HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Special Approval 8/21/1985TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1985
7:00 P.M.
By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS
HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, August 21, 1985, in Town Hall,
126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca,
N.Y., COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M., on the following matters:
APPEAL of Randolph S. Little and JoAnn M. Little, Appellants, George M.
Dentes, Esq., Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector
denying a Certificate of Occupancy for a single family dwelling with
attached carport, in Residence District R15, with an easterly side
yard deficiency of 1.3± feet, at 111 Crest Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6-66-3-25. Certificate is denied under Article IV, Section
14, and Article XIV, Section 76, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance.
APPEAL of Anne M. Caston, Appellant, from the decision of the Building
Inspector denying a Special Permit for the occupancy of a two-family
dwelling, in Residence District R9, by more than three unrelated
persons, at 141 Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
6-54-4-32 (Old Ithaca Land Company Parcels No. 191, 192, and 193),
such Special Permit being applied for pursuant to Article IIIc Section
4, Paragraph 2, Sub -paragraph 2b, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance. Permit is denied under Article III, Section 4, Paragraph
2, Sub -paragraph 2b, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance.
APPEAL of Ivar R. Jonson, Appellant, from the decision of the Building
Inspector denying a Building Permit for the construction of a
two-family dwelling in Residence District R15, with the second
dwelling unit equal in size to the primary dwelling unit (side-by-side
duplex), at 129 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
6-58-2-39.13. Permit is denied under Article IV, Section 11,
Paragraph 2, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance.
(Continued on Page Two)
r oTown of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Notice of Public Hearings
Page Two
APPEAL of James Iacovelli, Appellant, from the decision of the Building
Inspector denying a Building Permit for the construction of a
two-family dwelling, in Residence District R15, with side, yard and
rear yard deficiencies, at 1474 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6-58-2-22.41. Permit is denied under Article IV, Section
14, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance.
APPEAL of James Iacovelli, Appellant, from the decision of the Building
Inspector denying Building Permits for the construction of two,
two-family dwellings, in Residence District R9, each with dwelling
units of
equal size
(up-and-down duplexes,
four bedrooms
in each
unit
of each
structure),
and, denying Special
Permits to
allow
four
unrelated persons to occupy each such unit (a total of eight unrelated
persons in each structure), such Special Permits being applied for
pursuant to Article III, Section 4, Paragraph 2, Sub -paragraph 2b, of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, at 239-241 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Town
of
Ithaca
Tax
Parcels
No.
6-54-5-40
No.
(Old
Ithaca Land Company
Parcels
Company
No. 126
and
127) and
a
portion
of
6-54-5-38
(Old Ithaca Land
Company Parcel No. 129, known also as 103 Maryland Avenue), and, at
146 Kendall
Avenue,
Town of
Ithaca
Tax Parcels
Permits
are denied
No.
6-54-5-10
(Old
Ithaca Land
Company
Parcels
No. 160
and
161)
and
a portion
of
6-54-5-12 (Old Ithaca Land
Company Parcel No. 159,
being a
portion of
a parcel presently known as 148 Kendall Avenue).
Permits
are denied
under Article III, Section
4, Paragraph 2; Article
III,
Section 4,
Paragraph 2, Sub -paragraph 2b, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,
Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7:00 p.m., and said
place,
hear
all persons in
support of such matters or objections thereto.
Persons
may
appear by agent
or in person.
Lewis D. Cartee
Building Inspector
Town of Ithaca
Dated: August 13, 1985
Publish: August 16, 1985
Zoning Board of Appeals 11 August 21, 1985
unit, at 141 Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
6-54-4-32, occupied by as many as three unrelated persons.
Mr. King noted that this house sits in the middle of these three
lots with room on each side. Mrs. Reuning asked Mrs. Caston how many
rooms there are in the house, to which Mrs. Caston replied, twelve,
plus a basement. Mrs. Caston stated that there are five bedrooms.
Mrs. Reuning asked Mrs. Caston how long she had owned this house, to
which Mrs. Caston replied, since 1949. Chairman Aron asked Mrs.
Caston if she were the only one in the house, to which Mrs. Caston
responded, no, adding that they rent the upstairs to three other
people.
Mrs. Joan Reuning SECONDED Mr. King's MOTION.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Aron, Reuning, King.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Caston Appeal duly
closed at 7:35 p.m.
APPEAL OF IVAR R. JONSON, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
TWO-FAMILY DWELLING IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R151 WITH THE SECOND
DWELLING UNIT EQUAL IN SIZE TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT (SIDE-BY-SIDE
DUPLEX), AT 129 HONNESS LANE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO.
6-58-2-39.13. PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11,
PARAGRAPH 2, AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE.
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 7:36 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Chairman
Aron read from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Ivar R.
Jonson under date of August 12, 1985, as follows: "...Having been
denied permission to build a side by side duplex home where the
apartment is more than 500 of the main house at 129 Honness Lane...The
side by side duplex home provides more efficient parking and privacy."
Mr. Jonson was present.
In addition to the Appeal Form as noted by the Chair, the Board
members each had before him/her the following documents.
1. A copy of the Short Environmental Assessment Form [Part I] as
signed and completed by Ivar R. Jonson, under date of August 17,
1985, describing the project as a duplex on Honness Lane on a
100' x_ 200' lot.
Zoning Board of Appeals '12 August 21, 1985
i
i
2. A copy of Parts II and II of the Short EAF as prepared by the
Town Planner, Peter M. Lovi, under date of August 14, 1985, as
follows!
"TOWN OF ITHACA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PART II: Prlject Impacts and Their Magnitudes
RE: Ivar Jolson, Honness Lane, Duplex Variance
_Impacts on Land
1. There may be an adverse environmental impact as a result of
physical changes to the project site. This conclusion is based.
upon the fact that the building to be constructed will be built
on the site of a former farm pond. This pond was drained within
the past year, but to my knowledge, the fill used to regrade the
site was taken from the lot and the site was not surcharged. If
there is a natural spring on the lot, additional drainage pipe
and.pi.ers may be required to prevent floating or settling of the
foundation slab.
MITIGATION: This impact may be mitigated by careful
monitoring of the foundation construction by the Town
Building Inspector and the builder's engineer. If a natural.
spring on the site is suspected, additional drainage work
should be installed to prevent shifting of the foundation.
