HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1987-05-27 i
FILED
TOWN OF ITHA�CgA��
• TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk���s��t
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 27 , 1987
A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals was held on May 27 , 1987 in the Ithaca Town Hall , 126
East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York ,
PRESENT : Chairman ' Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Jack Hewett ,
Town Planner Susan Beeners , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , and
Town Attorney John C . Barney .
ALSO PRESENT : Mark H . Gardner , Randy S . Hubbell , Joseph M .
Salino , Karl Mount , Ed Mazza , Anna Stuliglowa , Douglas Fain ,
Elliott Lauderdale , Peter Hillman , Lindsay Goodloe , Robin
Goodloe , Edward D . Cobb , Daniel Booth , Margie Rumsey , John Tidd .
'
The public meeting opened at 7 : 00 p . m . 54
Chairman Aron stated that all posting and publication of
the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits
of same were in order .
• The first item on the agenda for consideration was as
follows :
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( from April 15 , 1987 ) of Belcor Associates ,
Ltd . , Appellants , Mark H '. Gardner , Belcor Realty , Agent ,
with respect to the subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 . 3 , 4 . 24 gros s acres , located in an
Agricultural Zone , ( Residence District R - 30 Regulations
applicable ) , with frontage on Sheffield Road and backlot of
Mecklenburg Road , with 50 . 9 feet of frontage on Mecklenburg
Road , into three lots , i . e . , two approximately one - acre lots
and one approximately two- acre lot , from the decision of the
Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying under
Article XIV , Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , a Certificate of Compliance for said new two - acre
lot with 50 . 9 feet of frontage on Mecklenburg Road , 150 feet
of frontage at the front yard setback being required under
Article V , Section 23 , paragraph 2 , ( minimum width . and depth
of lots ) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , and
further with respect to an existing 40 feet by 240 feet
structure located on said new two - acre lot , from the .
decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement
Officer denying permission for the modification of a
variance granted by the Board of Appeals on November 20 ,
1985 , from the requirements of Article XI , Section 51 , and
Article V , Section 18 , ( Use Regulations ) , of the Town of
• Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , which permitted the use of said
existing 40 - foot - by 240 - foot structure , previously used for
poultry research , for the limited storage of boats and motor
S
• 2
vehicles , such modification being a request for permission
to include the general storage of household goods , AND
FURTHER , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning
Enforcement Officer denying permission , also under Article
XI , Section 51 , and Article V . Section 18 , ( Use
Regulations ) , of said Zoning Ordinance , for the use of an
existing 40 - foot by 80 - foot structure , located on one of the
new approximately one - acre lots fronting on Sheffield Road ,
formerly used as a barn , for the storage of lumber and
salvage materials .
Chairman Aron indicated that the public hearing was closed
on this matter and briefly stated that there were two matters
before the Board for consideration , one being a modified use
variance on the chicken house and the other being a use variance
for the four - story barn . He continued that this matter 'had been
adjourned for two reasons , one reason being that the negative
vote at the previous meeting was two to one and was declared null
and void since a negative or positive vote had to be by a
majority of three members of the Board . Chairman Aron stated
that as to the barn Belcor Agency had been advised to seek advice
from a structural engineer and the building inspector and report
back to the Board as to the feasibility of the barn bi
eng used
• for storage of lumber . He further stated that the members of the
Board present had visited the location .
Chairman Aron referred back to the use variance given to
Belcor in November of 1985 allowing for the storage of boats and
trailers only , which use variance , according to Mrs . Stuliglowa ' s
admission , had been violated three months later by allowing
merchandise other than boats and cars to be stored on the
premises , and in fact Belcor had leased the premises to Student
Agencies . Chairman Aron admonished Belcor Agency saying that the
Board was disheartened by this action . He also stated that in
order to give Belcor a modified use variance the Board had to
have , by law and statute , documented information proving that
Belcor had been losing money because it was not feasible to store
boats and trailers on the premises because of the lack of demand
for this type of storage .
Mr . Mark Gardner , agent for Belcor , then addressed the
Board . He repeated that he was not with the company at the time
of the violation but he had obtained a copy of the advertisement
Belcor Agency had run to seek customers for the storage of boats
and trailers on the property , Mr . Gardner stated that under
their lease with Student Agencies Belcor still could continue to
store boats and trailers on the premises if there was a demand
for such storage .
• Mrs . Stuliglowa stated that the advertisement was
distributed by direct mail to all the automobile and boat
dealerships in the County of Tompkins and in addition the
{
• 3
advertisements were posted wherever it was thought they would
generate business . She continued that an advertisement was
placed in the Ithaca Journal classified section under " Storage "
for two or three months . Mrs . Stuliglowa said that all this
advertising brought them was about eight to twelve cars , and it
was not cost effective to continue this type of storage since the
income that she was deriving was not enough to cover the mortgage
payments , taxes and insurance on the property . Chairman Aron
asked what type of proof she had to show the Board and Mrs .
Stuliglowa responded that she did not know that they would be
asked for this type of proof but it was available and she could
present it to the Board . Mrs . Stuliglowa said that in March or
April 1986 they were down to one or two cars that would have been
taken out soon after that and they were going to be faced with an
empty building . Mrs . Stuliglowa said that with the mortgage
payment , the taxes and the insurance on the building they were
losing money since they only charged $ 50 . 00 per car or boat to be
stored there . She stated that this was a flat rate and sometimes
not even that high since sometimes they negotiated for less than
that . Mrs . Stuliglowa added that there was further expense to
her since an employee of Belcor had to go to the storage
facility , unlock it , let the tenant take his car out , lock the
facility up again , and then go back to the office . She repeated
that there was simply not a demand for this type of storage and
• though they had tried to generate more business they had been
unsuccessful .
Mr . Gardner said that the past manager representing Belcor
had not been cognizant of the limitations of the use variance and
had made the lease with Student Agencies . He stated that Student
Agencies pays at this time $ 750 . 00 per month and they are
responsible for the funneling of goods in and out of the storage
facility , and Student Agencies sublets part of the facility to
Cornell . He continued that there is a rush in traffic during the
spring and fall and intermittent traffic during the rest of the
year . Mr . Gardner stated that he felt that Student Agencies was
a unique tenant and it was a one - time opportunity to find an
organization with the manpower and the draw , specifically Cornell
students , to make the storage facility profitable .
Chairman Aron reminded Mr . Gardner that at the last hearing
one of the neighbors had appeared complaining about noise and
late hour traffic at the facility . Mr . Gardner responded that
Belcor had a proposal covering both the chicken house and the
four story barn and passed these documents out to the Board .
Such proposal stated how the problems would be resolved and Mr .
Gardner and the Board reviewed same . A copy of such document is
attached hereto as Exhibit 1 .
. Mr . Gardner assured the Board that all the conditions listed
in the proposal would be enforced and adhered to in the strictest
manner . A copy of the Student Agencies present lease was
• 4
presented to the Board for review and Mr . Gardner stated that
they would like to negotiate the lease coming up for renewal in
September of 1987 with Student Agencies , and that the conditions
listed in the proposal would be part of that lease with Student
Agencies ,
Chairman Aron stated that at the previous meeting it was
mentioned that a light should be placed on the building and yet
it was not mentioned in the proposal , and Mr . Gardner responded
that he had forgotten that item but Belcor was willing to place
lighting on the property .
Mr . Gardner said that in regard to Mr . Ault ' s complaints
about people getting stuck in the driveway near his house , Belcor
was prepared to block off that driveway and put a driveway
straight out through the available frontage on the Mecklenburg
Road thereby missing Mr . Ault ' s house by about 1 , 000 feet , and
further Belcor was willing to eliminate the use of the Sheffield
Road access altogether from the two acre parcel .
