- ley School -building at 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2-15, (.54 acres, approximately), Resi- dence District P.-30. Permission is further denied under Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 21, of said Ordinance, whereby c side yard of not less than 40 feet in width is required, an. under Article V, Section.23, Paragraph 1, whereby... the minimum lot area requited is 30,000 square feet. Said.Zoning-Boord of Appeals will at said time, 7:00 .m., and said place, hear all per- sons -in support of such movers or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person.. Andrew S. Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer lawn of Ithaca. 273-1747 June 19, 1.987 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1986 7:00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals ot !.the.:Town: o.f�.I;thaca,.uon.rWedne.sday-, ..December: 10., :_1,986 ,_ ..in._.Town:;-Hall,:-. 126 .East::.!. Seneca Streer_ t",`- (FIRST 7F`l-oor,t= ` REAR En'tanc'e,= WEST Side),,, Ithaca,'.`N.Yi',` • COMMENCTNG AT 7:00, P.M., on the following matters: ADJOURNED APPEAL (from September 10, October 15, and November 12, 1986) of _...-__ 1ark._ Inspector/Zoning _ Stevens-,,- Appellant, Enforcement from the decision of- Officer denying a Certificate the-- -Building of Compliance for Tax been Certificate Section a. single family dwelling Parcel No. 6-36-2-4.2, constructed with is denied 76, of the Town located at 118 Compton Road, Residence District R30, said an east side yard of less under Article V, Section 21,. and of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Town of Ithaca dwelling having than 40 feet. Article XIV, APPEAL of Richard F. and Ann Pendleton, Appellants, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Building Permit for the construction of a garage, the northeast corner of which is proposed to be 8.5 feet from the east side lot line, 10 feet being --- re:guire:d-; _._-at._ 32.6_. Fore-st _Home Drive; Town .__:of Ithaca TUx Par.cel...-.No...-_ 6-66-3-7.1, Residence District R-15. Permit is denied under Article --- -:I V- - Se:ction ::L4 -----and-.Article. _-XIV. -Section.-_-7=5. - of=_ithe... Town .:of__.1Ithaca__ Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Richard and -Betty Jane Berggren, Appellants, John Lyon Paul and Katherine J. Gottschalk, Agents, from the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission to operate a sculpture studio and a second studio or shop for similar or related occupation at the old Inlet Valley School, 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of--- Ithaca f--Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2-15, Residence District R-30. Permission is denied under.-,Article__.XII, Sections 5.3. and, .54.,_. of_._the. Town of _Ithaca....__ Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Robert G. and Theresa L. Berggren, Appellants, from the decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Building Permit for the construction of a residence on a 7.95+ acre lot located at 124 Compton Road, said. 7.195+ acre lot having 60 feet of frontage along a Town road (Compton Road), 150 feet being required, and with such - - proposed-_resi-den-ce- having- a front yard -not --on a Town road, -said -7.-9:5+: acre lot being a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-36-2-4.2, Residence District R-30. Permit is -denied. under Article V, Sections 21. and 23, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Tonin of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Urbain J. and Susan DeWinter, Appellants, from the decision of.the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer, denying a. Certificate of _ -family r.es.idence_._._one_.._dwel.l.ing unit-__hay.ing.....b.e.en -.for_ constructed without a permit to build, at 163 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.' 6-57-1-8.9, Residence District R-15. Permit is denied under Article XIV, Sections 75 and 76, 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. Dated: December 2, 1986 Publish: December 5, 1986 Andrew Frost Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 3 the usual 1.0 feet, the, southeast corner to remain at 10 ,f eet Edward Austen seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Aye - Aron, Reuning, King, Austen Nay - None '. 'The motion was carried. The next item.on the agenda was as follows° APPEAL of Richard and Betty Jane Berggren, Appellants, John Lyon Paul and Katherine, J, Gottschalk, Agents, from the decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission to operate a sculpture studio and a second studio or -shop for similar or related occupation at the old Inlet Valley School, 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2-15, Residence District R-30. Permission is denied under Article XII, Sections 53 and 54, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Chairman Aron stated that there was an environmental assessment form before the Board and declared the Zoning Board of Appeals as the lead agency in this matter. Chairman Aron read numbers 1 through 6 from the application of John Lyon Paul, a copy of which application is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Laura Holmberg, attorney for John Lyon Paul, addressed the Board. She pointed out that 25 years ago Mr. Berggren did have a variance.for a medical laboratory in his building. She said that it is an old and unique building and difficult to rent for residential use. She went on to say that there does not seem to be any reasonable use for the property unless the building is destroyed at least within the context of residential use or the kinds of use that are permissible. Mrs. Holmberg stated that she felt that having a sculpture studio there would not be a detriment to the neighborhood since the basic character of the neighborhood is varied. with the closeness of Route 13 and the developments there. She continued that she had spoken with Jim Warren, realtor, and he stated that in all the time that he had the property on the market which was a couple of years that he had never had an inquiry for this property as a residential development. Edward King inquired as to the character_ of the property to the north. Mrs. Holmberg, responded that it was vacant land designated as wetlands. i3 Ms. Beeners referred to a map and informed the Board as to the location of the property which showed that it was down in a hole. