Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1987-06-24 i FILED TOWN OF ITHACA i Date t / 00 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Cler JUNE 24 , 1987 A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on June 24 , 1987 , in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward W . King , Jack D . Hewett , Andrew S . Frost ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Richard P . Ruswick ( Town Attorney ) . 11 ALSO PRESENT : John Bowers , Celia Bowers , Martha Hagaman , Jack Hagaman , I William A . Grover Sr . , Athena P . Grover , Geraldine R . Ball , Eugene H . Ball , Michael D . Peyton , Jean Swartwood , Andrea Coby , John Cake , Joyce Hickes , Herbert Monkemeyer , E . L . Rose Gostanian Monkemeyer , Carol Hill , James C . Rogan , Evan N . Monkemeyer , Chairman Aron declared the public meeting duly opened at 7 : 00 p . m . , and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on June 16 , 1987 , and June 19 , 1987 , respectively , • together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion , upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Administrator , upon the Regional Manager of the Finger Lakes State Parks , Recreation and Historic Preservation Department , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of the appellants and / or agent , as appropriate , on June 17 , 1987 . Chairman Aron noted that a quorum was present . REPORT OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IN RE CODDINGTON ROAD COMMUNITY CENTER DAY CARE CENTER , Chairman Aron asked Mr . Andrew Frost , Town of Ithaca Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , to report on the status of fire safety at the Coddington Road Community Center Day Care Center , Mr . Frost reported on fire safety items which have been corrected at the Coddington Road Community Center Day Care Center , noting that on May 15 , 1987 he visited the Center to reinspect for certain fire safety violations with respect , to an inspection he had performed on October 23 , 1986 . Mr . Frost reported that the reinspection indicated the following : 1 . Emergency lighting has been installed in each of the two classrooms . • 2 . Illuminated exit signs are now appropriately placed . Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 - June 24 , 1987 • 3 . The interior wallsofthe large classroom have been sheetrocked to provide a Class !IA flame spread rating . 4 . The interior walls . ) where necessary , of the small classroom now have a Class A flame spread rating which was accomplished through the proper application of an approved intumescent paint . 5 . The domestic type stoves in the kitchen are now provided with an exterior exhaust fa' n . Mr . Frost stated that at this time the Coddington Road Community Center Day Care Center appears to be in compliance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code , Chairman Aron asked if there were any question or comments with respect to Mr . Frost ' s report . There were none . Chairman Aron thanked Mr . Frost for his report . REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER WITH RESPECT TO THE LITTLE FEET MONTESSORI CENTER , Chairman Aron asked! Ms . Susan Beeners , Town Planner , to report on the status of the Little Feet Montessori Center request for expansion which had been before', the Board on June 10 , 1987 . Ms . Beeners reported that the Board ' s positive declaration of environmental • significance and its recommendation of the submission of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( DEIS ) by the applicants , has been filed with the appropriate bodies . Ms . Beeners reported that , since that time , there have been indications that the applicants wish to submit a revised plan and that has been tentatively scheduled for the Planning Board meeting of July 7 , 1987 , Ms . Beeners reported that the revised plan involves a' different location - - the white , two - story , manufactured home on Pine Tree Road up from the corner of Pine Tree Road and Honness Lane ; next to Dr . Chiu ' s office . Ms . Beeners suggested that the Board of Appeals members might wish to inspect the site and noted that the Planning Board will also be looking at the site and will be submitting a report to the Board of Appeals . Ms . Beeners reported that the revised plan also involves thirty children continuing to be maintained at the existing Little Feet Montessori Center on Honness Lane 'i; and fifty children to be maintained at the proposed new location . Chairman Aron asked if there were any questions or comments with respect to Ms . Beeners ' s report . Mr . Hewett asked for clarification as to the location of the new proposal , as did Mr . King . Ms . Beeners described the new proposed location for the Little Feet Montessori Center on Pine Tree Road . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Beeners if he were correct in stating that the previous Little Feet application with respect to building a new facility on Honness Lane had been withdrawn . Ms . Beeners stated that % that was correct . Chairman Aron thanked Ms . Beeners for her report . 