Chairman Aron inquired whether Belcor would still store
boats and cars in the premises and Mr . Gardner responded they did
not think so although under the Student Agencies lease they still
• had a right to store up to two boats or cars . Mr . Gardner
continued that in the time he had been with Belcor he had never
experienced any demand for that type of storage .
Chairman Aron , in calling for a motion , reminded the Board
that a use variance did not have to be permanent but could also
be for a limited time such as for two years at which time re -
inspection would be made by the zoning officer , and such variance
could also be subject to the Town Attorney reviewing the lease
with Student Agencies , and could also be subject to the driveway
being relocated .
Mr . Gardner stated that he thought that all the conditions
could be met by September 1 , 1987 and the property could be ready
for inspection at that time .
As to the chicken house a motion was made by Edward Austen
as follows :
RESOLVED , that this Board grant a modified use variance for
the 240 foot building known as the chicken coop for general
storage , with the agency operating same to be responsible
for maintaining reasonable hours , from 6 : 00 a . m . and not to
exceed 10 : 00 p . m . , and it is further
RESOLVED , that this modified use variance be provisional
• upon the driveway being constructed straight out from the
building to the Mecklenburg Road , and the existing driveway
being blocked off behind the other barn to the west , and
5
further provisional upon the relocated driveway being kept
in a clean and safe condition with snow removal provided so
as not to cause the neighbors problems ; and it is further
RESOLVED , that a low level security light , so as not to be
offensive to the neighbors , shall be provided on the
building to light the general entranceway to the building ;
and it is further
RESOLVED , that a private telephone for local calls only
shall be installed inside the premises for the tenants ' use ,
and it is further
RESOLVED , that the premises shall be maintained in a clean
and neat manners and it is further
RESOLVED , that this modified use variance shall be for a
term of two years , subject to renewal after two years , at
which time the premises will be inspected by the zoning
officer to ascertain whether the premises are in conformance
with such modified use variance , and either renew same if
they are in conformance , or revoke same if Belcor is not in
compliance with the terms of the modified use variance .
• Jack Hewett seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows .
Aye - Hewett , Aron , Austen
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
Chairman Aron instructed Belcor Agency to forward a copy of
the new lease with Student Agencies effective September 1 , 1987 ,
when prepared , to Town Attorney John Barney for review and
approval .
As to the four - story barn , Chairman Aron read a document
from a George N . Woikow , Structural Engineer , a copy of which
document is attached to Exhibit 1 hereto . When asked where Mr .
Woikow ' s stamp was , Mr . Gardner responded that Mr . Woikow had
worked for twenty years for Cornell but was not certified and had
not done any calculations . He felt this was the most cost -
effective way to approach the matter since a certified engineer
would take eight to twenty hours of calculations at a costly
price . Mr . Gardner referred to Belcor ' s proposal as to the four -
story barn ( Exhibit 1 ) in which certain renovations were to be
made following the advice of Mr . Woikow .
• Chairman Aron inquired how long this barn had been standing
and Mr . Randy Hubbell responded that he thought it had been
• 6
standing since around 1910 and been used for poultry .
Mr . Gardner said that Mr . Randy Hubbell wanted to purchase
the barn to be used for storage of lumber and windows and
furniture .
Chairman Aron asked why the barn had to be sold . Mrs .
Stuliglowa said that she desired the barn to be used , that at the
present time it was standing vacant . Chairman Aron inquired if
it could be rented to Mr . Hubbell and Mrs . Stuliglowa responded
that she felt th e barn should be in the hands of someone who
understands the barn , that there were some monetary losses as
mentioned earlier in discussing the other part of the property ,
but that her chief motivation was to put the four - story barn in
the hands of the right person . Mr . Gardner expanded on this by
saying that at the present time the barn is unused and therefore
represents a risk in perhaps teenagers using it for a clubhouse ,
possibly someone smoking in it and causing a fire , etc . Chairman
Aron asked if this had happened and Mrs . Stuliglowa responded
that during her ownership it had not but the previous owner had
reported some incidents of this nature . Mr . Gardner said that
there was no commercial return on this parcel under Belcor ' s
ownership and management and that the best use of this parcel
• without repairing the barn would be to demolish the barn at a
cost of $ 5 , 000 . and sell it as a building lot which would bring
in about $ 5 , 000 . Mr . Gardner felt that to sell the barn to a
person such as Mr . Hubbell who was willing to do the work on the
barn to bring it into compliance and put it to good use would be
a much wiser utilization of the property .
Attorney Barney was asked by Chairman Aron how the Board
should react to alapplicant asking for a use variance when the
applicant was not going to be using the barn , and in fact the use
variance would belong to a purchaser who had not in fact made
application . Attorney Barney responded that the way to handle it
would be that if the Board chose to grant the use variance to
make the variance conditional upon the transfer of the property
to the new owner . Attorney Barney felt it was not unusual for
there to be an application for a use variance before a transfer
occurred . Attorney Barney was more concerned about proving a
hardship with respect to this matter .
Chairman Aron discussed this problem with Mr . Gardner asking
why he felt that Belcor was suffering a hardship if it did not
sell this property . Mr . Gardner responded that without any
economic use of this facility it would present a liability . Mrs .
Stuliglowa added that they were not making any money on it now
but that they did have one person who was storing a small amount
• of furniture and is paying $ 50 . 00 a month but this was not
sufficient to offset the costs of keeping the barn . She added
that when she bought the entire parcel the barn was included in
the package but they had not been able to put it to any good use
• 7
as yet and it would cost money to tear it down .
Chairman Aron asked if they were planning on going to the
Planning Board for subdivision approval and Mrs . Stuliglowa
responded that was correct .
Attorney Barney inquired what was stopping Belcor from
making the improvements to the barn and then leasing space and
Mrs . Stuliglowa responded that Belcor did not have the efficiency
to manage the structure but that someone like Mr . Hubbell who
understands the structure and would be there at various times
would be better equipped to take care of the building . Attorney
Barney asked what the economic hardship of this reasoning was and
Mrs . Stuliglowa responded that the barn needed improvements and
the money spent on the improvements would not be realized. through
the money received on renting the space . Attorney Barney asked
what would make it a paying proposition and asked why the
premises was not leased to Mr . Hubbell for a lower rent on the
condition that he make the repairs . Mr . Gardner responded that
the barn was so large he did not think that anyone would ever
want to lease it and he thought the only economic use of the barn
would be a very low starting cost entrepreneurial venture for
someone who is in the business of old structures and could invest
• his own work into it and make it worth its own use as storage .
He continued that a person desirous of renting space for storage
could rent many other spaces in much better condition and without
having to spend money to renovate the structure .
A motion was made by Jack Hewett as to the four - story barn
as follows :
WHEREAS , this Board , having taken into consideration the
report of the structural engineer , George Woikow , regarding
the four - story barn , finds the following :
( a ) The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed
use , and that such use , except as to public and educational
buildings , will fill a neighborhood or community need .
( b ) The proposed use and the location and design of any
structure shall be consistent with the character of the
district in which it is located .
( c ) The proposed use shall not be detrimental to the
general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts
sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously
I
nconvenience neighboring inhabitants .
• ( d ) The proposed access and egress for all structures and
uses shall be safely designed .
( e ) The general effect of the proposed use upon the
8
• community as a whole , including such items as traffic load
upon public streets and load upon water and sewerage systems
is not detrimental to the health , safety and general welfare
of the community .