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Paul to tell the Board about his proposed studio. .� Mr. Paul stated that he was A sculptor and made, one piece at a time, mostly wood carvings and sometimes metal combined with wood carvings, and stone carvings.. He went on to state that he does not hire anyone to work for him and he did not intend to have sales. on the location. Mr. Paul said that most of his pieces are large and are sold through galleries. Mr. Paul stated that although some people might come to se.e his work at the studio it is not a sales place. Mr. Paul further stated that he would use some power tools inside the building so there would be no noise pollution and no air or water pollution as a result. Chairman -Aron asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak on the matter. No one appeared and the public hearing was clot --ed. Joan Reuning inquired if there would be any living quarters on the premises and Mr. Paul responded that there the would not be very similar to be. Mr. King inquired if he would be using just the level and Mr. Paul responded that he would be working basement and the ground floor level. Mr. Paul said there were 4500 square feet in the building he would ground floor both in the that because like to have another artist use part of the building as a rental but the operation would be very similar to his operation. Mr. Austen inquired of Mr. Berggren what the property was used for now and Mr. Berggren responded that it was used as a warehouse and had been used as such for basically the last twenty-five years. Mr. Berggren continued that he had tried to interest several schools in locating there but after the schools investigated the premises they found it unsuitable. Ms. Beeners then referred again to the map of the property and discussed the neighboring properties, and concurred with the statement as to the isolation of the property from other residential areas and also the compatibility of this property as requested with a number of different land uses in the area. Ms. Beeners further stated that in the environmental assessment form she had made a recommendation for a negative determination conditional upon.the approval of any significant changes in use or in the site being approved by the appropriate Town boards. As the environmental assessment form, a motion was made. by Joan Reuning as follows. 5 RESOLVED, that this Board declare a negative determination as to this appeal as to the environmental assessment, conditional upon the proposed second operation in the building not being substantially different from the artist studio as proposed herein, without retail sales, without the hiring of additional employees, and without any living accommodations. i Edward King seconded the.motion, The voting was as follows: Aye - Aron, Reuning, Austen, King Nay - None The motion was carried. The use variance on this matter was then discussed. Chairman Aron read from the "Minutes of Meeting of Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca,. July 24, 1961, Richard Berggren, Applicant." A copy of said minutes is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. A letter from G. Armbruster of 850 Five Mile Drive, Ithaca, New York, was then read. by Chairman Aron, stating that he thought the proposed use would be detrimental to the neighborhood. A copy of said letter_ is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Ms. Beeners stated that the subject property is 600 to 800 feet away from the Armbruster property and that the area is not predominantly residential. Joan Reuning felt that this would be a good use for this property since it was.a charming old building. It was felt by Attorney. Barney that there should be some provisions in any motion made as to outdoor displays, outdoor activities, etc. After further discussion, it was moved by Edward King as follows: WHEREAS, this Board finds that this property is uniquely situated being removed from residential properties and close to a mixed zone with light industrial and commercial businesses, and WHEREAS, this property is a +00 year old former schoolhouse not readily adaptable to present requirements fo r educational purposes, and apparently i_s without demand for residential use, and the property presents substantial on difficulties in putting it to any use other than a storage warehouse; and WHEREAS, the proposed use of one. or two studios to operate not as a factory but as an artistic endeavor is probably the only desirable use that can be made of this property; it is RESOLVED, that this Board grant a use variance to permit the proposed use of this property as one or twb artist studios with all work to be conducted inside the existing building, and with no enlargement or alteration of the building to occur nor any substantial increase in the activity over that proposed in the application to