For this reason, this environmental impact is considered
small and able to be mitigated.
2. There
adverse
upon ar
formati
and ref
Impact on Wa
3. There a
I pr
Townwid
Tompkin
site sh
the fou
the frc
along H
flow tc
natural
ditch <
drainag
re no unusual landforms on the site which would be
y affected by this project. This conclusion is based
examination of a Townwide map.of unique physiographic
ns prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department
rred to as part of our Town Comprehensive Plan.
r
,e no protected water bodies which would be affected by
>ject. This conclusion is based upon an examination of a
map of watersheds and surface drainage prepared by the
County Planning Department. The natural drainage on the
Auld be maintained and enhanced so that the possibility of
idation slab floating is minimized. Surface drainage on
.it of the lot will flow naturally to roadside ditches
onness Lane. In the rear of the lot surface drainage will
the open field behind the property and be carried along
drainageways where it will be intercepted by the roadside
long Slaterville Road and carried off in. the regular
system to the Six Mile Creek.
Zoning Board of Appeals 13 August 21, 1985
4. There are no non -protected water bodies which would be affected
asa result of this project. This conclusion is also based upon
an examination of the watersheds and surface drainage map cited
above.
5. This project will have no effect on groundwater quality. This
conclusion is based upon the fact that the building will be
connected to the public water and sanitary sewer system.
6. This project will have no significant.impact on drainage flow and
surface water runoff. This conclusion is based upon the fact
that total impervious surface area of the lot will be 3,300
square feet. Of this total, 2,300 square feet is roof with a
runoff coefficient of 100 percent and 1,000 square feet is paved
driveway with a runoff coefficient 90 percent. This amount of
impervious surface is approximately 16..5 percent of the gross lot
area. The time of concentration is assumed to be 15 minutes.
Assuming a five-year storm of 1.5 inches of rainfall per hour,
the aggregate flow from the site is estimated to be on the order
of .03 ft3/second. This amount can be accommodated by the
existing drainage system.
Impact on Air
7. This project will not have an adverse environmental impact on air
quality. This conclusion is based upon the fact that these new
houses [sic.] will be built to State Code insulation requirements
and, because of modern improvement in home construction, should
be more thermally efficient than the average home in the Town of
Ithaca. This increase in thermal efficiency will reduce demand
for energy use for home heating, with some marginal but
cumulative effect on air quality.
Impact on Plants and Animals
8. There are no known threatened or endangered species of plant or
animal which will be adversely affected by this project. This
conclusion is based on an examination of maps prepared by the
Tompkins County Planning Department describing Game Habitats,
Unique Wildlife Habitats, and Forest Land and Unique Floral
Regions.
9. There will be no adverse environmental impact on non -endangered.
.or non -threatened species of plants and animals. This conclusion
is also based on an examination of maps prepared by the Tompkins
County Planning Department describing, Game Habitats, Unique
Wildlife Habitats, and Forest Land and Unique Floral Regions.
Impact on Visual Resources
10. The. project will have no adverse impact on
other aspects of the neighborhood or community
This conclusion is based upon the fact that
present R15 zoning designation would permit a
views,
visual
in this
one or
vistas, or
character.
area, the
two-family
Zoning Board of Appeals 14 August 21, 1985
home and accessory structures with as much as 4,000 square feet
of total lot coverage to be built on this 20,000 square foot lot.
The structure proposed to be built is less than 60 percent of the
permitted lot coverage.
Impact on Historical Resources
Elm
11. This project will not impact upon any site or structure of
historic, pre -historic or paleontological importance. This
conclusion in based on the fact that the parcel to be built upon
is presently open land and it is unlikely that the land itself
contains any artifacts of pre -historic or paleontological
importance. This judgment is based upon the evidence that a
considerable amount of building and development along Honness
Lanetlo this time has not produced evidence of any
paleontologically significant artifacts.
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
12. This project will have no negative impact on the quality or
quantity of existing and future open spaces or recreational
opportunities in the community. This conclusion is based upon
.,the fact that the 8 -lot subdivision of which this lot was a part
provided for the eventual provision of ±3 acres (roughly 10a of
the gross subdivided acreage) as dedicated open space. The exact
location of this open space will be determined at the time the
remaining land receives final subdivision approval. This space
may be developed in the future as a Town Park or it may be left
as open land.
Impact on Transportation
13. This p
transpoi
that a t
The in
constru<
determir
Impact on EnE
14. This pri
sources
fact thi
if built
have o
communis
-oject will not have an impact on the
tation system. This conclusion is based upon
wo-family dwelling is a permitted use in an R15
:rease in residential traffic associated
tion of individual buildings of this type
ed by the Town Board not to be significant.
existing
the fact
district.
with the
has been
7
>ject will have no significant effect on the community's
of fuel and energy. This conclusion is based upon the
t this house is typical [of) two-family homes which, even
to the most energy-efficient insulation standards, could
ily a marginal, though cumulative, effect on the
yis overall energy use as described above.
)act on Noise
15. There gill be no significant odors, glare, noise, vibration or
electrical disturbances as a result of this project. This
conclusion is based upon the fact that glare, vibration, noise
and electrical disturbances are not associated with residential
Zoning Board of Appeals 15
construction of this type. This
character and quality to existing
throughout the Town.
Impact on Health and Hazards
August 21, 1985
building should be similar in
R15 residential construction
16. This project will have no significant impact on public health and
safety. This conclusion is based upon the fact that the
construction of one and two family houses has been determined by
the Town Board to be a permitted use which will not adversely
affect the public health, safety and welfare. The two [sic.]
buildings will be constructed in conformance with the New York
State Life Safety Code and will be inspected by our Building
Inspector before a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued.
Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
17. This project will have no adverse impact on the growth and
character of the existing community. This conclusion is based
upon the fact that the Zoning Board of Appeals has regularly and
routinely approved variances for the construction of residential
duplexes (See Appendix A attached). The building proposed to be
constructed on Honness Lane is substantially identical to the
buildings permitted in the past.
18. There is no public controversy concerning the project at this
time. This conclusion is based upon comments received by the.
Town of Ithaca .Planning Department as of August 14, 1985. Itis
possible that negative comments may be received prior to, or at
the time of, the Public Hearing on August 21, 1985.
REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATION:
This project is an Unlisted action according to Local Law #3, 1980.
Given the expected impacts which this project appears to have on the
environment, I recommend that a negative declaration of environmental
significance be made.
APPENDIX A
DUPLEX VARIANCES CONSIDERED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
June 30, 1977 Richard Krizek, 134 Poole Road, #26-1-34.4,
(1) duplex approved.
February 27, 1979 Evan Monkemeyer, 1060 Danby Road (118 W. King
Road), #39-1-15, (1) duplex approved.
April 11, 1979 Elizabeth O'Connor, 305 Blackstone Avenue,
#71-1-111 (1) duplex approved.
October 10, 1979 Yuan-Tsung Chen and Y. Tannebaum, 1420
Hanshaw Rd., #70-10-12, (1) duplex approved.
Zoning Board
May 7, 1980
April 6, 198:
May 16, 1984
of Appeals 16 August 21, 1985
Orlando Iacovelli, 362 West King Road,
#35-2-6.1 & 6.3, (1) duplex approved.
Evan Monkemeyer, 1047-53 Danby Road,
#43-1-3.1, (4) duplexes approved.
Kirk Sapa, 621 Elm St. Extension, #29-8-5.1,
(1) duplex considered and adjourned.
.March 20, 1985 Howard Fuller and Ken Ash, 246-250
Pennsylvania Avenue, #54-7-19 & 20, (1) duplex
approved."
Mr . Jor.
entitled "P1i
72'6" x 40'
showing a 60
proposed dri-
which also si
both living
covers 11% c
7 -page set o:
(1) Cape Co
(2) First F
(3 ) Second
(4) Rear E1
(5) Side E1
(6) Footing
(7) Cross S
Cons
Mr. Jon
$150,000.00o
value of hoi
that an apax
apartment is
this sort of
cars as with
have two gar
NDon appeared before the Board and presented a drawing
t Plan" which set forth a proposed two-family dwelling of
on a 100' x 200' lot fronting on. Honness Lane, also
foot "Future Road" perpendicular to Honness Lane, and a
eway off Honness Lane and one off the "future road", and
t forth that "This building covers 2,301 sq.ft. including
and garage spaces on the ground level. This building
this 20,000 sq.ft. lot." Mr. Jonson also presented a
drawings as follows:
Style Duplex Home -- Front Elevation --
oor Plan
loor Plan
vation, Front Elevation
vations
and Foundation Plan
ction - AA (Slab -On -Grade
ruction
(7/85)
Construction), Basement
on
stated that the
market on
this
house
[indicating]
is
Mr.
Jonson stated
that the
house
will
not
decrease
the
:s in the area; it will enhance it. Mr. Jonson stated
:ment is permitted, but this is a side-by-side where the
more than 50% of the main house. Mr. Jonson stated that
plan is better and not so cluttered with driveways and
the other plans. Mr. Jonson noted that this way you can
ges and one is hidden.
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak for oriagainst the Jonson Appeal.
Mr . Dou(
stated that
Lane and he
homeowners r
that of the
cancer, one
from the Bo,
stated that
particular c
that Mr. Jor.
flas Armstrong, 121 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor and
there are 21 homeowners, private residences, on Honness
would like to introduce a Petiton from 17 of those
equesting denial of this Appeal. Mr. Armstrong stated
four not on the list, one is in. the Hospital dying of
_s here tonight, and two have had special interest waivers
ird, however, 17 are requesting denial. Mr. Armstrong
they feel that the request for a waiver for this
ise is only the tip of the iceberg. Mr. Armstrong stated
son is asking for a waiver for a side-by-side duplex. on
Zoning Board of Appeals
17 August 21, 1985
Honness Lane -- for this one lot on Honness Lane, Mr. Armstrong
stated that if a waiver is given for this then a waiver would be
needed for the development that Mr. Jonson is currently surveying in
the same area behind the present lot. Mr. Armstrong stated that they
feel that duplex construction leads to all kinds of problems with two
and three unrelated persons -- probably they would be students -- and
detracts from the residential nature of the neighborhood. Mr.
Armstrong stated that this particular waiver would be used for other
waivers for side-by-side duplexes in the neighborhood.
Chairman Aron read aloud from the Petition presented by Mr.
Armstrong, as follows:
"We, the undersigned homeowners and residents of Honness Lane, request
that the Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals deny a building permit
for the construction of a two-family dwelling in Residence District
R-15 with the second dwelling unit equal in size to the primary
dwelling unit (side by side duplex), at 129 Honness Lane, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2-39.13. Permit should be denied under
Article IV, Section 11, Paragraph 2 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinances."
Chairman Aron read aloud all of the
follows:
Mr. & Mrs. George Nickles, 137 Honness La.
Edgar E. Bredbenner Jr., 141 Honness Lane
Barbara J. Bredbenner, 141 Honness Lane
Leona C. Northrop, 141 Honness Lane
Marie Cario, 143 Honness Lane
Curtis Ufford, 147 Honness Lane
Amanda Ufford, 145 Honness Lane
Paul E. Jones, 150 Honness Lane
Mary G. Jones, 150 Honness Lane
Harry Ellsworth, 152 Honness Lane
Mary Ellsworth, 152 Honness Lane
George Lambrou, 154 Honness Lane
Gus Lambrou, 156 Honness Lane
Arete Brim, 146 Honness Lane
Scott W. Brim, 146 Honness Lane
names on the Petition, as
Herbert Deinert (& Waltraut), 130 Honness Lane
Nelson & Lucella Stillwell, 128 Honness Lane
Nell Mondy, 126 Honness Lane
Marcia &
Chuck Dalkert,
105 Honness Lane
Suzanne
Spitz, 1402
Slaterville Road (corner Honness)
Eleanor
P. May, 1360
Slaterville Road
Richard
S. Archibald,
114 Honness Lane
Douglas
& Lucia Armstrong,
121 Honness Lane
Barbara
Fischer,
118
Honness Lane
Charles
E. Fischer,
118 Honness Lane"
Chairman Aron stated
where Mr. Armstrong had
something from this Board
that he would like to say,
said that probably anybody
for building and wants to
for the
who has
repeat it
record,
gotten
again,
Zoning Board hof Appeals
18 August 21, 1985
that there is no automatic -- that person would have to come back to
this Board just as before. Chairman Aron stated that he would also
like to say that when Mr. Armstrong mentioned students, that bothered
him. Chairman Aron stated that students are people and added that he
can assure you that if the students were not here most of us would not
be here either. Chairman Aron stated that he felt very strongly about
this when we refer to people who are here for higher education.