( f ) The cost of maintaining the four - story barn far
exceeds the minimal return of income on same ;
NOW THEREFORE ,
SUBJECT to the use variance being conditional upon
subdivision approval being granted by the Planning Board , it
I
s
RESOLVED , that this Board grant a use variance
transferrable to the new owner of the four - story barn
located on Sheffield Road , and it is further
RESOLVED , that this Board grant a variance reducing the
required sideyard requirements on the south side of the
premises to 12 . 6 feet .
Edward Austen seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
• Aye - Austen , Hewett , Aron
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The second item on the agenda was as follows :
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( from May 13 , 1987 ) , of Wayne C . Bortz ,
Appellant , Attorney Edward A . Mazza , Agent , from the
decision of the Building Inspector / zoning Enforcement
Officer denying a Certificate of Compliance and permission
to occupy a two - family dwelling at 1 51 3 Slatervi ll e Road ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 32 . 1 , Residence
District R - 15 , by two families or up to six ( 6 ) unrelated
persons . Permission to occupy said two - family dwelling by
up to six ( 6 ) unrelated persons is denied under Article IV ,
Section 11 , Paragraph 2 , Sub - paragraph 2a ( 3 ) , of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , whereby a two - family dwelling may
be occupied by no more than three unrelated persons . A
Certificate of Compliance is denied under Article XIV ,
Sections 75 and 76 , because the second dwelling unit was
created without a permit to build .
Chairman Aron pointed out that this was an adjourned hearing
and the matter had been discussed thoroughly at the previous
• hearing . He continued that it was adjourned to give Attorney
Barney and Zoning Enforcement Officer Andrew Frost a chance to
review the matter to determine if there was a violation in this
9
• matter and if so should it be prosecuted .
Attorney Barney reported that there probably was a violation
in this matter but due to the circumstances under which it was
created and due to the fact it was brought to the attention of
the Board by the applicant , the Town Attorney , as well as the
Zoning Enforcement Officer , felt that there were many other items
that needed attention and this kind of inadvertent infraction was
not one that they should devote their resources to and that
unless instructed otherwise they would choose not to prosecute .
Chairman Aron felt that the responsibility of obtaining the
building permit belonged to Mr . Tidd and Mr . Bortz could not be
held accountable for Mr . Tidd ' s negligence in so doing , and since
Mr . Cartee passing away had added to the confusion in this
matter , Chairman Aron concurred with the opinion of Mr . Frost and
Mr . Barney .
Mr . Hewett stated that he lived across the street from the
Bortz premises and had noticed that Mr . Bortz was continuing to
work on the property and had made improvements to same .
Andrew Frost stated that should a variance be granted a
final inspection still needed to be performed on the property and
some items still needed to be done but that the applicant was
• working on those items .
Edward Austen made a motion as to the building permit for
the second apartment in the premises as follows :
RESOLVED , that this Board grant a variance for the second
unit in the building subject to it meeting all the state
requirements and the requirements of the zoning officer for
this unit .
Jack Hewett seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
As to occupancy , a motion was made by Edward Austen as
follows :
RESOLVED , that this Board grants permission for two families
or up to six unrelated persons to reside in this building
conditional upon the following :
• ( a ) No further development will be placed on any of the
remaining lots of this parcel ,
10
( b ) Adequate parking be provided for the occupants , and
that the parking area be screened with plant material ,
( c ) That noise restrictions are made part of the lease
arrangements , and that these restrictions be enforced ,
( d ) That each dwelling unit would be under the management
of a person who would be responsible for enforcement of
noise restrictions and other lease provisions , and the
general upkeep of the property ,
( e ) A copy of the restrictive covenants should be given to
the Town Planner and the Town Attorney for approval with the
boundary of the area to remain undeveloped to be
substantially the same as the boundary drawn for undeveloped
land on the adjoining Edgewood property .
Jack Hewett seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , Austen , Hewett
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
• Mr . Mazza was instructed to provide Ms . Beeners and Mr .
Barney with a copy of the restrictive covenants so they could
approve same .
Ms . Beeners reported that while there is provision for
increased occupancy by special permit in R9 districts the Town
does not have that special permit provision in R15 which is what
this property is zoned at . Because of the unique circumstances
of this property she feels that a variance is warranted in this
case but she advised the Board to proceed carefully with
consideration of variances for increased occupancy in R15
districts .
The third item on the agenda was as follows .
APPEAL of Tompkins Community Hospital , Appellant , Karl L .
Mount , Agent , from the decision of the Building
Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission for
the placement of two 74 " x 20 " sign panels ( 10 . 49 sq . ft .
each ) on the existing Tompkins Community Hospital sign
located at 1285 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 1 , Residence District R30 . Permission is
denied under Section 4 . 01 - 1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law ,
whereby a sign no larger than four square feet is permitted .
• Chairman Aron read from " ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Two Additional
Sign Panels , Tompkins Community Hospital Sign , Sign Review Board
( Planning Board ) , May 5 , 1987 " . A copy of such resolution is
• 10a
• attached hereto as Exhibit 2 .
The public hearing was opened . No one appeared from the
public and the public hearing was then closed .
Karl Mount , Agent , was asked if the signs would be ]Lighted
and he responded that they would not be but that the original
sign in 1978 was a lighted sign but the two additional signs are
reflective white letters with a charcoal background . He added
that the letter size was about half the size of the original
sign . Mr . Mount said that he did not know that he had to obtain
permission from the Board to place the signs but wanted to do the
right thing so it would be legal .
•
•
` 11
• Jack Hewett made a motion as follows :
RESOLVED that this Board grant a variance for the
installation of two additional signs , one sign reading
" Tompkins Community Medical Office Building " and the
other sign reading " Tompkins County Biggs Center " , both
signs to be in size applied for by the applicants .
Edward Austen seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Austen , Aron , Hewett
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The fourth item on the agenda was as follows .
APPEAL of Joseph Salino , Appellant , from the decision. of the
Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying
permission to operate a business where used automobiles are
parked and stored outdoors , in transit for resale , at 630
Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 3 , Light
Industrial District . Permission is denied under Article
• VIII , Section 41 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
whereby such use is not specifically permitted .
Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals as the
lead agency in this matter and Ms . Beeners was asked to discuss
her recommendation as to the environmental assessment on this
matter which she did . A copy of such recommendation is attached
hereto as Exhibit 3 .
Chairman Aron inquired of Mr . Salino whether this was a
temporary or permanent arrangement and Mr . Salino stated that it
would be temporary on the basis that if Mr . Gene King , the
gentleman who was renting the parking space from Mr . Salino ,
located his own lot to purchase he would no longer need Mr .
Salino ' s lot . Mr . Salino stated that at the most Mr . King would
have up to 25 cars on the lot which cars would be on the lot
anywhere from 2 days to a week . He continued that every Friday
most of the cars are moved to Waverly . Mr . Salino explained that
Mr . King buys cars from local dealers and then sells back to
dealers with all sales made at the dealerships . He stated that
no sales would be made on his lot . Mr . Salino stated that Mr .
King pays him for this outside storage of the cars .
Mr . Austen asked for some background on this matter and Mr .
• Salino explained that Mr . King used to have a lot on the Elmira
Road next to Zikakis Motors where Townley Leasing used to be .
Mr . Salino continued that Mr . King rented that space from the
Trust Company but the property was now being sold by the Trust
Company and Mr . King has been unable to locate any other space to
place his cars anywhere in the County .
12
• Chairman Aron asked how long Mr . King would be using the lot
and Mr . Salino responded that if Mr . King did not find another
location and Mr . Salino did not decide to do anything further
with the rear portion of that lot then he would rent to Mr . King
on a permanent basis . He explained that there was no lease but
that the rental was on a day to day basis .