be engaged in without further approval, that no goods or products are publicly displayed or advertised for sale without special approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; that there be no outside storage, and that no noise, dust, disorder, or objectional odor is experienced beyond the.immediate property where such use is conducted. Joan Reuning seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Aye - Reuning, Aron, Austen, King Nay - None The motion was carried. The next item on the agenda was as follows: APPEAL of Robert G. and Theresa L. Berggren, Appellants, from a decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Building Permit for the construction of a residence on a 7.95+ acre lot located at 124 Compton Road, said 7.95+ acre lot having 60 feet of frontage along a Town road (Compton Road), 150 feet being required, and with such proposed residence having a front yard not on a Town road, said 7.95+ acre lot being a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-36-2-4.2, Residence District R-30. Permit is denied under Article V, Sections 21 and 23, and Article. XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca.Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Robert G. Berggren addressed the Board. Mr. Berggren felt that nowhere in the zoning ordinance does it say that any more frontage than 15 feet is necessary for a building permit to be issued. He also stated that in his interpretation the Town of Ithaca law does not specify any determining road frontage and therefore he felt he did not need a variance in this case. Mr. Berggren presented copies of the zoning ordinance sections which were the basis for his denial. Mr. Frost interjected at this point that the left side of the document was from the zoning TOWN, OF I THACA 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 A P P E A L to the. Building Inspector and Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York ;4 fl FEE: $10:..00 RECEIVED. CASH CHECK ZONING: /l.30 For Office Use Only Having been denied permission to maintain sculpture studio and a second studio or shop for similar or related occupation. at 855 Five Mile Driver Ithaca,, New York Town of Itbacz. Tax Parcel No. 31-2-15 as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of: Article(s) III & XII Section(s) 4 & 9 and 53 & 54 respectively of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal from such denial and, in support of the appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: 1. The old Inlet Valley School was constructed more than 100 years ago - before zoni and building code restrictions. 2. There have been potential buyers for the property for educational uses permissible under R-9 but the size of the building, the difficulties of bring- ing it up to necessary standards imposed by New York State make it financially impossible. In addition, if the character of the structure is to be.maintained, it cannot be modified to meet present-day educational needs - even if the cost were ignored. 3 _ Tt has not nravPH to ha at+ -rant; to hiivPrc far Thi' location of the lot, the surrounding areas, traffic and noise all militate against residential use. The property is bordered on 2 sides by Routes 13 and 13-A, an abandoned highway and the railroad. Traffic is heavy. Because of the stop sign at the intersection of Route 13A and Route 13, Dated: �� 30, (�($� Signed: the noise is particularly obtrusive. Also, the freight trains pass close by at odd hours. Close by are commercial zones which are developing, but there has been no residential development along Route 13-A adjacent to this parcel. The topography with a steep bank and adjoining a+ marshy area with nearby commercial use and the noted disadvan- tages of automobile and railroad traffic make residential devel- opment unlikely and impractical. 4. For the particular structure, the cost of rehabilitation for use as a school or other public use would be prohibitive and this is especially true for conversion to residential use. 5. The potential use of the building without extensive renova- tion and rehabilitation is pretty much restricted to small busi- ness use and/or the use proposed by the Buyer to maintain a sculpture studio with additional space for another artisan or small business, i.e. wood working or similar activity. 6. The proposed use would not create pollution or nuisance noise, would not increase traffic. There are no adjoining resi- dences and across Route 13-A the zoning is for light industrial development. A4 ilia uA,4 I Jo?,, a& em ^1-u 30 l3' s20 F 9 5 `13' FLpUQ ADD S�FTCK Or: OLD )NI.FT V?rL Z(l SChooL t LDq $5S t v E n1 ILE ORI VE 01 - i ` to 1 16 f VOv. ` ey d. ID ,r bw. - ��► do a - It ,` Ir -b/ • ` M to 'X =Nj lb 0 it r51 it— r �r S :. d � � � '; �� ` `i � " OCA' •��-- iV. 0 .. � - - Qr/' ir %. �a a� - ti 40 .4c & _orri xx l'a_ b - / - %„' t / h ,r. /.. r a _ _ oopo Toor CoQ ob0000 }e ���� a r NOTICE TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK WE, RICHARD BERGGREN and BETTY JANE BERGGREN of 119 Williams Glen Road, Ithaca, New York, have read Appeal No. 364 dated October 30, 1986 and signed by John Lyon Paul and Katherine J. Gottschalk which requests a variance for the property which we own at 855 Five Mile Drive (the Old Inlet Valley Schoolhouse property) Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 31-2-15 and do hereby authorize that appeal Sworn to before me this ,1yHi"day of October, 1986 Notary blic ` i-1'?y C� 3�S to be made on our behalf. /IiICHARD BERGGR 1Z JeA A, -V1.4 ,. BETTY JANE BERGGREN If G. Armbruster 850 Five Mile Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 December 8, 1985 f` t Town of Ithaca Zoning Board 10100C Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Sirs: I would like to support the decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer denying use of the old Inlet Valley School as a studio and/or shop. As the nearest neighbor to the school, I believe this use would be detrimental to the residential nature of the neigh- bcrhood. The recent zoning change for the area indicated a strong interest in keeping the residential use possible. I am hopeful that the zoning board will support the decision of the building inspector. Sincerely yours, G. Armbruster. 