11 0 The first matter before the Board was as follows : Zoning Board of Appeals , ',, - 3 - June 24 , 1987 • ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM MAY 13 , 1987 ) OF MARIE LOUISE BROWN , APPELLANT , RANDOLPH F . BROWN , AGENT, , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR / ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DENYING BUILDING PERMITS TO REBUILD A NON- CONFORMING BARN DESTROYED BY FIRE AND TO BUILD INCREASED STORAGE AND SALES AREA , AT INDIAN CREEK FARM , LOCATED AT 1408 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 1 - 25 . 21 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 , PERMITS ARE DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTIONS 54 AND 56 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , WHEREBY NO NON - CONFORMING BUILDING OR USE SHALL BE EXTENDED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , AND , WHEREBY SUBSTANTIAL RESTORATION OF A BUILDING DAMAGED BY FIRE MAY TAKE PLACE WITHIN SIX II MONTHS PROVIDED SUCH DAMAGE CONSTITUTES AN AMOUNT LESS THAN 75 % OF THE REPLACEMENT COST OF SUCH BUILDING , AND WHEREBY SUCH TIME LIMIT ' !MAY BE EXTENDED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN CASES OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP . Chairman Aron stated that the adjournment of the Brown Appeal was now before the Board . Chairman Aron recalled that at its May 13 , 1987 meeting the Board made a negative determination of environmental signficance in the matter . Chairman Aron stated that the reason the matter had been adjourned was primarily to have the Building Inspector work with a representative of the New York State Department of Transportation and with. ''; Mr . Brown to come up with a plan as to the parking situation as far as the front of this stand is concerned . Chairman Aron noted that the Board is also considering a use variance as to whether or not this Board should grant Mr . Brown a greenhouse • which is 30 feet by 75j�1 feet . Chairman Aron further noted that the Board has before it a parking sketch for the Brown property by the D . O . T . which shows the area as to parking . Chairman Aron stated that he would like to point out at this time that the public hearing . '', was closed at the last meeting , and the only time this Board feels , and the Chair of this Board feels , to reopen the public hearing would be if there is new factual evidence brought before this Board - - something which the Board has not heard already and the Board will ,, decide whether it can - - to reopen for the public providing the ev !Idence is satisfactory for this Board . Chairman Aron read 'haloud a letter addressed to Town Planner Susan Beeners from Frank R . ', Liguori , Tompkins County Commissi ''; oner of Planning , dated May 12 , ;111987 , and attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . Chairman Aron read ' iIaloud a letter , with attached plan , addressed to Mr . Brown from Frederick Grout , P . E . , Resident Engineer of the New York State Department of Transportation , dated May 20 , 1987 , and attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3 . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Brown to come before the Board . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Brown if he had completed those requests by the D . O . T . and , if so , if he had documentation as to that . Mr . Brown responded that he had not completed the application form because the D . O . T , regulations "require a Surety Bond and he did not qualify • for a Surety Bond , however , a plan has been developed between the D . O . T . and him which allows completion of the required work without a Surety Bond . Mr . Brown+ stated that the construction work is going Zoning Board of Appeals u - 4 - June 24 , 1987 forward even though the , lapplication cannot be supplied . • Chairman Aron asked Mr . Brown if he had been given anything in writing by the D . O . T . stating that they were satisfied with what was being done . Mr . Brown stated that Mr . Grout has been out to the site in person , along with Mr . Yonkin of the D . O . T . , and they have done the necessary paperwork to allow the work to continue but it is not the same application that the Board has in its hands . Mr . Brown stated that he did not have any copies of that information right now , but that is why they allowed him to continue grading the site as he had started . Mr . Brown started that he was going to be able to do every aspect of the plan asl', described with the exception of , that is , instead of an earthen ' berm in " this " area [ indicating on a plan appended to the bulletin board ] . Mr . Frost interjected that he had spoken with D . O . T . on ' the telephone and stated that D . O . T . was satisfied , adding that 'ihe had asked for a letter , however , had not received one . Mr . Frost reiterated that D . O . T . was satisfied with the plan presented to them which Mr . Brown is going to complete . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Frost if he were correct in stating that D . O . T . had expressed verbally that they were satisfied , with Mr . Frost responding , yes . Mr . King wondered i' f the plan presented tonight was the same plan presented earlier . Mr . ' Brown responded , yes , adding that the only deviation is that the bond was required to build an earthen berm in • " this area " [ indicating,; ] in front of the stand which is in direct proximity with NYS Rt . 96 . Mr . Brown stated that they were able to complete the intent of ` Pthe plan - - instead of the berm - - in other words , if a car were to !, go through " here " by accident it would not be damaged - - that was their concern . Mr . Brown stated that D . O . T . has allowed him to go ahead and " block this area off " [ indicating ] with low- growing non - obstruction - type plants in containers which are not a hazard to cars going through which was their only concern as far as the bond is concerned . Mr . Brown stated that the D . O . T . had given him permission to continue with the grading for visibility to the north . Mr . Brown stated that '' they are going to define the driveways as described exactly in their report . Mr . Brown stated that , also , he has a letter which the Board does not have which is an acknowledgment that he has applied for ; "D . O . T . warning signs off the road prior to the entrance to the stand which will alert people of the existence of the stand . Mr . Brown submitted the letter to the Chair . Chairman Aron read' % aloud a letter addressed to Mr . Brown , again from Frederick Grout , dated May 19 , 1987 , and attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . Mr . Brown stated that the Board probably also noticed that since the last meeting , in response to the Board ' s questioning , he has agreed to relocate thel site of the proposed greenhouse from the parking area to the field . Chairman Aron suggested that the parking should be talked about first , followed by discussion of the • greenhouse . Referring to the kite plan , Chairman Aron pointed out the ;i, Zoning Board of Appeals " - 5 - June 24 , 1987 • proposed parking for about 15 cars , and asked if that included parking for the equipment that is used . Mr . Brown stated that since the objections had been raised he is parking equipment there at low- traffic times only , and the rest of the time it is parked on the old barn site . Mr . Brown noted that , however , there is one truck which is parked in the corner spot on a regular basis , adding that there is one spot occupied all the time . Again , referring to the site plan submitted , Chairman Aron noted that on the north side of the stand there is a driveway with a thirty - foot entrance as well as exit and on the south side there is a forty - foot entrance / exist , and asked if those will be marked . Mr . Brown responded , yes , adding that it will be marked by signs which say " ENTER " and " EXIT " , and , also , the driveways will be further defined by " these " plantings on : ' the inside as the Board can see by the dotted line which goes around the stand . Mr . Brown stated that these plantings will define the inside of the driveways which were never defined before . Mr . Brown stated that there will also be signs in that area which will prohibit parking in the driveways . 11 Chairman Aron asked if there were any questions or comments as to the parking first before going into the matter of the greenhouse . Mr . Frost stated that he had driven by the vegetable stand today [ Wednesday , June 241 and noticed that there were numerous cars that • were parked behind in the parking area with the exception of one car that was parked in the front . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Brown how he would control parking . ' Mr . Brown responded that when " this " plan [ indicating ] is implemented , the driveways will be so narrow that most people will just not dare park there because it will be obvious that they are blocking something . Mr . Brown further stated that for those people who insist on parking in the driveways , he has instructed the stand help that , upon completion of this work , they are not to serve anyone who parks in the driveway , and that is all there is to it - - their jobs will depend on that . Mr . King asked Mr . Brown why he could not implement this plan immediately , with Mr . Brown responding that he had been waiting for the containers , adding that they arrived yesterday . Mr . King asked Mr . Brown how many containers he had , with Mr . Brown responding , 75 , adding that that is more than enough to complete the operation . Mr . King asked Mr . Brown if he were proposing some of the containers to be in the back , with Mr . Brown responding that they are not necessary in the back because there !' is a four - foot grade differential between