Chairman Aron said that Ms . Beeners had mentioned in her
recommendation that the subject parking area was to be screened
on the north side by evergreens or by heavy shrubbery . Mr .
Salino stated that on that north side there was a cornfield that
had been there for many years and by the 1st of August the corn
would be high enough to hide the rear portion of the building and
the building would not be visible until late October or November .
Ms . Beeners said that that might be temporary control of the
situation but if this were to evolve into a permanent arrangement
something else should be done . Mr . Salino said that the cars
would be moved back about another 75 feet away from the north
line towards the back end of the building and this would help .
Mr . Salino said that he was not against screening the lot but he
thought the cars would be inconspicuous once they were moved back
the 75 feet . He also felt that his arrangement with Mr . King
could be discontinued by either Mr . King or by Mr . Salino at any
time and he did not feel he wanted to put the expense into
screening on this basis , and that if all his employees parked in
• the same spot it would be the same thing .
As to the environmental assessment a motion was made by
Edward King as follows :
RESOLVED , that this Board finds a negative declaration of
environmental significance as to this matter with the
following conditions :
( a ) The subject parking area is to be screened on the north
site by evergreens or by a heavy shrub buffer .
( b ) No on - site retail sales shall be permitted .
( c ) The number of cars to be stored at one time should not
exceed 25 .
The motion was seconded by Jack Hewett .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The public hearing was opened . No one appeared from the
public and the hearing was closed .
, 13
• Chairman Aron read a letter addressed to the Town Board
signed by several neighbors of Mr . Salino whereby they stated
they had no opposition to his appeal . A copy of such letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit 4 .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Salino where he felt the economic
hardship was in this matter and he responded that the economic .
hardship was not so much on him but on Mr . King who could not
find another location to park his cars and he cannot stay in
business unless he has a place to park his cars and had been
unsuccessful in locating another spot .
Chairman Aron inquired if Mr . Salino could put that land to
any other use and Mr . Salino responded that he could if he had
$ 100 , 000 . to put in storage barns but there was too much
competition in this field to make it a success . Chairman Aron
inquired how many acres Mr . Salino had and Mr . Salino responded
that there was about an acre and a half in the back . Mr . Salino
continued that there was no other use this land could be put to
except for a storage building or for a parking lot . Mr . Salino
felt that Mr . King using the lot for storage of his vehicles was
the most advantageous way for him to make use of the land . He
added that there were now several loads of dirt from the State on
the property to grade and level off the back portion .
• Chairman Aron inquired of Mr . Salino whether he needed the
income from the rental of this lot to Mr . King and Mr . Salino
responded that it helped to have the income .
Mr . Austen inquired how long Mr . King had had his cars on
Mr . Salino ' s premises and Mr . Salino responded that it was for
about three months only on a temporary basis with no remuneration
while Mr . King tried to locate another spot to place his cars .
Mr . Salino said that they then discussed renting on a permanent
basis if a variance could be obtained to do so .
A motion was made by Edward Austen as follows :
WHEREAS , this Board finds the following :
( a ) The health , safety , morals and general welfare of the
community in harmony with the general purpose of this
ordinance shall be promoted , except that as to all public
buildings and educational buildings wherein the principle
use is research , administration , or instruction , the same
shall be presumed to exist .
( b ) The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed
use , and that such use , except as to public and educational
buildings , will fill a neighborhood or community need .
• ( c ) The proposed use and the location and design of
g any
structure shall be consistent with the character of the
~ 14
• district in which it is located .
( d ) The proposed use shall not be detrimental to the
general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts
sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously
inconvenience neighboring inhabitants .
( e ) The proposed access and egress for all structures and
uses shall be safely designed .
( f ) The general effect of the proposed use upon the
community as a whole , including such items as traffic load
upon public streets and load upon water and sewerage systems
is not detrimental to the health , safety and general welfare
of the community .
( g ) There were no objections by the neighbors .
( h ) The area in question is in a light industrial zone .
THEREFORE , be it
RESOLVED , that this Board grant a use variance to Mr . Salino
for the storage of no more than 25 automobiles on a
temporary basis with no individual car to be stored on the
• lot for more than two weeks at this location , and that no
retail sales be made at this location , and it is further
RESOLVED , that this use variance is conditional upon the
screening being provided to the reasonable satisfaction of
the Town Planner , such screening to be implemented by May
31 , 1988e
Jack Hewett seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , Austen , Hewett
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The last item on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of Dell L . Grover , Appellant , Edward A . Mazza , Esq . ,
Agent , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning
Enforcement Officer denying permission to relocate an
existing three - unit non - conforming dwelling from Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 39 - 1 - 5 ( 1 01 8 Danby Road ) , Residence
District R9 , to a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 39 - 1 - 25 ( 371 Stone Quarry Road ) , Residence District R9 ,
and further , to add a fourth dwelling unit to said three -
• unit non - conforming dwelling . Permission is denied under
Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , whereby no non - conforming building or use may be
15
• extended except as authorized by the Board of Appeals .
Chairman Aron declared this Board the lead agency in this
matter as to the environmental assessment .
Mr . Mazza addressed the Board . He presented a rough sketch
he had prepared showing the relation of the three - unit structure
in question to the Cayuga Vista property , and also referred to
another map presented with his application which map all of the
Board members had . He pointed to a 60 foot reserved :right of
way , the center line of which right of way hits the boundary line
of his property and the Margaret Rumsey property giving access to
both parcels . He stated that they were purchasing 5 . 872 acres of
backland property of Maurice Snyder and would like to move the
structure to this site .
Mr . Mazza stated that the house they would like to relocate
is on the Cayuga Vista site and for several years they had been
planning to move it . He said that they had considered all kinds
of alternatives , one being to move it anywhere to the east by way
of Danby Road but this alternative was ruled out because there
were numerous power lines that were very low on the west side of
Danby Road and to have the Gas and Electric Corporation drop
those lines to allow them to move the house would cost
approximately $ 15 , 000 . 00 . He stated that they had searched and
had located a parcel which was immediately to the west of the
Cayuga Vista parcel and on this location the house could be moved
across the Cayuga Vista property to that land . He said that they
had just contracted to buy the land and therefore had not wanted
to spend a great deal of money doing engineering reports on the
land to see exactly where they should place the structure until
they had permission to move the structure there . He explained
that that was why their request was vague . Mr . Mazza said they
would like to move the structure to this land and dedicate 27 , 000
square feet , the equivalent of three building lots , R9 District ) .
He said that the structure was an L - shaped building and they
would like to square it off and add a fourth unit within the
structure , each of the four units to be rented to a family . Mr .
Mazza said that the way they had agreed to limit the occupancy in
the event . that the units were rented to unrelated persons rather
than families was set forth in the letter submitted to the Board
with his application . A copy of such letter is attached hereto
as Exhibit 5 .
Mr . Mazza stated that the reason a fourth unit was desirous
of being added was that moving the structure would involve much
expense because it was an old house and many repairs had to be
done to make it look attractive , for instance , the siding had to
be replaced , it needed to be rewired and new plumbing had to be
installed . He continued that they wanted to make the house
attractive so as to fit into the neighborhood and in order to
• make it so the income would be needed from a fourth apartment .
As to where the house would be located on the lot , Mr_ . Mazza
expected , that it would be located in the northeast corner
16
• somewhere close to where the road right of way would hit , thereby
making it close to other units of Cayuga Vista which are all four
unit townhouses . Mr . Mazza said it would not be part of Cayuga
Vista but would fit into the framework of that development .