14-164 (12.85)—Text 12 ,4: 617.20 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT For UNUSTED ACTIONS Only PROJECT I.D. NUMBER FORM FART I Project Information (To be. completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1.. Applicantlsponsor 2. Project Name OLD li4LCr VALLC%&A 544JCf7)L_ Jetih L 4tww' +a ShLc s hc.e 3..Project location: S65 RUE in Icr D)Z I VC Municipality -tb4r-J of. XTIiAe-A- County Tz Iytpk�JN S 4. Is prrror. IRIRacdor�t New ❑ Expansion ModifieationJalteration a; (Z�x r 5 iktn AA" S. Describe project briefly: ` f 1G. C1IlQW (J'i2 C$� T7 " l�r�^� � �tf�5�14 VV- C � JIB 10 Lit/Y �SpL.c-e5 .SOCA -0 6. Precise location (road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc or provide map) 'I c c. NmG�cl wt�yp • SSSS t=F v -c /ht Ie > , ,� 1 a, M �tG� r ti ",e, yi I u e M/lc D4..e, a62w,� J-Q`(-� 20- 13 7. Amount of land affected: Initially Sy6 t acres Ultimately acres 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use rest, istions? I ❑ Yes No If No, describe briefly fleT Zt 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project? rrp�tI 13 Residential ® Industrial ® Commercial ❑ Agriculture lCt Parkland/open spate ❑ Other Describe. i,tjlA-� Q-3c) 3a N 10. Does action involve a permitiapproval, or funding, now or ultimately, from any other governmental agency (Federal• state or local)? ❑ Yes No If yes, list agency(s) and permitlapprovals 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid.permit or approval? ❑ Yes No If yes• list agency name and permitlapprova) type 12. As result of proposed action will existing permitlapproval require modification? ❑ Yes No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PRO='11ED ABOVE 15 TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicarit/sporsor JOht, L' P(t,,1 narpe: ,j Date: n Signature o^-�,i( It the action Is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 PART 11 Environmental Assessment (To be completed by Agency) A. Does action exceed anv Tvpe I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Par; 617.12{ If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF ❑ Yes ® No a Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.7? If No. a negative declaration may be superceded by another involved action. ® Yes ❑ No New York State Department of Environmental Conservation C. Could action result in ANY adverse effects on, to, or arising from the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, (Answers may be handwritten, tf legible) q ry, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid was drainage or flooding problems? Explain brite production or disposal, potential for erosion, efly: Not expected. Site access is adequate. No significant site alterations are proposed, but any agnificant future site or use changes should be subject to review by the Town of Ithaca. CZ Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historiS or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly Not expected. The proposal represents the conservation of a historic building and is compatible with the mixed land use character of the neighborhood. C3. Vegetation or fauna, movement of fish or wildlife species, significant habitats. or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: Not expected, as long as wetlands conservation is practiced and any necessary approvals are granted by involved agencies. C4. A communitys existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intemity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly. (A).The proposed use may be one of the most.suitable uses for the yroperty, considering the history.of site uses and its location: (B) The former schoolhouse site was recently rezoned from R9 to R30, in which.respect the. lot is in legal non-conformance. Any curre CS. Crowth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induppaa�}}++ defic encieS are Of n0 Slgnlf Kant 1rrlpaC tM by the proposed action? Explain briefly. Not expected. No exterior construction is planned. No significant impact on adjacent land uses is expected. C6. Secondary, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C6? Explain briefly. lbt expected, Area development in this area has been moderate and any future development would be subject to site.plan or other review. The granting of the variances requested, foE7 aAghange n usae cf JRd�pau..rcel, is appropriate. q tY of type of energy? Explain briefly. Nit expected. PART 111 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; (e) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. ❑ 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 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: A negative determination is recommended conditional on.the approval of any signif:i.cant changes in use or in the site are approved by the appropriate Town boards. Town of Agency Name Appeals Prepares sign Ithaca Zoning Board of JVJ Agej�ncy�Prre(pfarre/s Name Date 1 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Jean H. Swartwood, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the Sign Board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local. newspaper, The. Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on Wednesday, December 10, 19869 in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street., Ithaca, New York, commencing at 7:OO p.m., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting:Front Entrance of Town Hall, Outside Front Door of Town Hall; Outside Door of Town Hall Meeting Room. Date of Posting: December 2, 1986 Date of Publication: December 5, 1986 Town -of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) S "P COUNTY OF TOMPKINS j Sworn to and subscribed before me this 8th December r 19 86 Wit- .) I` Notary Public Netalc Ncw Yor. - COLI:='y Tcrill day of TOWN OF ITHACA 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 AP P E A L to the Building.Inspector and Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been deni permission to�� r w;1� �I,` rem'►- h�4 11.E bose,�.� s �.c� at r; ve e �P c ; itl t a� -Tr v 1�a�le.�, SeCwo`wwae �P Parcel No. (�2 � D / application and/or plans o` that the issuance of such PE Article(s) the UNDERSIGNS re support of the pp impose PRACTI FEE: $117;r,6 RECEIVEDCASHCHECK - ZONING: For Off ice Use Only cud lye r O f - / O- C?6 Town of Ithaca Tax shown on the accompanying other supporting documents, for the stated reason ,snit would be in iolation of: �S;�rS c�vt �ro"7n.A4 i OCA O. rfxm).Jr� Secti n(s) 4- haca o ing ODnceof !tt� is ppealenial and, in tri obsery Ordinance would UNNE ARY follows: CQ ).kar a�,e Ci bWl I� Cie J . 1 Sy �c:�1C. C"eSQTICP�}'5 _ I l 1�6t- �C W %?v Kl' 4: a-( o to 15 ►c,N r c e n to ed: a)6&eA(- 23 Signed: M (�� CL AT a meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town Of Ithaca , County of Tomp - kins , State of New York , held in the Town Highway Building in the City of Ithaca on August 20 , ' 1962 ._ ., , PRESENT : David 'F.. , Powers,` ' Chairman C:onstance E . Cook Robert N . Powers William B . Norton William S . Scott , Jr . In the Matter of the Application of ORDER RICHARD BERGGREN DENYING VARIANCE To vary the requirements of the Zon- : ing Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca : with respect to the premises at the : corner of Five Mile Drive and Elmira : Road , Ithaca , New York , ; An: -- application in the above matter for a variance of the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance having been presented by RICHARD BERGGREN , relating to the premises at the corner of Five Mile Drive and Elmira Road , Ithaca , New York , to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Ithaca and hearings by said board having been duly held after published notice at the place stated above on August 13 and 20 , 1962 ; and consideration having been given to the promotion of the health , safety , morals , and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca ; and it having been resolved and determined following such hearings that there are no practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the said ordinance and public safety and welfare does not become secured and a need for the use in question does not exist and the convenience of the community would not be served and neighboring persons and property would be ad - versely affected and substantial justice would be done by the entry of this order , it is hereby ORDERED that the variance applied for with respect to the said application be denied , David F . Powers , Chairman Dated :. Ithaca, New , York August 20 , 1962 . GEO Clerk WdS City Clerk . I 4 �� n July 27, 31 , August 3 FOR �^ 1 J TOWN OF ITHACA 1 { Vle Notice of Public Hearing SG r� Vith Zoniv wEoard^gif Appeals !h`�` lBy tdirection wbf the Chairman of the I e 1 4c= in Zoning Board oc Appeals notice is here- V t �--- by given that a public hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals he under the Zoning Ordinance of the Town , ,�^•� �p ' �p �- of Ithaca on the 17th day of ' August, FVp1A Ji Appeal of R . Bergeren , Appellan 'tor 1962, at 7 : 30 p.m . on the folhving matter : � • t I11fI1 from the decision of the Zoning Officer evf tileS denying permission for change in use Is NEW YORK lerSand conversion of building ( former Inlet it. Valley School ) at corner of 5 Mi. Drive & Elmira Rd. ' Permit is denied by the Zoning Officer under Art. III Sect. 4 & 5 goi ese of the Zoning Ordinance. a A qy E! L1 Said Board of Appeals will at said t'A &- A tune, and place hear all persons in sup- IOW port of such matters or objections there- pr! � ��� to. Persons may appear by agent or in , sti the persons. wo be Dated July 27, 1962. - it. ces R. J. WELLS Building Qi�IDStiisoioner JJ Zoning Officer IOSe July 31. � 7 OP; r�r} d the Board of Zon9xW_4_4j l ® of the Town of lthacap New York Having been denied permission to V J'Q ,a speO 00041aiV X04 , N�2. �1 6) i 1 f � r�/ � AT sal ,rrh /3 _ ,4__ __ Itbacsa N9X' a as shown on the ao ompanyin.g Application and/ or plaze or other supporting dooumentst for the stated reason the.t the issuance of such pox mi't would be in violation of rl eGt . un ( r ) NON of -the To %ui of Ithaca :coning Ordinance the UNDE:fZ3Tf RED respectfully submits this appeal from such denial andp Iq support of the appeal , affirms that strict obq- ervanee of the Gr° dinar oo w; olkAldt 9. rrlp osp PkACTIVICAL Dlx ' f"I17 :f:11TIM A and/or Ux2hnE : cAR1 .r 1 aE l' as ic1lwe b �., ' ^ / yes ► e � /Ia4 ... .w .M... .....