the stand and the parking area . Mr . King asked Mr . Brown where the 75 containers will be placed , with Mr . Brown responding that he is proposing oak barrel planters of geraniums in the area which is not in proximity to the highway , and , these low- growing containers of a bag nature , about eight inches deep , in the area in proximity to the highway which is under the control of the D . O . T . , which will not be able to be seen once the plants are growing . Mr . Brown stated that • the plants will grow up out of them , making a clear definition of the display and walking area for the customers . Mr . Brown noted that this is as prescribed by the' D . O . T . to within seven feet of the road , and Zoning Board of Appeals - 6 - June 24 , 1987 stated that you cannotiput anything in that area controlled by the D . O . T . Chairman Aron commented that this , to him , seemed also a matter of beautification , and stated to Mr . Brown that he has painted the stand also . Mr . Brown stated that he thought it would be attractive and he did paint the stand . The site plan referred to is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 . Ms . Beeners asked ;Mr . Brown if the front area was going to be free of vehicles , or if there will be additional display plants located there . Mr . Brown stated that that area has . been used for display in the past , but later on in the season when there are the more bulky items such als squash available , and that he will probably continue to do that . Mr . King asked Mr . 'I, Brown how soon he would be able to deploy the containers , wondering if it would be before the containers were filled with soil and plants . Mr . Brown responded that the containers are already filled with soil - - they come that way - - and it is just a matter of laying them down and filling them with plants . Mr . Brown stated that the containers will be placed in a semi - circle and the whole process could be '!', done in a matter of hours , adding that this will be done immediately hopefully , before the weekend . Chairman Aron asked if there were any further questions or comments as to parking . 11 There were none , Chairman Aron stated that he was satisfied as to the parking and it would appear the Board was also satisfied as to the parking , and asked if the Board wished to move on to the matter of the proposed greenhouse . 11 Chairman Aron , commenting that , originally , the proposed greenhouse was to be in the back of the stand , noted that the site plan presently before the Board shows the greenhouse proposed to be placed approximately wh"ere the barn used to be . Mr . Brown offered that that was to the north of the driveway that separates the field from the old barn site and indicated on the map that the old barn site was over " here " and " this " is the driveway which runs through . Chairman Aron interjected , questioning how far from that driveway , approximately , that greenhouse will be located if permission is granted , that is , from the center of " this driveway here " going up " here " . Mr . Brown , adding the distances up and noting that " this " is 30 feet and " this " is ' 1100 feet , stated that he would say there was approximately 70 feet between " here " and the edge of the greenhouse . Mr . King indicated that ',: that might not be correct and noted that the driveway is running southwesterly . Mr . Brown stated that he believed the distance was still in excess of 70 feet . Mr . King stated that it actually scales to about 55 feet on the drawing . Discussion followed during which the distance was measured with a ruler using a 10 - scale . Mr . Brown stated that it reads 70 feet on the scale . Chairman Aron asked how wide the driveway is , with Mr . Brown responding , about 12 to 15 feet wide . • At this point , Chairman Aron noted that the Board is discussing a use variance , and referring to " Use Variances " , Chairman Aron read Zoning Board of Appeals ; - 7 - June 24 , 1987 • aloud from the New York Planning Federation Planning News , Vol . 51 , No . 3 , May / June 1987 , i' page 7 , [ Governdale v . Board of Appeals of Brookhaven , 503 N . Y . S . 2d 5971 as follows . " . . . Where a use variance is sought , the applicant must show practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship . Unnecessary hardship means : 1 ) that the land cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for the purpose allowed in that zone , 2 ) that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood , which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself ; 3 ) that the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality . . . . A use { variance may not be granted merely to ease the personal difficulties of the owner . a a It Chairman Aron asked Mr . Brown if he understood what this meant , with Mr . Brown indicating that he did . Chairman Aron 'asked Mr . Brown to inform the Board where his problems were . Mr . Brown stated that he had prepared a statement