Another reason for moving it to that location , Mr . Mazza
continued , was because they had to provide water and sewer
services and they could do so at this location . However , Mr .
Mazza said , no location had been decided upon at this time
because they did not know what the conditions of the site , such
as drainage , actually were .
Mr . Mazza said that because this land was approximately six
acres he expected at some time in the future some other
development would take place although at this time nothing
definite was planned , and it would probably not take place for
some four years or so . Mr . Mazza stated that when the house was
relocated they may go before the Planning Board with a specific
plan as to where the house was to be located and ask for site
plan approval .
Mr . Mazza also stated that if the house were allowed to be
moved they would also ask permission from the Board that it be
allowed without being on a Town road as it would not have
frontage on a Town road at this point .
• Chairman Aron asked how high the building was and Mr . Mazza
responded that along its broadest point lengthwise it was 48 feet
and at its widest width it was 32 feet , and it was 22 feet or so
on the other side . Mr . Mazza thought it was approximately 30
feet high . Chairman Aron asked if the four apartments would be
equally sized and Mr . Mazza responded that one apartment on each
floor would be larger than the other . He stated that the
building is L - shaped and they planned on filling it in by putting
in a first and second floor and squaring it off . Mr. . Mazza
stated that after squaring it off there would be approximately
3100 or 3200 square feet for the whole building .
Chairman Aron asked if they planned on putting in two
families upstairs and two families downstairs and Mr . Mazza
responded that the new unit might actually be an upstairs and a
downstairs and they would keep the three units as they are now
but in all there would be four families or nine unrelated persons
or a mixture thereof .
Chairman Aron asked if the building had a value in the
location it now was and Mr . Mazza responded that it did. but in
order to make it a usable value much work had to be done to it
such as the old wood shingles had to be replaced , it had to be
insulated , much of the inside had to be sheetrocked , the wiring
had to be replaced , the plumbing had to be redone , and the roof
• had to be replaced , as well as the normal things such as the
foundation , the driveway and the water and sewer hookups .
Chairman Aron said that they were going to an extreme
17
• expense in moving the house from one site to another and would it
not be cheaper to build a new house . Mr . Mazza said that it had
some value as it now was and much of the structure could be
salvaged that would make it less expensive than to build a new
structure . Mr . Mazza continued that they were still getting bids
on the price of the renovations and repairs and they might find
out that it was not economically sound to move the building . Mr .
Mazza further stated that the house was a family house belonging
to Dell Grover ' s first wife who was killed in a car accident many
years ago and there was some sentimental attachment to both Dell
Grover and Bill Grover who are partners of Mr . Mazza in this
venture .
Chairman Aron asked if it might not have been a good idea
for Mr . Mazza to get all the facts and figures concerning the
moving of this building and then presenting such facts and
figures to the Board . Mr . Mazza responded that the reason for
not doing this was that the matter had just come about three
weeks ago or thereabouts because the house is sitting right in
the middle of the road that they are having built , according to
Town highway specs , for Cayuga Vista and they needed to finish
putting the road in so therefore the house had to be moved
immediately . Mr . Mazza further stated that if it was going to
cost too much to move the structure to the site desired , they
were not going to spend the money to move it only to find out it
• was not economically sound and they would have to tear it down
anyway . He said they had to make a decision relatively quickly
whether they were going to tear it down and eat that loss or
whether they were going to move it .
The public hearing was then opened .
Mr . Peter Hillman of 370 Stone Quarry Road , Ithaca , New York
addressed the Board . He read a petition containing 35 signatures
in opposition to this matter , a copy of which petition is
attached hereto as Exhibit 6 . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Hillman
how they had measured the height of the house and Mr . Hillman
responded that they had gone to the back side of the house at
ground level and had measured from the bottom of the door sill to
the top to the peak of the roof by counting the shingles and by
this method they had determined that it was a minimum of 32 feet
high and possibly as high as 33 feet .
Mr . Dan Booth of 375 Stone Quarry Road , Ithaca , New York
spoke next . He said that it seemed to him a very puzzling
request to move a house that is not in particularly good shape .
He wondered at what point a dwelling that was substantially
remodeled became in fact a new building . He stated he thought it
was a request for a new non - conforming dwelling and it further
seemed to him that they were trying not to get a variance to move
• the house but wanted to move the house to get a variance .
Mr . Elliott Lauderdale of 381 Stone Quarry Road , Ithaca , New
York . Mr . Lauderdale was opposed to the appeal for the following
18
• reasons .
( a ) It bothered the collection of neighbors whose
signatures appear on the petition to know that an approval was
going to be made for the location of a non - conforming building in
a R9 district and placed in the middle of a neighborhood which is
adjacent to Buttermilk Falls Park , the neighbors having bought
there to live in a quiet neighborhood . Mr . Lauderdale continued
that the majority of all of the houses on Stone Quarry Road are
single family houses and the only four - family houses are the
cluster houses that Mr . Mazza previously submitted a plan for on
Danby Road , which plan had been approved .
( b ) It bothered him and his neighbors that the variance
would be approved for something unspecified and they had no idea
where the house would be placed , they did not know what the house
would look like when it was renovated , and that all they knew was
that it was a four - apartment building which clearly violates R9 ' s
provisions for duplex dwellings .
( c ) He had bought his house with the understanding that the
zoning ordinance would prevail for the area in which they were
living .
( d ) He was worried about such things as occupancy ,
• drainage , regulation of noise which were not addressed by any
plan presented by Mr . Mazza and the Grovers and in fact all they
had was a hypothetical situation .
( e ) He did not know if the structure when renovated would
conform to the character of the neighborhood and not be a
disruption to the general quality of the neighborhood .
( f ) Even if it were in some way to conform to the Cayuga
Vista setting it did not make sense to him since Cayuga Vista
were all low buildings and this structure was a very tall
building .
( g ) The question of hardship bothered him since it was
necessary to determine this when granting a variance . As far as
he could tell from careful reading of the proposal, of the
environmental assessment form when participating in the Planning
Board meeting several weeks prior , all the hardships that Mr .
Mazza proposed were self - created . The plan for Cayuga Vista was
accepted by Mr . Mazza and he agreed to the proposal for Cayuga
Vista which included a road that goes right through the building
but now Mr . Mazza was saying he was under intense hardship that
necessitated his moving the structure .
( h ) As far as the financial hardship , in order to justify
• moving the building they not only wanted to have a triplex which
violates zoning but they wanted to have a quadruplex to justify
an expense for which no figures had been presented .
19
• ( i ) The procedure being followed was backwards in that if a
site was going to be approved for building the Board should know
what they were approving . Mr . Mazza had heard the objections of
the neighbors at the Planning Board meeting and had made a series
of promises but those promises were all in a vague and
hypothetical way . There was no site plan and they had no idea
what the building would look like .
( j ) The moving of this structure did not in general appear
to be in the best interests of the neighborhood or the Town in
general .
( k ) Property owners have a basic right to expect stable
zoning enforcement .
Chairman Aron asked how many of the signatories of the
petition were present and it was determined there were six out of
thirty - five present .
Mr . Douglas Fain of 133 West King Road , Ithaca , New York
addressed the Board . Mr . Fain said he thought moving the house
was unwise and wondered why Mr . Mazza wanted to follow this
procedure . Mr . Fain also said that he was tired of back - door
developers who went about doing their business and then came
before the Zoning Board of Appeals complaining about the money
• they were losing and thereby demanding a variance , He stated
that those variances come at the expense of other property
owners . He said that they live in a R9 area and would like to
keep it as such .