�.., 6igned Dated ® Tthaoaq Nee * ;� rr/v id / 1 1 AT a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York held in the Tompkins County Court House in the .City of Ithaca on June 1, 19600 Present : •ryT William Rolston, Chairman rte , Constance E . Cook Aldus Fogelsanger David Powers Robert Powers In the Matter of the Application ORDER of : "6 ' ' .DENYING SPECIAL AMERICAN LEGION POST 0 APPROVAL . To vary the require' ments of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca , An application in the above matter for special approval having been presented by AMERICAN LEGION POST # 221, relating to premises at the Inlet Valley School to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca and a hearing by the said board having been duly held at the time and place stated above, after published notice ; and consideration having been given to the promotion of the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the com_rn unity in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance of the Town of Ithaca ; and it having bden resolved and determined following such hearing that there are no practical diff - iculties or unnecessary hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the said ordinance and public safety and welfare does not become secured and a need for the use in question does not exist and the conven - ience of the community would not be served and neighboring persons and property would be adversely affected and substantial justice would SEA be done by the entry of this order, be it hereby O R D E RE D that the special approval applied for with respect to the said application be denied . CS J.0t co. Constance 6 Dated : Ithaca, New York Secretary June 1, 1960 VIr : . P Legal ,Notice to : . `t't3�d C?a�' IT J�eCx� , . '. 2110RTNC. BOARD Off , �1P�'�;ALS BW dire 'ction: of : athe Chair'ann of .the ; 1onin`g Board : of s Appeals h© t � ce is . hereby. given t Cat.` a '. p,ublie he'afthg Will be held `b;y� the 6oni -Board of Appeals Under ' then zoning - Ordinance of the ° T6vvm :of IthFa cdx sin - the : 1,�? t day o � June L , . / 1360 at 7 p .30 . i� oP11 . in the S'upervisoro.. . Rooms - of the - County Court Houselin . the City of Ithaca ,' New York on the follows T matter . Appeal of fimer�. cUi ,3Leg' on I'.c� e � 2 � 1e xnao � .: < m�Pp �lent & frost the decision of -the :Zoning Officer : denying . persm _ e,sion for d 1 the conversion . and the . changing - of use a ;f'- the : prod erty on : VVC41sEOA ,. ; • . 'iae Ville Drive , now known the . Inlet. Valley - ehool. t © ' that of . Aiiierican Legion ' ClUbho•use ' . Perm�. t i €� denl. ed by the �o -� e Zoning Officer -under• Section ' 4 , ' .sub-section , % of the Zoni.n 0rdanancea R , . Said Board . of A hear� lyyj, T. ,B �GR pBealr • trill a , ssadite . arid " place all persons i upport. -of , €such . matters .ar ._ objections ,thereto . 4 „S�—loeef Persons may apppax by ' agent or, ln . ' persono .� Robert J . `'ells ,. Zoning . Officer /� 3 , ° • Ha 23 - 1960 ' _ down of . Ithaca f 0 . . It • ' : ' . . -” 33• •X� '�Y d! # � ,� � �` � � # 4k il'i iF dF il• •#F 'lE 3P it i!r t? iF I ._ ,_ ' * ,. : . r, .. - .- e - APPEAL to the BUILDING COMMISSIONER and the BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA , NEW YORK Having been denied a Permit to . . . To . . . convert . . .and. . . change . . .use . . .of. . . .property. . . .ab.out to. . . be. . . abanddoned. . . as . . . a. . . school .t. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . at. . th . . . lm raRoad & Fie Mile Drive eintersection. . . of . E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ithaca, New York as shown on the accompanying Application, Plans and/or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such Permit would be in violation of Section4 . . .= . . .Sub. . . . . . .1.5 - - o . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this APPEAL from such denial and, in support of the Appeal, affirms that stria observance of the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS* as follows : This Inlet . Valley School will be sold at public auction , and i.n. . . .-the . . . b.eat . . iate. reet . . . .Q the. . . .SchQ .QI . . . J? a, st.r. i , . . the . . . . . . . . . . . and the Town it is desirable that there be as many bidders as pDasible. ,.ADplicant . . . can. . .use. . . .property. ._ . only. . . .as . . .a . . .alub . . .hous.e. , . . . .and. . . must know prior to the auction if such use will be permitted . Applicant . . . f urther. . . . respectfully . . .submits . . . that . . .in . . .Gr.a.nting. . . .this. . . . . . special use , the Board will see that such use is consistent in acc .ordance . . . with. . . section . . .?.' . . .rn . . S.ub . . . arnf ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AMERICAN LEGION POST 221 , Inc . Signe , . , . . . . . . . . . ,, OF . NEWRK . . . . . . . . Dated, Ithaca, N. Y., May . . . . . . 18 ,. . . . . 19.50 . . . . . . . . . . . y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , * The Law provides that: "Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of any such ordinance, the Board of Appeals shall have the power . . . to vary or modify- the application of . . .. such ordinance . . . so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done." 1 � <� TOWN OF ITHACA APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT r - , Fee : Application Date --- ---- - - -- ---- ------- - --- ------ $2 .50 - Main Building or Extension Permit Number --- _ _ __ _ - -- _ --- - - - - --_ __-- - -__ __ 1 .00 - Accessory Building Date ___ __ --- --- --_- --- ---- -------- -- Make checks payable to Town of Ithaca Parcel Number -- - --- - -- - ---- - -- - ---- ----_ ----- Return application to - -- - -- - -- --- --- --- - -- - - - - -- --- - -- - -- - - --- - - ---- ----- - -- • --- - '` Zoning District --- ---- - -- - - - ----- ---- Application is hereby made to ( build E], exte�nnd E], convert ?, AN$�'_ AI411&CU_. . _ ..