which he would like to read aloud , if1he could . Chairman Aron asked that he do so and Mr . Brown read aloud as follows . " I have been farming the Indian Creek Farm for 7 years and since then I believe I have taken a run down unproductive orchard and worked it into a fruitful healthy one and changed weed fields into young fruit trees , and converted a roadside stand in disrepair into what I believe is an attraction . Despite this the Indian Creek Fruit Farm • does not make enough money to support myself , my wife and my three children . Indian Creek ,' I my only source of income and as such I must do what is necessary to = extend the season and increase sales to become a viable business . Also the recent loss of my barn has taken me from a position where I had over 2000 sq . ft . of storage and display space to one where I now have ' only 400 sq . ft . under cover on the premises . This is truly a hardship and as such I request that the ZBA grant my appeal to build a greenhouse at the Indian Creek Fruit Farm . This structure will allow extension of the growing season for vegetable and flower crops in spring and fall allowing me to open earlier in spring and close later in fall thereby increasing income to an acceptable level . It will also provide desperately needed secure storage space which does not exist any longer . " " My neighbors have' voiced concerns over this proposition and I have responded to their ';, and your objections . I have met with DOT and developed a plan for traffic control which answers the objections of parking in front of the stand , adequate parking behind the stand , visibility , and signage . I have agreed to move the proposed greenhouse to a location behind the parking area in my field so it will not decrease available parking or obstruct visibility . I have moved my tools to the old barn site and removed ' old worn out tools ' as described in the petition altogether from the site . " " I have found out from DOT that at the request of the Town , they would study a possible speed limit reduction for the area , not only • because of Indian Creek Fruit Farm , but because of the density of driveways , frequency of accidents at nearby road intersections , the impending redirection of DuBois Road and the perception of motorists Zoning Board of Appeals - 8 - June 24 , 1987 • in the area that it is hazardous approaching the hospital and professional building intersections . Why has this not been studied before ? Because in order for them to study it the Town must request that it be done , and quite plainly no one has ever asked ! I am asking now and will pursue the proper channels of the Town to see that this is studied . " " In conclusion , I repeat that I view the denial of my request to build a greenhouse at Indian Creek Fruit Farm a clear hardship to my business and thereby my ; family , and I pledge to work with the Town and my neighbors to safely and cleanly move the Indian Creek Fruit Farm into a position where its survival is assured and its fruits will be available for our children and their children . " " Thank you . " Mr . Brown submitted his statement to the Chair for the record . Chairman Aron , commenting that Mr . Brown had mentioned that this was his only income , noted that Mr . Brown has another farm ' in Newfield . Mr . Brown responded , yes , adding , but this is the only place that he can market other than at the Farmers ' Market . Commenting , let us just assume that this Board does not see fit to give you a greenhouse , ' Chairman Aron asked Mr . Brown what financial hardship he would have and further asked if he could plant anything on • that spot rather than having a greenhouse . Chairman Aron stated that he had a second question , which was , whether the greenhouse was permanent , or , temporary so that it could be taken down at any time . Mr . Brown stated that a greenhouse of this type is always a temporary structure , adding that it can be easily moved since it does not have a foundation . Mr . Brown stated that it is merely a set of spines lying on the ground which are covered with a film which is inflated , so there would be no problem moving it , if necessary . With respect to hardship , Mr . Brown stated that the direct financial hardship , the immediate hardship by denial , would be the fact that he has the structure itself and he has paid for it and if denied permission to erect it he would have to ship it back which would cost an awful lot . Mr . Brown offered that he could plant some other seasonal crop on that spot but he did not believe that is going to change his income situation at all . Mr . Brown stated that the intent is to try to grow vegetable crops during the season when they cannot usually be grown outdoors in this area . Chairman Aron noted that Mr . Brown was saying that he could grow something that cannot be grown out of doors , and commented that the Board members were not farmers - - they have other professions - - so they need him to tell