Mr . Edward Cobb of 1005 Danby Road , Ithaca , New York had a
question about Mr . Mazza building a quadruplex unit on 27 , 000
square feet of land . He said that if he was to develop the rest
of that lot at that density he would be developing at: a much
higher density than he is developing Cayuga Vista at the present
time and with 5 . 87 acres available he did not understand why they
were putting the house on such a small lot . He continued that
one of the problems was drainage In that particular parcel and
they should carefully study the drainage before they move the
house there . Chairman Aron asked if there was water standing on
that parcel today and Mr . Cobb said there was . He said that in
some places the water stands and in some places it flows . Mr .
Cobb said the area where Mr . Mazza proposed to move the house was
the worst possible place as far as the drainage was concerned .
Mr . Lauderdale said that this drainage situation could cause
he and the rest of the neighbors serious problems .
The public hearing was closed .
• Ms . Susan Beeners was asked to comment on her recommendation
as to environmental assessment which she did . A copy of her
recommendation is Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 .
• ao
Edward Austen mentioned that he had not been out to look at
the property and he would like to see it . Chairman Aron said
that it might be advisable for all the members of the Board to
look at the property and get an actual visual view as to the
matter before the Board . Mr . Hewett concurred and said that the
other Board members not present would probably also like to see
the property .
Mr . Mazza said at this point that timing was essential and
emphasized that the house must be removed from its present
location immediately so that the road could be completed .
Chairman Aron reminded Mr . Mazza that a number of people had come
before the Board in opposition to the appeal and more had signed
the petition in opposition thereto , and even though he understood
Mr . Mazza ' s sense of urgency , he felt it was imperative that the
Board view the property themselves before making a decision .
Mr . Mazza said that he understood it would be the Planning Board
who would look at the site plan and would approve same . Chairman
Aron said the Planning Board could do that anyway since the
Zoning Board of Appeals was only dealing with the matter of
moving the house . Mr . Mazza maintained that they could not
present that plan to the Planning Board until they had drainage
studies done . Chairman Aron said that Mr . Mazza would have to do
that anyway . Mr . Mazza said that if approval was not obtained to
move the house then they would not do anything for awhile as he
• did not envision any development on that site in the near future ,
at least for four or five years and therefore engineering studies
would not be necessary at this time and only would be necessary
if they knew they were moving the building to that site .
Attorney Barney interjected that the building had been there
since the project was in place and the Cayuga Vista site plan had
been in place for several years and he was not too sympathetic to
the urgency Mr . Mazza maintained and he felt the Board was being
stampeded into making a decision when they felt they needed to go
out and take a look at the site first . Mr . Mazza said that the
site to which they wished to move the house only became available
to them recently .
Edward Austen made a motion as follows .
RESOLVED , that this Board adjourn this matter until the
members of the Board had an opportunity to visit the
premises .
Jack Hewett seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , Hewett , Austen
• Nay - None
The motion was carried .
t
21
• Chairman Aron asked when the house would be unoccupied so
the Board members could look inside also and Mr . Mazza said it
would be empty by June 1st .
There being no further business to come before the Board the
meeting was adjourned at 10 : 15 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
zcv�-
ti
40:L �J�
Beatrice Lincoln
Exhibits 1 throug attached .
APPROVED
P e
Henry Ar n , Chairman
•
•
Property Management and Rentals
210 West Green Street
• P . O . Box 6662
Ithaca , New York 14851
(607 ) 273-8696
May 27 , 1987
RE : Four Story Barn
According to advice of structural engineer George D . Woikow , 1672
Hanshaw Road following visual inspection , the concrete floor on grade
is ok for heavy storage .
The upper floors will be capable of providing live loads of 40 pounds
per square f000t after the following repairs are made :
A . A 10 ton steel floor jack will be used to correct deflection of
a wooden girder in the southwest section of the first floor above grade .
• B . Side girders attached to columns of mutiple planks , reinforcing
the original structure , will be doubled using two 2 " x 8 " planks on
each span and adding plank sections below girders on columns 'Co be
nailed with 10 or more nails on each section to hold girders up on columns .
e , �ft ;w sed � � j � da� S
e
•
� o
• p •
P lar�� co hAwtV%3;
Exhibit 1
w
C . Footing below original columns includes additional patch concrete / - 2 "
beyond 4 ( + ) " slab floor . •
D . Concrete topping on first floor above grade will be removed
and replaced with plywood 3/4 " thick .
E . The wooden beam along the west wall will be chiseled out and replaced
with new wood and masonry .
According to existing zoning regulations and included as a restriction
on the deed to the buyer of this four story barn , the surrounding
yards may not be used for storage of any material or vehicle .
The easement of necessity for passage to the proposed two acre parcel
including the 240 ' chicken coop will be removed by express agreement
with the seller , Belcor Realty , to be included with deed , and by the
creation of a direct outlet from the two acre plot to its frontage
on Mecklenburg Road .
This outlet shall include a 15 ' steel culvert and gravel driveway
through the existing pear orchard at the southern end of the two acre
parcel . This new direct outlet will replace the driveway from Sheffield
road as the means of access to the 240 ' chicken coop .
w
Property Management and Rentals
O 210 West Green Street
• P . O . Box 6662
Ithaca , New York 14851
(607) 273-8696
May 26 , 1987
RE : One story chicken coop
The history of use of the 240 ' chicken coop at Sheffield and Mecklenburg
Roads includes trucking and storage relating to the business of chickens .
Although a return to use as a chicken facility would not be economically
viable in current years , it is possible that a return- to historic use
would be substantially worse in its impact on the neighborhood than
the business of long term storage of household goods .
• Problems encountered in commercial storage to date may be countered
effectively by constructive action on Belcor ' s part as described below .
In addition to constructive action for convenience of the neighborhood ,
one problem remains . That is , assuring the board of Belcor ' s seriousness
and sincerity in observing regulations and respecting neighbors ' rights .
We propose an inspection to verify compliance and enforce the terms
of our variance to be made by September 11 1987 , at which time all
aspects of work outlined below will be completed .
This inspection would assure the board of Belcor ' s complete compliance
with terms stated below .
• 1 . Published rules will be posted along with Belcor ' s name , address
and telephone number and a map indicating access route and areas of
neighbors property whose privacy is to be respected .
I
2 . A private , local only telephone will be installed inside the storage
facility for use by lessee ' s agents with keys . •
3 . An additional agreement shall be made with lessees to restrict
hours of use to 6 : 00 AM to 10 : 00 PM and to respect neighbors° privacy .
4 . A driveway directly to Mecklenburg Road shall be constructed and
the driveway to Sheffield Road shall be blocked to prevent passage .
This new gravel driveway shall include a 15 ' culvert along Mecklenburg
Road and lead directly across the existing pear orchard to create
a short / straight gravel access route to the storage facility .
The following changes to Student Agencies lease shall be added at
renewal , September .15 , 1987 .
Section # 5 " Maintain premises and driveways in clean and safe condition "
shall be amended to include requirement of depositing trash in barrels
provided and providing for its removal , and express requirment for
prompt snow removal as needed .
Section # 10 Tenants access to premises shall be from Mecklenburg Road
and use of driveway to Sheffield Road by lessee no longer be permitted .
In addition , hours of use will be restricted to 6 : 00 AM to 10 : 00 PM .
Lessees will be expressly prohibited from noise , crowds , wheel-spinning ,
parties and knocking on neighbors doors by additions to body of the lease .