Mr. Armstrong stated that they have two non -conforming houses in
the neighborhood rented to students so they have experience in this
type of situation.
Mrs. Chris Stratakos, 124 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor and
stated that she just returned from having been away and she would like
to add her name to the list of petitioners just read.
Mr. Jonson stated that he did build four houses up on Pine Tree
Road and all those houses do have an apartment in them. Mr. Jonson
stated that this plan is more attractive and asked if everyone would,
please, lookiat it. Mr. Jonson pointed out that it is permitted to
build a house with an apartment, adding that he could reorganize this
plan [indicating] and build it, however, he wanted it to be more
attractive. Mr. Jonson commented that he is talking about a house in
the $150,000.00 to $160,000.00 range. Mr. Jonson reiterated that he
could redesign his plans and build a house with two units,
one with
three bedrooms and one with two .bedrooms, and it would be perfectly
okay. Mr. Jonson stated that he was not here to take away from the -
neighborhood: Indicating on the plot plan, Mr. Jonson pointed out the
one garage acid the other one hidden so there is not so much clutter of
cars. Mt. Jonson pointed out the 60 -foot right of way to the back
land and commented that this proposal is not cluster housing.
Mr. King asked Mr. Jonson if he had a site plan for the entire
proposed development. Mr. Jonson stated that this is a separate lot
and is not a part of "this" subdivision [indicating the Blatchley land
to the south].
Mr. Armstrong brought up the previously proposed Blatchley plan
for the Board members to see. The tax map was reviewed. There
followed a discussion between Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Jonson.
Discussion also ensued with respect to Mr. Jonson's plan and the
primary unit -- the one with the two -car garage -- and the other unit
-- the one with the one -car garage. Mr. Jonson spoke about the homes
he built onl Pine Tree Road with only one driveway but with an
apartment and pointed out how this plan has two drives and two
garages.
Mr. King asked if there were a house on the next door property.
Mr. Jonson Iresponded that there was, adding that that is Mrs.
Blatchley's property. Mr. King wondered if that were Mrs. Blatchley's
farmhouse, to which Mr. Jonson responded, yes. Mr. Jonson spoke of
the proposed road [indicating] into the Blatchley land behind.
Zoning Board of Appeals 19 August 21, 1985
Chairman Aron asked Mr. Jonson what is wrong with building the
house like the .ones on Pine Tree Road, Mr. Jonson stated that there
was nothing wrong with it, but, this is nicer. Mr. Jonson stated that
this proposal before the ZBA has nothing to do with the back property;
it has to do with this particular lot. Mr. Jonson stated that with
this particular lot he was asking to build a side-by-side instead of
an up-and-down, adding that people should be able to get out of the
basement. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Jonson if he were going to own this
house or sell it. Mr. Jonson stated that, to be honest with the
Chairman, he would like to live in this house himself, but if that
does not work out, he will sell it.
Referring to the house plans, Mr. King asked how far it might be
from the chimney to the next house. Mr. Jonson stated that it would
be about 100 feet to the house itself.
Mrs. Shirley Raffensperger, 139 Pine Tree Road, asked how many
square feet would be in the structure itself. Mr. Jonson responded,
3,000 square feet, adding that the house is 7216" x 40' deep, but that
is covering everything projecting -- the garage, the chimney -- and
that sort of thing.
Mrs. Nancy L. Krook, 113 Pine Tree Road, spoke from the floor and
stated that she lives across from Mr. Jonson's new house. Mrs. Krook
stated that she would like to point out that Mr. Jonson also told them
that he was going to move into the house across from them. Mrs. Krook
stated that she would like the Board to know, also, that all the units
that Mr. Jonson has built before this house, all have wood heat, and
other heating besides. Mrs. Krook stated that when all these families
are burning their wood, the chimneys are so low that the wood
pollution comes into her house and is circulated through her heating
system. Mrs. Krook stated that it is so bad that they go into their
basement to see if their house is on fire. Mrs. Krook stated that
this is a family neighborhood and they have all worked hard with the
School District and to maintain the church -family -atmosphere. Mrs.
Krook stated that they have Commonland; they have Eastern Heights;
they have Eastwood Commons; they have apartments. Mrs. Krook stated
that the neighborhood is going to multiple family, reiterating that
they are going over to transient, multiple, housing. Mrs. Krook
stated that they have about an hour and a half of silence between 3:00
o'clock and 5:00 o'clock in the morning, and that is it. Mrs. Krook
stated that they have motorcycles and constant traffic. Mrs. Krook
stated that they moved there because they have zoning but it is never
enforced.
Chairman Aron stated to Mrs. Krook that he did not agree that the
zoning ordinance is not enforced. Mrs. Krook responded that the Town
is not maintaining the zoning rules when we have, always, more and
more given.
Mr.. Jonson stated that, to begin with, the houses on Pine Tree
Road are heated with electric heat, not wood heat, and further, the
homes do not belong to him so he has no control over how they are
used.
Zoning Board of Appeals 20 August 21, 1985
Mrs. Raffensperger stated that she would like to speak to the
specific request and noted that practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship had not been described by the appellant. Mrs. Raffensperger
stated that she would also like to speak to the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance as to the so-called "50% rule" which has been characterized
as "silly". Mrs. Raffensperger stated that she did not think it is
"silly". Mr's. Raffensperger pointed out that two-family houses are
permitted in all residential areas of the Town and, in order to
control that, the Zoning Ordinance was written such that a second
dwelling unit must be 50% of the primary dwelling unit in order that
the one -family appearance was maintained and, although there could be
practical difficulties, not many apartment units would be built like
the main uinit and it would remain an accessory use. Mrs.
Raffensperger commented that perhaps "50 is not the best way, but
the Town must do this in some way to keep up with the pressure from
other areas where they are tightening their zoning ordinances. Mrs.
Raffensperger stated that the Town Board has been asked to change this
rule and it has not done so.