them about those sorts of things . Mr . Brown stated that he would be able to , for example , grow tomatoes and provide them for sale to his customers as early as May 1st , whereas the normal tomato crop in the Ithaca area , outdoors , would not be ready until late July . Mr . Brown stated that that was one example , adding that there are many examples for uses of a greenhouse in this climate . • Chairman Aron wondered if there were any way for Mr . Brown to borrow money from the bank . Mr . Brown responded that the bank was . not Zoning Board of Appeals - 9 - June 24 , 1987 • looking very favorably at him at all right now because he has nothing on the site except a 400 - square - foot stand , adding that the bank will not pay any attention to it at all . Mr . Brown stated that he did own the land outright . Chairman Aron interjected that he , therefore , had no mortgages to pay money for . Mr . Brown , commenting that he owed plenty of money and was � just scraping by , stated that he did not mind telling anybody that he , owes over $ 85 , 000 . 00 in mortgages on his other farm and has to make $ 95, 0 . 00 in payments each month . Mr . Brown stated that he had to refinance just recently and the bank will not loan any money on Indian Creek because it does not have a house on it . Mr . Brown stated that he was" at the end of his refinancing , adding that he has mortaged his home to' the fullest extent possible to support Indian Creek , which he has been doing for seven years . Mr . Brown stated that it is coming around but ' Iit needs a boost , adding that he simply has to extend his growing season . Chairman Aron noted that Mr . Brown was saying that his " boost, " would then be the greenhouse . Mr . Brown responded that that , certainly , is one step , and added that he believed a lot of the boost will just be the beautification of the area and it will attract more customers , but , just because he attracts more customers , it does not necessarily mean that he is creating a hazard . Chairman Aron stated that he had no further questions and asked if there were any further .questions or comments from the Board . Mr . King stated that Mr . Brown has amply demonstrated hardship in • this case , however , theIBoard is not required to be limited to a use variance . Mr . King stated that this site has been a farm long before the Zoning Ordinance was enacted and that it would seem to come under the extension a very6 modest extension - - of a non - conforming use . Mr . King stated that Mr . Brown has indicated that he had had about 2 , 000 square feet under ' storage , adding that Mr . Brown is now asking for a 2 , 250 square - foot' greenhouse to replace that barn destroyed by fire or , at least for the moment , it will stand in place of the barn because the decision as to whether or not to rebuild the barn has been deferred.. Mr . King stated that he would say , under Sections 52 through 56 of the Zoning Ordinance , the extension of a non- conforming use - - which was a prior legal use anyway - - that on both counts , there is a legal basis for granting the request , provided , of course , that the Board elects to do so . Chairman Aron stated that he would also note Section 55 and read aloud : " . . . A non - conforming use may be changed to another non - conforming use of the same or more restrictive classification . . . " Mr King commented that " change " could be considered an extension , and Chairman Aron commented - - an extension of the barn which he does not have . Mr . King commented that it could be an extension of a non - conforming use . Chairman Aron , commenting that actually we are not talking about the burning , stated that the question , it seemed to him , that we are talking about is a temporary situation here with the greenhouse - - very temporary it can be easily moved ; the wind could blow it over . Mr . Brown interrupted stating , no , it cannot be blown over by the wind at all . Mr . Brown • stated that it is , in essence , from a farming perspective , only a consolidation of similar plant row covers for instance that you could just lay out in the field . Mr . Brown stated that it is really just a Zoning Board of Appeals " - 10 - June 24 , 1987 • protective cover for plants , adding that some people might consider it a building , but it is r;bally not . Chairman Aron offered that he did not consider it a building . Mr . King read Section 54 : " . . . No non - conforming building , or use shall be extended except as authorized by the Board of Appeals . ,, " Chairman Aron asked if there were any further questions or comments , A gentleman from the floor indicated that he had a question . Chairman Aron stated that he was sorry but the public hearing was closed . A gentleman from the floor asked if it will be reopened at a future time . Chairman , Aron stated that the Board was discussing a decision at this point . " A gentleman from the floor asked if there will ever be a public hearing for