VIM
6
CIOG
,Pee I Z941
e'
F-Y . ' p
;e /t �A '
�J � ' C ;:u
Ott/ STS
• � � � L �2 ��ti 1
CPA 7L
W
? VIC
f�r� IJll
r
: a04Ae tvi
Tc C
/ ,J f� C�"�.��
qqJ .
r
o
r
; roil
Ze
I _
A/O
' • u n
�'R �'Gcq �1I C.o ) ,gC4
R
Tompkins Community Hospital : Two Additional . Sign Panels - 1 -
" Tompkins Community Medical Office Building "
" Tompkins County Biggs Center "
Sign Review Board ( Planning Board ) , May 5 , 1987
ADOPTED RESOLUTIONS Two Additional Sign Panels
Tompkins Community Hospital Sign
Sign Review Board ( Planning Board ) , May 5 , 1987 .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , in its capacity a. s
Sign Review Board , recommend and hereby does . recommend to the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that a variance from the requiremcnts
of Section 4 . 01 - 1a of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law be granted to permi_. t
the addition of two ( 2 ) sign panels to the existing sign owned by
Tompkins Community Hospital reading " Tompkins Community Hospital " ,
located at 1285 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Info ,
6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 1 , Residence District R- 30 , as proposed and presented to said
Planning Board on May 5 , 1987 , by Karl L . Mount , Agent for the
Tompkins Community Hospital , on behalf of both Tompkins Medical Office
Building Associates and Tompkins County Buildings and Grounds , with
said two additional sign panels reading and sized as foll. owsr
• 1 . " Tompkins Community Medical Office Building " , 10 . 28 sq . . ft .
( Tompkins Medical Office Building Associates , Applicants William
D :. - . Corbin , Agent . ) ,
2 . " Tompkins Count
P y Biggs Center " , 10 . 28 sq . ft . ( Tompkins County
Building and Grounds , Applicant , Donn A . W -U liams , Agent . ) ,
said Planning Board having found that the above- described sign panels
to be added to said existing Tompkins Community Hospital sign are :
a . compatible with the surrcunding.s and appropriate to the
architectural character of the sign on which they are to be
placed ,
be appropriate to the type of activity to which they pertain ,
co legible in the circumstances under which they are seen , and
do expressive of the identity of individual enterprises but not
out of character with the community .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Klein , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
•
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board ,
May 6 , 1987 .
Exhiljit 2
a
• PART II - Environmental Assessment - Salino Appeal
A . Action is Unlisted
Be Action will receive coordinated review ( Tompkins County
Planning Dept . - N . Y . S . G . M . L . 239 -m ) .
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 impact is expected . The temporary
storage of cars on the site , with no on - site retail sales is not
expected to adversely affect any of these factors .
C_ 2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or
other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood
character ?
Provided that the parking area is adequately screened with
plant materials , to screen the view of the cars from Elmira Road ,
and provided that the number of cars is restricted , no
significant adverse impact is expected . The reviewer estimates a
capacity of 25 with no significant adverse visual impact . The
• site is surrounded by nonresidential uses , and is within a Light
Industrial District approximately 700 feet in depth along Elmira
Road . There is adequate room on the site for the proposed use .
A petition signed by several ( but not all ) adjacent property
owners supporting the proposal has been received , and there is no
known public opposition at this time .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife
species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered
species ?
Proposed use would not involve any major site alterations ,
and would not adversely impact any significant species or
habitats .
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 ?
Proposed use is of a low threshold that does not represent a
significant increase in land use intensity , provided that the
number of cars is limited and that there be no on - site retail
sales of vehicles . The Zoning Ordinance does not permit outdoor
storage in a Light Industrial District , nor does it permit
outdoor display of vehicles in any Business Districts . A
• variance was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on September
10 , 1986 in the same Light Industrial District for a sales
facility for the sale of boats and recreational vehicles , subject
Exhibit 3
• to certain conditions . A variance for a 12 ' rather than 20 '
sideyard was granted on October 21 , 1981 for a 10 ' x 12 ' addition
to the northwest corner of the Salino building . It is expected
that adequate screening of the proposed use can be accomplished
to mitigate any potential visual impacts .
C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action ?
It is likely that there will be other proposals for outdoor
vehicle storage or display , but these would have to be reviewed
on a specific basis . The current proposal is not expected to
significantly induce such proposals .
C6 . Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified
in C1 - C6 ?
Not expected .
C7 . A change in use of either quantity or type of. energy ?
Not expected .
PART III
A negative determination of environmental significance is
• recommended , with the following conditions :
a . the subject parking area is to be screened on the north
site by evergreens or by a heavy shrub buffer .
b . No on - site retail sales shall be permitted .
C9 The number of cars to be stored at one time :should not
exceed 25 .
Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planne
Review Date : May 20 , 1987 S
•
SALINO ELECTRIC MOTORS
630 ELMIRA ROAD - ITHACA, NEW YORK 1.4850 - (607) 273.0537
• April 28 , 1987
ITHACA TUO BOARD :
We the undersigned have been informed by ,
Joseph F . Salino
Salino Electric Motors , Inc .
630 Elmira Road
that he is requesting from the Town of Ithaca
approval to store cars on a temporary basis be -
hind Salino Electric Motors , . 630 Elmira Road , and
we do not have any objections to his request ,
•
L' 6 3500
~ E
•
Exhibit 4
.. 0
• There is a house currently on the Cayuga Vista Development p nt which
we advised the Town initially would be moved to a new location when
one was found . That house has been used for many years as three ( 3 )
apartment units . We intend to move that, house to a portion of tax
parcel #39 - 1 - 25 . In doing so , we - will be remodeling the structure
significantly so that the structure will be greatly improved .
However , to justify the cost of moving the structure and remodeling
it to make it fit attractively in, the neighborhood , we must add
another apartment unit to it . Thus , we request approval to move this
structure to a parcel of land containing 27 , 000 square feet out of
tax map # 39 - 1 - 25 and to add a unit to it malting it a four ( 4 ) unit
building . The units would be occupied as follows :
# 1 - a family or up to three ( 3 ) unrelated persons .
# 2 - a fmaily or up to two ( 2 ) unrelated persons .
# 3 - a family or up to two ( 2 ) unrelated persons .
# 4 - ( new ) a family or up to ( 2 ) unrelated persons .
If we looked at these as being occupied by families it would be
the equivalent of two ( 2 ) two - family . lots . If we looked at these as
being occupied- by nine ( 9 ) unrelated persons , then it would be the
equivalent of having three ( 3 ) two _ family lots . Either way we would
provide a total of 27 , 000 square feet . This would require us to
bring water and sewer to the site .
• In addition to the special permit , we need to ask for a variance
fr- om that portion of Art-is- le - III Section 9 paragraph 3 which requires
us to have a lot with a minimum of sixty ( 60 ) feet on a public road .
Our property is not currentl -y - fronting on a town road , however , it is
- to be serviced by- anextension of.._ V. ista Lane which is currently being
built on the Cayuga Vista Townhouse project . This extension has been
reserved out of the Cayuga Vista lands for the express purpose of
servicing these interior lots .
At this time _ we . are unable to tell when this road extension will
be built . Ourrequest is to allow the relocation of this house as
described above and to issue a Certificate of Occupancy even though
the road was not completed . At the very least this lot and structure
Would have a sixty ( 60 ) foot right - of - way to the town road . This
would meet - the spirit of the ordinance since the minimum frontage on
a public road is sixty ( 60 ) feet ,
If this request is granted , we would be willing to restrict
future development of this parcel of land by saying no further
certificates of occupancy would be issued until the road is extended .
•
Exhibit 5
• CONCERNED CITIZENS OF SOUTH HILI.,
- petition -
We , the undersigned , oppose the relocation of the non - conforming three -unit
building (large blue building) at 1018 Danby Road , to another parcel at 371.