__ __ _ . __ -_ . ❑ ) a structure or use land at�it Ix �5e+ia ._ )4AI- Pl4 _ __ - _ _y*_tAe_4P /e1,#W Town of Ithaca, N. Y. r To. be used for _ _ 1 aPe�C /y emi pey- -----a'X'1V.� �C�iDl�l. j At a cost of Structure is to be completed on or before ----1Y40.1 4?.#Nb_er- - - 15 --Mfr -b0- --- --.- - - - - - - -- - -- ---- 19- -- --- - -- - - -- --- - - - - - - - - -- -- ----Y----- Fpp ,! 1 &.WnTo pne of Ian f - 'lf � lll�- -,���. �C -- -- - �A���lr/9 �..g o.SACAOX' fdl�C r s mailing address ,. �� = 1C. GLC(� � f�•� 1� � l !T. If building is being built for a person other than present land owner, show name - -- - -------------- The structure ( s ) will be as follows : �(Ji AA Square Feet Floor Area : ����Cl�- Type of construction _ ! '�� _ -_5 u _« O&asement _ _ - --- -- -9_ 1 A2.'_._ ??/mss__._ �oO- **._A67 ijg 4e Number of stories - --------- --- ---• - --- - -- --------------- First Floor --- ---- ------- --- ------ --- ----• ------------ Number of Family Units - ----- H.� •------- Second Floor --- ---_'7Ae -- - -- ------ --- - --- ---- -- ---- ---------- - --- ---... --- -------- Percentage of Lot to be occupied Over Second -- - -- - -- - - -- --- --- - -- --- ------ --_ .... ... ._. ....... .............. ...... by all structures ------ - -------- --- --- ---- - - ----- - -- ------ -- -•-- - ------ ------ -. AMP: MAiyge S !`y ou1.SiVIP 5 f Stec it t ofI �`� s :�� �� �p eBoS 'o ?��,le Plot Plan on Back of Permit __ - __ _ _ _ . _ _ _ or Attached -- - -_- -- - -- _ OR 1 i'•� 6 5 � / �I1� The required permits have been obtained as follows : Date Issued FROM TOMPKINS COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT QL A Approval of septic system and/or well . . . . 1��1 FROM TOWN CLERK Street opening ( if road must be opened for pipes ) - - -- - -- -�.� -- -- - -- --- - ------- Blasting permit ( if blasting necessary ) - -- ---y `'e FROM SUPERVISOR WaterTap -- - -- -- - - -- -- - -- - --- -- - - - --- - - - - -- - - -- --- ----- - -- - - - ------ - District . . . - ---- -- s � � - -- --- -- - -------- - ---- - -- - SewerTap -- -- - --- --- - --- -- - -- ---- -- --- - -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- - - - --- --- - District . . . . . . . --- •--- -- --- ----- --- --- - •- ••-•- ------ ------ ---- --- - -- -- --• ------ FROM PROPER HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT .� Culverts and driveways . . . . . ff FROM TOWN ZONING OFFICER Multiple residence permit _ - --- - - - ------ ---- -- -- -. ------ -- - --- -------- - - The Undersigned hereby applies for permission to do the above, in accordance with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and other Laws and Regulations - of the Town of Ithaca, New York, or others having jurisdiction, and affirms that all statements and information given herei are correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Date : - - ----- - - % - - - -- � y/ 2� i natur • o Building permit ( ) approved by - - - --- - -- -- - - -- -- __ __ ____ _ _ � _.- __ . __- _ Pro ress of work. Checked on : ( 0 ) denied under Section of the Zoning Ordinance by _ _ _ . _ . _ Foundation Appeal action : Framing -- -- - - -- -- --- - - - - - -- -- - - -- --- - - - - - -- - --- --- --- --- - -------- Dateof appeal - -- - - - - --- - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - -- - -- - -- --- - -- - - - - -- -- - - -- -- --- -- - -- - -- Trim --- --- --- -------- -- - ---------- ----- ------------ ----------- Date of hearing Completion Dateof advertising -- --- -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - - -- -- - - - - - - --- -- --- --- - - --- - Board members notified Order to refill excavation - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - --- -- - - issued on -- - - - - - - -- - - --- -- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -- --- --- - -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- --- -- - - ----- - -- --- - -- - -- - -- - - - - -- --- - -- -- - --- -- - --- -- --- ----- -• -- - - -- --- --- -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - -- - - - --- -- ---- -- Order to demolish structure -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - ---- -- -- -- - - --- - -- -- - -- - -- --- --- - - - --- issued on ----- --- --- - -- - -- - - -- - - - --- -- -=- --- - -- - -- - -- --- ------- Appeal, advertising expenses. HARRY S. HAMILTON L ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR `AT LAW SAVINGS BANK BUILDING ITHACA, N . Y . May , 18 , .3 1960 Board of Zoning Appeals 132 Forest Home Drive Ithaca , New York Gentlemen • v On Sbeh-alf. , of the American Legion. , Post 221 , Inc . ., Depart - ment of , Ne i , York4„ enclosed , please f nd) ;an, App,eal. to`-- t`h'e Board of Zoning Appeals concerning the school premises situate at the intersection . of.. Elmira . .Road and Five Mile _ Drive , ir . the. Towns cf Ithaca_,, , tog.ether with the `origrial , applic`at on', and my check for $ 5 . 000 Please • n`ot`e- that ` this"`hat'ter was F/first begun by application February 18 , 1960 . Z am informed that the actual auction , may we 11 take place about the middle of, June , and ` the Legion Gorpor �ti on - wi?11 be. ` wn btle - to - submit '�a ' , b 'dl-° unless we have your answer in the affirmative before, the date ;, of the, , sale . _ Alt rz , H` Your prompt attention , to. , this -4natter will be much appreciated . V.ery. tr• my _ yours , n °v on HSH : sj Enclosures U1 - 2 � s ` S I fn o ; HARRY S. HAMILTON ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW SAVINGS BANK BUILDING I, n,� • ITHACA , N . Y . February 18 1960 Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Ithaca ' ' . 