Mr. Edgar Bredbenner Jr., 141 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor
and, commenting that he also signed the Petition, stated that they are
very much concerned about density, about an increase in the number of
homes, and people, and cars. Mr. Bredbenner stated that they built
there with the idea that they would have some controls, adding that
they like the area.
Mr. Lawrence Rosenberg, 38 Dove Drive, spoke from the floor and
stated that! he thought the issue is not whether the house Is
attractive or not, but whether it is in keeping with the neighborhood.
Mr. Rosenberg l stated that we should stick to the zoning ordinance and
make sure that in this area, or neighborhood, we maintain the single
family dwelling with a basement apartment, adding that this builder
has no problem with that. Mr. Rosenberg stated that he thought there
are other areas where this type of dwelling could be built. Mr.
Rosenberg stated that this area is zoned R15 and we should maintain
that important ordinance.
Mrs. Marcia Dalkert, 105 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor and
stated that her concern is the access road, adding that the area is
noisy and she has been eight years there and with the road there will
be increased density. Mrs. Dalkert stated that she was concerned with
multiple housing, with increased density, and with noise.
Mr. Curjtis Ufford, 147 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor and
stated that he would like to comment that he did build a second house
on Honness Lane at 145 Honness Lane and it would have been nice to
have a duplex and he did consider it, and he brought the matter to Mr.
Fabbroni whop informed him that this was against the zoning ordinance
and so he changed his plans.
Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 8.05 p.m. and asked
Mr. Jonson what the hardship is by not building a side-by-side duplex.
Mr. Jonson stated that there is no hardship to him, adding that he can
build a five -bedroom house with a two-bedroom apartment, or, he can
Zoning Board of Appeals
'21 August 21, 1985
build a four-bedroom house. Mr. Jonson, commenting that he can build
a building there within the zoning law, stated that he can make it
more attractive, or, less attractive with another plan. Chairman Aron
wondered why it would not be as attractive. Mr. Jonson stated that
when he looks at a piece of land he can see what will look best. Mr.
Jonson stated that he thought he had a very attractive plan which will
enhance the neighborhood, adding that he is interested in
neighborhoods also. Chairman Aron commented to Mr. Jonson that
everyone knows he builds very nice homes. Mr. Jonson thanked the
Chairman and stated that he thought he did too, commenting that he had
listened to a lot of opposition about how he -was going to decrease the
value of the neighborhood.
Mr. Edward King stated that, in view of the fact that no
practical difficulties or unnecessary harship had been shown, the
Board of Appeals must DENY the application for this variance, and, he
would SO MOVE.
Mrs. Joan Reuning stated that she would SECOND but, perhaps, the
MOTION should state that all the neighbors were opposed. Mr. King
agreed and stated that he accepted the MOTION as re -stated,
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote,
Aye - Aron, Reuning, King.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously,
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Ivar Jonson Appeal duly
closed at 8:10 p.m.
RECESS
Chairman Aron announced a ten-minute recess.
APPEAL OF JAMES IACOVELLI, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
TWO-FAMILY DWELLING, IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15, WITH SIDE YARD AND
REAR YARD DEFICIENCIES, AT 1474 SLATERVILLE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO. 6-58-2-22.41. PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION
14, AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE.
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 8:20 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted. and published and as noted above. Mr.
Iacovelli and Attorney Edward A. Mazza were present. Chairman Aron
read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by James
Iacovelli under date of August 12, 1985, as follows: "...Having been
denied permission to build a two-family dwelling at 1474 Slaterville
Road...l. The location of the existing foundation is on the best part
of the lot, with respect to views and grading. 2. Since the grade
drops off, a lot of fill would be required to establish grade
TOWN OF ITHACA
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
Having been denied permission to 01f,
WAbg 1 4MTMR i I S Molt
Parcel No. -sSl a2 - 3 q 3
FE$10.00 .
RECEIVED:
CASH
CHECK - O
ZONING:`%S
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(2'
of:
Article(s) Section(s) // �
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,
the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal from such denial and, in
support of the appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Ordinance would
impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows:
R
Dated: ��, Signed:
—1/009
i
TOWN OF ITHACA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PART II: Project Impacts and Their Magnitudes
RE: Ivar Jonson, Honness Lane, Duplex Variance
Impacts on Land
1. There may be an adverse environmental impact as a result of
physical changes to the project site. This conclusion is
based upon the fact that the building to be constructed will
be built on the site of a former farm pond. This pond was
drained within the past year, but to my knowledge, the fill
used to regrade the site was taken from the lot and the site
was not surcharged. If there is a natural spring on the
lot, additional drainage pipe and piers may be required to
prevent floating or settling of the foundation slab.
MITIGATION: This impact may be mitigated by careful
monitoring of the foundation construction by the Town
Building Inspector and the builder's engineer. If a
natural spring on the site is suspected, additional
drainage work should be installed to prevent shifting
of the foundation. For this reason, this environmental
impact is considered small and able to be mitigated.
2. There are no unusual landforms on the site which would be
adversely affected by this project. This conclusion is
based -upon an examination of a Townwide map of unique
physiographic formations prepared by the Tompkins County
Planning Department and referred to as part of our Town
Comprehensive Plan.
Impact on Water
3. There are no protected water bodies which would be affected
by this project. This conclusion is based upon an exami-
nation of a Townwide map of watersheds and surface drainage
prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department. The
natural drainage on the site should be maintained and
enhanced so that the possibility of the foundation slab
floating is minimized. Surface drainage on the front of the
lot will flow naturally to roadside ditches along Honness
Lane. In the rear of the lot surface drainage will flow to
the open field behind the property and be carried along
natural drainageways where it will be intercepted by the
roadside ditch along Slaterville Road and carried off in the
regular drainage system to the Six Mile Creek.
r
4. There are no non -protected water bodies which would be
affected as a result of this project. This conclusion is
also based upon an examination of the watersheds and surface
drainage map cited above.
5. This project will have no effect on groundwater quality.
This conclusion is based upon the fact that the building
will be connected to the public water and sanitary sewer
system.