Stone Quarry Road. We oppose the relocation of this dwelling to another parcel
in our neighborhood (Resident District R9 ) because this dwelling exceeds the
two-family limit (Article III , Section 4 , paragraph 2 of the town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance) and because it exceeds the 30 foot height limit (Article III , Section
4 , paragraph. 17) . Relocating this building will substantially reduce the quality
and disrupt the character of the neighborhood of which R9 zoning code is
designed to protect. Conventional practice dictates that no stucture should
either be placed on or built on a parcel until prior approval of sewage , water,
drainage , and other pre - construction requirements have been granted .
Name Address Phone Date
Z Ld
i
e
L C Jk) c� r
Gig Gt,��� =' 1 � .� • ) c,�. `) ,� ��i;c, �' - j/Z �.; I,Y --
1_7 A2
110
70000
rz
40
jot ,.
•
PACE ) o� 3
Exhibit 6
i
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF SOUTH HILL
= petition =
We , the undersigned , oppose the relocation of the non - conforming three -- unit
building (large blue building ) at 1018 Danby Road , to another parcel at 371
Stone Quarry Road . We oppose the relocation of this dwelling to another parcel
in our neighborhood (Resident District R9 ) because this dwelling exceeds the
two - family limit (Article III , Section 4 , paragraph 2 of the town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance) and because it exceeds the 30 foot height limit (Article III , Section
4 , paragraph 17 ) . Relocating this building will substantially reduce the duality
and disrupt the character of the neighborhood of which R9 zoning code is
designed to protect. Conventional practice dictates that no stucture should
either be placed on or built on a parcel until prior approval of sewage , water,
drainage , and other pre -construction requirements have been granted .
Name Address Phone Gate
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF SOUTH HILI.,
- petition
We , the undersigned , oppose the relocation of the non - conforming three - unit
building ( large blue building) at 1018 Danby Road , to another parcel at 371
Stone Quarry Road . We oppose the relocation of this dwelling to another parcel
in our neighborhood ( Resident District R9 ) because this dwelling exceeds the
two - family limit (Article III , Section 4 , paragraph 2 of the town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance) and because it exceeds the 30 foot height limit (Article III , Section
4 , paragraph 17 ) . Relocating this building will substantially reduce the quality
and disrupt the character of the neighborhood of which R9 zoning code is
designed to protect. Conventional practice dictates that no stucture should
either be placed on or built on a parcel until prior approval of sewage , water,
drainage , and other pre - construction requirements have been granted .
Name Address Phone Date
• �i1 G��17A �� ' C��� /G'C 1 ? iz �q" '� c' � l /9 7 r- 21r� 7
Ezk91 �11
rte' c�� �" 1 J �% . 7k:) <<_:`
�-
gwe` y e(G2 L •
1A 71/7 7
P7 3
- _4"/aT 127
. - a -� .� 7/49r
PP, GC
• PART II - Environmental Assessment - Building Relocation Proposal
A . Action is Unlisted .
B . Action will receive coordinated. review ( Planning Board ) .
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 dis osai , potential for erosion , drainage or
flooding roblems ?
The proposed relocation and proposed occupancy would have no
significant adverse impact to airf surface , or groundwater
quality , subject to final site plan approval of the relocation
site . The building would be initially relocated on 5 . 87 ± acres
of land , which would be ample for the provision of a leach field
or sand filter for sewage disposal . For the building to be
ultimately relocated on 27 , 000 square feet , sewage would require
pumping to mains planned on the Cayuga Vista property , and public
. water supply would have to be provided .
The 27 , 000 square feet proposed for the building would be
the equivalent in residential density and occupancy to that which
is permitted in R- 9 Districts , as has been described in the
• appeal , with the potential for family occupancy or for a total
occupancy of nine unrelated persons .
Access to the site could be provided along a 60 foot right
of way from - the Cayuga Vista- property . - Variances have been
granted previously in the Town for single - family_ dwelling units
served by driveways along such potential road rights of way .
Because the proposed four dwelling units would be located in a
single building with adequate lot area for that amount of
residential density , it is recommended that any necessary
variances for access to the four proposed units will have no
significant adverse environmental impact .
There appear to be practical difficulties in regard to
timing of road construction and further land development that
should be considered in deciding whether a certificate of
compliance could be issued for the building prior to construction
of a road to Town specifications . If a suitable driveway were
constructed and maintained to serve the building , and to provide .
emergency vehicle access , and if Vista Drive were completed and
accepted by the Town , no significant adverse environmental impact
would be expected from the granting of such a certificate .
There were some objections to the proposal by adjacent
property owners in regard to noise :generated by existing building
occupants . Such could be substantially mitigated through the
enforcement of noise restrictions by the owner of the building
and by the tenants themselves . It is recommended that a tenant
• in each unit be designated and identified as the manager of thedwelling unit , with the responsibility of enforcing noise
restrictions ,
Exhibit 7
Y
Any further development of the parcel would be subject to
further environmental review in regard to drainage , special
vegetation , and other factors .
C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or
other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood
character ?
As proposed , the building would be upgraded and could
represent an asset to the community . The adjoining neighborhood
consists of single and two- family residences , four -unit
dwellings , and vacant land . It is assumed at this time that the
building would be located in the eastern portion of the site ,
close to the four unit buildings planned for Cayuga Vista ,
No significant adverse impact is expected to these factors ,
subject to the conditions of noise restriction described above ,
and the requirement of final site plan approval for the final
building location .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife
species , significant habitats ,: or threatened or endangered
species ?
The site is partly wooded , and may have isolated stands of
native plants of some value . No significant species or habitats
are expected to be adversely impacted , subject to final site plan
review of the final building location to ascertain the extent of
vegetation- modification required , and subject to the review of__
any further development on the land .
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 ?
The subject 5 . 87 acre parcel would be suitable for cluster
subdivision , and the relocated building could reasonably be .
included as part of such a potential subdivision . Based on the
27 , 000 square foot lot proposed , and subject to conditions
described . abov.e , the proposed four-unit buildingwould have no
significant adverse impact if it were ultimately part of a
. conventional subdivision . The change from vacant land to a
parcel with a 4 - unit building would, not represent a significant
change in land use intensity , with the proposed 27 , 000 square
foot lot for the 4 units equivalent in residential density to
that which is currently permitted in R9 districts , Any further
development would be subject to further environmental review .
C5 . Growth , subsequent devel.o ment , or related activity s
likely to be induced by the proposed action ?
• Further plans for the acreage would - require further review .
Because of the circumstances surrounding the relocation, of the
building , the proposal is seen as a unique situation which would
not directly set an adverse precedent ,
y�
Y
C6 . Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified
in C1 - C6 ?
Not expected .
C7 . A change in use of either_ quantity or type of energy ?
Not expected ,
PART III
A negative determination of environmental. significance is
recommended , provided the following .
1 . That the final location of the building and its
lot be subject to Final Site Plan Approval by the Planning
Board ,
2 . That Vista Drive be completed and accepted by the
Town prior to the issuance of any certificates of compliance
for the relocated building .
3 . . That no additional certificates of occupancy be
issued until access to the site is along a road built to
Town specifications and accepted by the Town .
4 . , That the building comply with all pertinent codes
and regulations ,
5 . That a tenant in each unit be designated and
• identified to be responsible for the management of the unit
and the enforcement of noise restrictions .
Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : Susan CO Beeners , Town Planner
Review Date : May 14 , 1987 , revised May 21 , �- '✓�
•