132 Forest Honje Drive Ithaca , New York Attention Mr . Robert Wells .- Zoning Officer ._ Dear Mr . viells : Enclosed please find an application—NiA a' bui14'81rig- �po_Tm t N ` which I am filing at this time at the suggestion of Ben , Boynton , together Nwith this• ,l ,t..% E;r, of. `ad:ditiona ; explanation . I am attorney for and Secretary of the Board of Directors of the American Legion Post 221 , Inc . , Department of New York , and as you may perhaps knot- ., we have, . sold our present home at 415 Stewart Avenu�F"� to Cornell University . Our agreement with the university is that we shall vacate the Dremises in November of 1960 , therefore we are looking for o .- her accommodations . I am reliably informed that -the Inlet Valley School at the intersection of Five Mile Drive and the -Elmira Road in the Town of Ithaca may perhaps be for sale after the current school term is completed , and we might be able to use the property if we could purchase it at a reasonable figure . I believe • that the present zoning of this area is residen- tial , but that the new zoning ordinance puts it in an R- 9 district in which privrate clubs would be ' -permitted , complete with a club liquor license , upon appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals . As you also know , -the Board of Education has adopted the Policy of selling these properties at public auction , and you can realize that we Mould not be in any position to bid on the property unless we were assured that we could use it for our corporation club rooms . Therefore , I am requesting in advance a ruling from -the Board of Zoning Appeals on this matter , although our only interest in the property is that of a prospective purchaser . Thank you for your assistance in this matter . Very truly yours , JIILTOi HSH/bj enc ,.. March .: 7 . 196 1Mr . , Aasry S. .' Wmtlton, Attorney Savin a Bank. Building 1 . Ithaca . Few York F s .:Devi ,D+W . Hamilton.' �;. With regards to . our _ g y west of re 18 . con- carning . a- preliminary - ruling from t e Zoning , Board of Appeals ' � as to - whether or not American Legion Post 221 . Incorporated could conduct a club on the prdw.ises of the prey ant Inlet Valley -School should thisy purchase itlat a Later date please `te tadvised that I have outlined this rasatter to the Zoning ward e f• ,Appeals . " The Zoning Board of Appeals , - at the. present_ timeq feels that tney , are not :able. to render this requested assur ance , but - they 'do feel that It is a resonable and logicnl : • request . and that they will bend their best* efforts to ma'ki'ng - their decision on this matter 'in the nest future . ' I `1shall be contacting you as soon as possible : either with - their tbpgh,btb or their. *decision , but in, the , '- meantime , please contact me , if there is any way ' in which may be ofPfurther assistance -to you . , i Robert J: W6,11 +s Zoning , Officer Town of ' Ithaca. .: L .ce ; , U±hL W1. 1liam A . Ralston fr 1 - NEW YORK . yW � Legal Notice TOWN OF ITHACA , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be hold by the Zoning Board of Appeals . under the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca on the 1st day of June , 1950 at 7 . 30 P * Mi in the Supervisors Rooms of the County Court House in the City of Ithaca , New York , on ' the .following matter . Appeal of &Lnae.ri. can Legion Post 221p Inc . , appM nt , from the decision of the Zoning Officer denying peramiss on for the conversion and the ob,ariging of uwe of the property on Five Mile Drive ,ngKwj the Inlet Valley School , to 'that of Ame .ri. can Legion Clubhouse . Permit is denied by the. oning. Officer under Section 4 , sub- section 15 , of the Zoning Ordinance . Said .Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear f all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Robert J . Wells Zoning Officer May 23 , 1960 Town of Ithaca 13 ' wow a ro-04 ;04J Aol: ar i 1 4w /740 � luc t V�k ey hood: '"` voei rty as 4Y.G4 €. . ts3.R' . "�{, :.�;R.ru `F«` °U' . Lot si*n 1101" Ou al lthuft � till Ralvd0nem �s rte : ° �k� '�d f9 . t� .r d: , 3r 4 fi r, q Rh ctk•'i ro tya4`*-d�' to q pplti � � I"n. ouch • .r+ RNM. .6 Y Fi s . F' �� • i I b4y ;L i We , the undersigned , would have no objection to the American Legion purchasing and using the Inlet Valley School property as al Legion Home although the premises are in an R- 9 Residence District requiring special approval of the Board of Appeals for such use , and the existing structure is closer - to lot lines of adjoining owners and highwci than required by the Zoning Ordinance . Signature Interest f H ! e'1,4" CD 01�N ' • 1 i � .. p •. L_ _ _ eta rz — • - _ Ji- �-. 3:-. oar -.�_�� .. ' .. • - v- - �-_ a . � w .Y' ^' ' "•''�1r+ -.W4 Y ten. . C . We -the, undersipnred , would have no objection to the . A ericar� Lesion purchasing andusintg the Inlet Valley School property as a Leion. ioe although the premises are in ;2 - Residence District requiring spec al . approval oval: of ta'' Te Board of Appeals for such use , and the existing. struct ure is closer to lot lines of adjoining ovn?c rs and ' highways than: required by the Zionin.g . ordinance , Signature Interest o a c • r , We , the undersigned , would have no objection to the 4nerican Legion purchasing and using the Inlet Valley School - property as . a Legion Home although the premises are in an . R- q Residence District requiring special approval of the Board of Appeals for such use , and the existing structure is closer to lot lines of adjoining owners and highways than required by the Zoning Ordinance . Signature Interest cS l cswkS f d n i t