6. This project will have no significant impact on drainage
flow and surface water runoff. This conclusion is based
upon the fact that total impervious surface area of the lot
will be 3,300 square feet. Of this total, 2,300 square feet
is roof with a runoff coefficient of 100 percent and 1,000
square feet is paved driveway with a runoff coefficient 90
percent. This amount of impervious surface is approximately
16.5 percent of the gross lot area. The time of concen-
tration is assumed to be 15 minutes. Assuming a five-year
storm of 1.5 inches of rainfall per hour, the aggregate flow
from the site is estimated to be on the order of .03
ft3/second. This amount can be accommodated by the existing
drainage system.
Impact on Air
7. This project will not have an adverse environmental impact
on air quality. This conclusion is based upon the fact that
these new houses will be built to State Code insulation
requirements and, because of modern improvement in home
construction, should be more thermally efficient than the
average home in the Town of Ithaca. This increase in
thermal efficiency will reduce demand for energy use for
home heating, with some marginal but cumulative effect on
air quality.
Impact on Plants and Animals
8. There are no known threatened or endangered species of plant
or animal which will be adversely affected by this project.
This conclusion is based on an examination of maps prepared
by the Tompkins County Planning Department describing Game
Habitats, Unique Wildlife Habitats, and Forest Land and
Unique Floral Regions.
9. There will be no adverse environmental impact on
non -endangered or non -threatened species of plants and
animals. This conclusion is also based on an examination of
maps prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department
describing Game Habitats, Unique Wildlife Habitats, and
Forest Land and Unique Floral Regions.
th
Impact on Visual Resources
10. The project will have no adverse impact on views, vistas, or
other aspects of the neighborhood or community visual
character. This conclusion is based upon the fact that in
this area, the present R15 zoning designation would permit a
one or two-family home and accessory structures with as much
as 4,000 square feet of total lot coverage to be built on
this 20,000 square foot lot. The structure proposed to be
built is less than 60 percent of the permitted lot coverage.
Impact on Historical Resources
11. This project will not impact upon any site or structure of
historic, pre -historic or paleontological importance. This
conclusion in based on the fact that the parcel to be built
upon is presently open land and it is unlikely that the land
itself contains any artifacts of pre -historic or paleonto-
logical importance. This judgment is based upon the evi-
dence that a considerable amount of building and development
along Honness Lane to this time has not produced evidence of
any paleontologically significant artifacts.
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
12. This project will have no negative impact on the quality or
quantity of existing and future open spaces or recreational
opportunities in the community. This conclusion is based
upon the fact that the 8 -lot subdivision of which this lot
was a part provided for the eventual provision of ±3 acres
(roughly 10% of the gross subdivided acreage) as dedicated
open space. The exact location of this open space will be
determined at the time the remaining land receives final
subdivision approval. This space may be developed in the
future as a Town Park or it may be left as open land.
Impact on Transportation
13. This project will not have an impact on the existing
transportation system. This conclusion is based upon the
fact that a two-family dwelling is a permitted use in an R15
district. The increase in residential traffic associated
with the construction of individual buildings of this type
has been determined by the Town Board not to be significant.
Impact on Energy
14. This project will have no significant effect on the
community's sources of fuel and energy. This conclusion is
based upon the fact that this house is typical two-family
homes which, even if built to the most energy-efficient
insulation standards, could have only a marginal, though
cumulative, effect on the community's overall energy use as
described above.
Impact on Noise
15. There will be no significant odors, glare, noise, vibration
or electrical disturbances as a result of this project.
This conclusion is based upon the fact that glare, vibra-
tion, noise and electrical disturbances are not associated
with residential construction of this type. This building
should be similar in character and quality to existing R15
residential construction throughout the Town.
Impact on Health and Hazards
16. This project will have no significant impact on public
health and safety. This conclusion is based upon the fact
that the construction of one and two family houses has been
determined by the Town Board to be a permitted use which
will not adversely affect the public health, safety and
welfare. The two buildings will be constructed in confor-
mance with the New York State Life Safety Code and will be
inspected by our Building Inspector before a Certificate of
Occupancy may be issued.
Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
17. This project will have no adverse impact on the growth and
character of the existing community. This conclusion is
based upon the fact that the Zoning Board of Appeals has
regularly and routinely approved variances for the construc-
tion of residential duplexes (See Appendix A attached). The
building proposed to be constructed on Honness Lane is
substantially identical to the buildings permitted in the
past.
18. There is no public controversy concerning the project at
this time. This conclusion is based upon comments received
by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department as of August 14,
1985. It is possible that negative comments may be received
prior to, or at the time of, the Public Hearing on August
21, 1985.
REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATION:
This project is an Unlisted action according to Local
1980. Given the expected impacts which this project
have on the environment, I recommend that a negative
of environmental significance be made.
Reviewer's Name.
Signature:
Lead Agency Chairman:
Signature.
er )14. Lovi, Town /jianner
Law #3,
appears to
declaration
Date : � �.�
Henry Aron, Zoning Board of Appeals
Date:
�e
•
REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATION:
This project is an Unlisted action according to Local
1980. Given the expected impacts which this project
have on the environment, I recommend that a negative
of environmental significance be made.
Reviewer's Name.
Signature:
Lead Agency Chairman:
Signature.
er )14. Lovi, Town /jianner
Law #3,
appears to
declaration
Date : � �.�
Henry Aron, Zoning Board of Appeals
Date:
2;
APPENDIX A
DUPLEX VARIANCES CONSIDERED
BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
June 30, 1977 Richard Krizek, 134 Poole Road, #26-1-34.4,
(1) duplex approved.
February 27, 1979 Evan Monkemeyer, 1060 Danby Road (118 W. King
Road), #39-1-15, (1) duplex approved.
April 11, 1979 Elizabeth O'Connor, 305 Blackstone Avenue,
#71-1-11, (1) duplex approved.
October 10, 1979 Yuan-Tsung
Chen
and
Y.
Tan
nebaum,
1420
Hanshaw Rd.,
#70-10-12,
(1)
duplex
approved.
May 7, 1980 Orlando Iacovelli, 362 West King Road,
#35-2-6.1 & 6.3, (1) duplex approved.
April 6, 1983 Evan Monkemeyer, 1047-53 Danby Road,
#43-1-3.1, (4) duplexes approved.
May 16, 1984 Kirk Sapa, 621 Elm St. Extension, #29-8-5.1,
(1) duplex approved.
March 20, 1985 Howard Fuller and Ken Ash, 246-250
Pennsylvania Avenue, #54-7-19 & 20, (1)
duplex approved.
PROJECT I.D. NUMBER
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS
State Environmental Ouallty Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART I Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor)
1.
Applicant/sponsor
2. Project Name
3.
Project location:
Municipality (, 1 ` County
y
4.
Is proposed action:
New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modification/alteration
5.
Describe project briefly:
6.
Precise location (road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map)
7.
Amount of land affected:
_vsg,�,y
Aa) Lar
Initially acres Ultimately acres
I�
8.
8.
Will Proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions?
Will
❑ No If No, describe briefly
9.
What is present land use in vicinity of project?
19 Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture ❑
Parkland/open space ❑ Other
Describe:
10.
Does action involve apermit/approval, or funding, now or ultimately, from any other governmental agency (Federal, state or local)?
❑ Yes No If yes, list agency(s) and permit/approvafs
11
. Does any aspeck2.tfthe action have a currently valid permit or approval?
❑ Yes No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval type
12.
As result of proposed action will existing permit/approval require modification?
❑ Yes No
CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
/+
Applicant/sponsor name:
Date:
Signature:
If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you. area state agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
OVER
0
PART II Environmental Assessment (l o be completed by Agency)
A. Does action exceed any Type 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL/LONG FORM EAF.
❑ Yes ❑ No
B. Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.7? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another
involved action.
❑ Yes ❑ No
C. Could action result in ANY adverse effects on, to, or arising from the following: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible)
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 probleims? Explain briefly:
C2. Historic, archeological, visual or aesthetic, or other natural or cultural resources; agricultural districts; or community or neighborhood character? Explain
C3. Vegetation or fauna, movement of fish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly:
C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly.
CS. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly.
C6. Secondary, cumulative• or other effects not identified in C1{6? Explain briefly.
I
C7.
A change in use of either ql antity or type of
energy?
Explain briefly.
I
i
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 address ed.
❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then
proceed directly to the FULL/LONG FORM EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration.
❑ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide here, and on
attachments as necessary, the reasons supportng this determination:
Agency Name
Preparer's Signature/Title
Agency Preparers Name
Date
PROJECT I.D. NUMBER
NEN' YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS
State Environmental Duality Revlswe
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART I Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor)
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
EO
antJsponsor
2.
Project Name
location:/.nicipality
F
It I y +�"1
Count'.pposed
action:
New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modificationfalteratiorr
5.
Describe project briefly:
6:
Precise location (road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map)
7.
Amount of land affected:
! LOT
1to
Initially acres Ultimately
acres
8.
Will roposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions?
ff Yes ❑ No If No, describe briefly
9.
What is present land use in vicinity of project?
XResidential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture
❑ Parkland/open space ❑ Other
Describe:
10.
Does action involve a permittapproval, or funding, now or ultimately, from any other governmental agency (Federal, state or local)?
❑ Yes No If yes, list agency(s) and permit(approvals
11.
Does any, a speck oof{_the action have a currently valid permit or approval?
❑ Yes JY No If yes, list agency name and permit?approval type
. n
12.
As result of proposed action will existing permitlapproval require modification?
❑ Yes 1K No
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE
IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
+
1
ADplicantlsponsor
name: e
Date:
Signature: •�M"Y�
74
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
EO
PART II Environmental A
A_ Does
action
exceed
any Type 1
❑
Yes
❑
No
B. Will action receive coordinated
involved action.
❑ Yes ❑ No
ssment (To be completed by Agency)
Id in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.127 If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL/LONG FORM EAF.
as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.7? If No, a negative declaration may be superceded by another
C. Could action result in ANY adverse effects on, to, or arising from the following: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible)
C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly:'
C2. Historic, archeological, visual or aesthetic, or other natural or cultural resources; agricultural districts; or community or neighborhood character? Explain brief)
C3. Vegetation or fauna,
C4. A community's existing
C5. Growth, subsequent
of fish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly:
or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly.
or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly
C6. Secondary, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1{6? Explain briefly.
C7. A change in use of either quantity or type of energy? Explain briefly.
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;
(c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary_, add attachments or reference supporting
materials.1risure 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/LONG FORM EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration.
❑ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide here, and on
attachments as necessary, the reasons supportng this determination:
Agency Name
Preparei s Sigr
Date
n
PROJECT I.D. NUMBER
NEN YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIOri
DIVISION OF REGULATORY AFI'AIRS
LA
Mrs State Environmental Quality Review
SNORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART 1 Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor)
1.
Applicant/sponsor
2. Project Name
3.
Project location:
Municipality (i l!1�\�
County 1( }
4.
Is proposed action:
New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modification/alteration
S.
Describe project briefly:
PLC
6.
Precise location (road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map)
7.
Amount of land affected:
�, j'{`S �il�,�1
Initially acres Ultimately
acres ttVVWW O^ U Y
8.
Will roposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions?
Will
❑ No If No, describe briefly
9.
What is present land use in vicinity of project?
1l Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture
❑ Parkland/open space ❑ Other
Describe:
10.
Does action involve a ermit/approval, 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 aspec( of_the action have a currently valid permit or approval?
❑ Yes lk�^�T No If yes, list agency name and permit)approva( type
12.
As result of proposed action will existing permitlapproval require modification?
❑ yes No
CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE
IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/sponsor name:�A L -70w
_ Date:
Signature:
If the action Is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete tho
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
OVER
n
PART 11 Environmental Assessment (l o be completed by Agency)
A. Does action exceed any Type 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULULONG FORM EAF.
❑ Yes ❑ No
B. Will action receive coordinated reiview as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.7? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another
involved action.
❑ Yes ❑ No
C. Could action result in ANY adverse effects on, to, or arising from the following: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible)
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:
C2. Historic, archeological, visual or aesthetic, or other natural or cultural resources; agricultural districts; or community or neighborhood character? Explain brieff
C3. Vegetation or fauna, movement of fish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened, or endangered species? Explain briefly:
i
C4. A community's existing plan! 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 developiment, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly.
C6. Secondary, cumulative, or olther effects not identified in C1-C6? Explain briefly.
I
C7. A change in use of either quantity or type of energy? 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/LONG FORM EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration.
I
❑ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action WILL. NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide here, and on
attachments as necessary, the reasons supportng this determination:
Agency Name Agency Preparer's Name
I
Preparer's Signature/Title _ Date
�a
I
C5. Growth, subsequent developiment, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly.
C6. Secondary, cumulative, or olther effects not identified in C1-C6? Explain briefly.
I
C7. A change in use of either quantity or type of energy? 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/LONG FORM EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration.
I
❑ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action WILL. NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide here, and on
attachments as necessary, the reasons supportng this determination:
Agency Name Agency Preparer's Name
I
Preparer's Signature/Title _ Date
T
WE, THE -UNDERSIGNED HOMEOWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF HONNESS LANE, REQUEST THAT
THE TOWN OF ITHACA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DENY A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15 WITH THE
SECOND DWELLING UNIT EQUAL IN SIZE TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT (SIDE BY
SIDE DUPLEX), AT 129 HONNESS LANE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-58-2-39.13.
PERMIT SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11, PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE TOWN
OF ITHACA ZONING ORDNANCES.
NAME ADDRESSHOMEOWNER
a t
IBMa u t� n om,,, .�, e:, _ �_ .� . 141 ! I G s i V1G`aS L�a1L� Com_ ��2J
t.
--woe� _
l
v �;fee �. •^ ` eS
/6
WE, THE INDERSIGNED HO=OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF HONNESS LANE, REQUEST THAT
THE TOWN OF ITHACA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DENY A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO—FAMILY DWELLING IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15 WITH THE
SECOND DWELLING UNIT EQUAL IN SIZE TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT (SIDE BY
SIDE DUPLEX), AT 129 HONNESS LANE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0. 6000o58-2-39.13.
PERMIT SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11, PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE TOWN
OF ITHACA ZONING ORDNANCES.
C7
NAME
ADDRESS
--,z �✓� t` 4. `�-�..�� �i '� c�:,��t� L i (. Vic) tdz ��-<-��-�
xet
Q*2
'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, August 21, 1985, in
Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca New York commencing
at 7:00 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: August 13, 1985
Date of Publication: August 16, 1985.
eari�i - Swartw
own of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS.:
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
August
19 85
Notary
i. c
Town Clerk
21st
-t
day of
CONZST:\7�"Cl: f:. ALL1 \?
,1.k Pu:.. -. St c f \cw York
Friday, Aug. 16, 1985 •' ITHACA JOURNAL 1.7
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARINGS,,. WEDNES-
DAY, AUGUST 21, 1985, 7:00
P.M.
By direction of the Chairman of
the Zoning Board of Appeals
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
1 Legals
Public Hearings will be held by
the Zoning Board of Appeals of
the Town of Ithaco on Wednes-
day, August 21, 1985, 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 Randolph S. Little and
JoAnn M. Little, Appellants,
George M. Dentes, Esq., Agent,
from the decision of the Building
Inspector denying a Certificate
of Occupancy for a single family
dwelling with attached carport,
in Residence District RIS, with
an easterly side yard deficiency
of 1.3 plus or minus feet, at 111
Crest Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6-66-3.25. Certificate
is denied under Article IV, Sec-
tion 14, and Article XIV, Section
76, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance. '
APPEAL of Anne M. Coston, Ap-
pellant, from the decision of the
Building Inspector denying a
Special Permit for the occupancy
of a two-fomily dwelling, in Res-
idence District R9, by more than
three unrelated persons, at 141
Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 6-54-4-32 (Old
Ithaca Land Company Parcels
No. 191, 192, and 193), such
Special Permit being applied for
pursuant to Article III, Section 4,
Paragraph 2, Sub -paragraph 2b,
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Or-
dinance. Permit is denied under
Article III, Section 4, Paragraph
3, Sub -paragraph 2b, of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordi
nonce.
APPEAL of Ivor R. Jonson, Appel-
lant, from the decision of the
Building Inspector denying a
Building Permit for the construc-
tion of a two-family dwelling in
Residence District R15, with the
second -dwelling unit equal in
size to the primary dwelling unit
(side-by-side duplex), at 129
Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2-39.13. Per-
mit is denied under Article IV,
Section 11, Paragraph 2, and Ar-
ticle XIV, Section 75, of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance.
APPEAL of James locovelli, Ap-
pellant, from the decision of the
Building Inspector denying a
Building Permit for the construc-
tion of a two-family dwelling, in
Residence District R15, with side
yard and rear yard deficiencies,
at 1474 Sloterville Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2-
22.41. Permit is denied under
Article IV, Section 14, and Arti-
cle XIV, Section 75, of the Town
-of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance.
APPEAL of James locovelli, Ap-
pellont, from the decision of the
Building Inspector denying
Building Permits for the con-
struction of two, two-family
dwellings, in P,esidence District
R9, each with dwelling units of
equal size (up-and-down du-
plexes, four bedrooms in each
unit of each structure), and, de-
nying Special Permits to allow
four unrelated persons to occupy
each such unit (a total of eight
unrelated persons in each struc-
ture), such Special Permits being
applied for pursuant to Article
Ill, Section 4, Paragraph 2, Sub-
paragraph 2b, of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, at
239-241 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No.
6-54-5-40 (Old Ithaca Land Com -
pony Parcels No. 126 and 127)
and a portion of 6.54-5-38 (Old
Ithaca Land Company Parcel No.
129, known also as 103
Maryland Avenue), and, of 146
Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcels No. 6-54-10 (Old
Ithaca Land Company Parcels
No. 160 and 161) and a portion
of 6-54-5-12 (Old Ithaca Land
Company Parcel No. 159, being
a portion of a Darcel presently
known as 148 Kendall Avenue).
Permits are denied under Article
III, Section 4, Paragraph 2; Arti-
cle III, Section 4, Paragraph 2,
Sub -paragraph 2b,'and Article
XIV, Section 75, of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance.
Said Zoning Board of Appeals
will at said time, 7:00 p.m., and
said place, hear all persons in
support of such matters or objec-
tions thereto. Persons may ap-
pear by agent or in person.
Lewis D. Cortee
Building Inspector
Town of Ithaca
Doted: August 13, 1985 .
August 16, 1985