people that have not been informed of this that are concerned neighbors . Chairman Aron responded , no , adding that perhaps the gentleman was not there the last time but the public hearing was closed when the Board heard everyting there was to be heard . A gentleman from the floor asked about people who were in the hospital and did not make it . Chairman Aron stated that he was sorry , but the public hearing was closed and as such he may have to consider the gentleman out of order . Chairman Aron stated , please , do not get emotional , adding that ;; the Board heard a lot of emotions , however , they deal with facts - - that is all they can deal with . Chairman Aron stated that there was no public at this time except if you prove to this Board that you have new evidence which it has not heard before . Mr . Bowers asked from the floor if they could ask for information . Mrs . Bowers asked from the floor if she could ask for information . Mr . Bowers asked how close this thing is to their house . Mrs . Bowers asked how close it is to their barn . Mrs . Bowers stated that because of when Mr . 11 Brown ' s barn burned before she wanted to know how flammable this structure is , adding that Mr . Aron had said it could blow over . Chairman Aron stated that the Board had already heard that the barn burned down , adding that they knew all about that from before . Mrs . Bowers asked , ,lis this one flammable ; how close is it to her barn , is it going to be visible from her windows ? Mrs . Bowers stated that , after all , she has a residence ; she is zoned residential . Mrs . Bowers asked , is it going to be visible ; is it more than 200 feet from her barn . Mrs . Bowers !' stated that she thought this is valid . Mrs . Bowers stated that if this structure should burn , for example , would their barn be in danger the way it was when the other one burned . Mrs . Bowers stated that ' she thought these were valid questions . Chairman Aron responded that , first of all , we are not talking • about a barn , we are talking about a greenhouse which has a plastic covering and plastic isnot combustible . Chairman Aron stated that , Zoning Board of Appeals ' - 11 - June 24 , 1987 • as an engineer , he was sitting here saying that we do not have a combustible as far as plastic is concerned . Chairman Aron stated that what we are talking about here now is that the man has got some - - he was not talking for him here - - but he was just trying to explain something to Mrs . Bowers . Chairman Aron offered that , to the best of my knowledge , if I were to have a greenhouse , what do I keep in there ? - - plants - - I do not keep firewood in there . A gentleman from the floor stated that he has crates which he could keep in there . Mr . Brown stated that he would be glad to talk to any of them . Chairman Aron stated that the public hearing was closed and asked that Mr . Brown address the Chair . Chairman Aron stated that if there were no further questions , he would entertain a motion . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : RESOLVED , that the , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant the applicant approval for the erection of the proposed inflatable plastic greenhouse , 30 feet by 75 feet , in the location shown on the site plan , conditioned upon his also completing the erection of the planters in a semi - circle around the easterly side • of the roadstand , and his putting up suitable signs directing traffic in and out of the parking area behind , all as shown on the site plan . There being no further discussion , the Chair polled the members for their vote , as follows : Mr . Hewett Aye , Mr . King Aye , Mr . Aron . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . Aye . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the Indian Creek Farm matter duly closed . The second matter before the Board was as follows : APPEAL OF JAMES C . ROGAN , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR / ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE ADDITIONAL BUILDING , 21l048 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE , WITH A NORTH SIDE YARD OF 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND A NORTH BUFFER AREA FOR A CITY OF ITHACA RESIDENCE AREA LESS THAN 50 FEET IN WIDTH , AT " ROGAN ' S CORNERS " , 825DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS N0 . 6 - 40 - 4 - 2 , - 5 , and - 8 , BUSINESS DISTRICT " A " , TO BE USED AS A LAUNDROMAT , 1 ,, 024 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE , AND A PIZZA / SANDWICH DELIVERY SERVICE WITH SEATING FOR 19 PEOPLE , 1 ,..024 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE VII , SECTION 32 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING • ORDINANCE , WHEREBY A LAUNDROMAT AND RESTAURANT ARE NOT SPECIFIED USES IN BUSINESS DISTRICT " A " ; ARTICLE VII , SECTION 37 , PARAGRAPH 21 OF SAID ORDINANCE , WHEREBY A SIDE YARD OF 20 FEET IS REQUIRED ; AND Zoning Board of Appeals , , - 12 - June 24 , 1987 • ARTICLE VII , SECTION 38 , , PARAGRAPH 5 , OF SAID ORDINANCE , WHEREBY NO STRUCTURE MAY BE PLACED NEARER THAN 50 FEET FROM ANY RESIDENCE DISTRICT . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published; and as noted above . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against the matter of the Rogan Appeal . No one spoke . Chairman Aron invited Mr . Rogan to come before the Board . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Mr . Rogan under date of June 14 , 1987 , as follows . . . . Having been denied permission to construct a building at Rogan ' s Corner , for use as a pizza and sub delivery service , with seating for up to 19 people , and a laundromat occupying 1048 square feet at 825 Danby Road . Il, . . The plan is to build a 2 , 048 sq . ft . brick and wood - constructed building , with ample parking for 12 cars . The building is to consist of a laundromat of 1 , 024 sq , ft . , and a pizza and sub delivery service , with seating for 19 people , consisting of 1 , 024 sq . ft . q[ This property is bordered by Southside Fuel Oil Co . and Hudson Heights Apartments on the north , Ithaca College Building and Maintenance Department on the west and across Danby Road , the property of Emerson Electric . III feel that we have proved traffic does flow in and out of the area successfully without incident . We have found that several ° flout - going customers use the back entrance off Coddington Road , eliminating 30 % - 400 of the traffic from the Danby Road entranceii also strongly feel that our present South Hill business has proven the area ready for more commercial development ; thus Business District 'A becomes a hardship if allowance is not made to develop a laundromat � land pizza delivery service . These businesses will be owned and operated by the Rogan family . " Each of the Board members had before him a copy of a map entitled " Site Plan , Rogan ' s Corner , Rte . 96B & Coddington Rd . , Town of Ithaca , Proposed Additional Development " , prepared by R . A . Boehlecke Jr . , Architect , dated FebruatIy 16 , 1987 . Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals lead agency in the matter of the environmental review of the Rogan Appeal . Chairman Aron noted that the Board members had each received a copy of the Long EAF submitted by Mr . Rogan , dated May 1 , 1987 , [ Part I ] , and a copy of Town Planner Beeners ' rev11 iew of and recommendation upon same [ Parts II and II -A ] , dated February 25 , 1987 and June 19 , 1987 . Chairman Aron . also noted that the Board had received copies of the Planning Board ' s Adopted Resolutions with' respect to SEQR and the proposed expansion of Rogan ' s Corner , Chairman Aron asked Ms . Beeners for further information as to the EAF . Ms . Beeners stated that the Planning Board had examined this • proposal at Public Hearing on March 3 , 1987 and recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals .make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the construction of the one building that Zoning Board of Appeals i ' - 13 - June 24 , 1987 • is proposed at this time , with certain conditions including , among others , approval of final grading , drainage , and utilities plans by 11 the Town Engineer and approval of the final landscape plan by the Town Planner . Ms . Beeners Istated that there is also mentioned certain improvements for pedestrian circulation along the driveway from Coddington Road . Ms . Beeners stated that the Planning Board also recommended that the pizza business hours of operation be limited to beginning at 4 : 00 p . m . and ending . at 2 : 00 a . m . Ms . Beeners stated, ;'' that upon further examination of the site by the Town Engineer , iti is recommended at this time , to minimize conflict between pedestrians and vehicles , that the employee parking , which is shown on the m„ap near Coddington Road , be relocated and that location be used for a ', walkway , instead of putting a walkway on the western side . Ms . Beeners noted that the number of parking spaces that have been proposed in this plan meets the requirements for construction of the two buildings . Ms . Beeners offered that Town Engineer Flumerfelt was ` '; of the opinion that it would be best to move the employee parking to ; ' along this edge " here ” [ indicating on the site plan ] near Coddington Road and put a paved walkway " here " with a curb or some other type of barrier right next to it , and use some of the space which is adjacent ' '� to the existing building for employee parking , and relocate the remainder of the employee parking to an area down by the restaurant . Ms . Beeners pointed out that because of the traffic and topographic issuesll in this area , and the type of short - term • movement that will be going to the uses that Mr . Rogan is proposing , the staff is basically recommending that the parking , as shown on the plan with the revisions she mentioned , be built as part of the development of this first additional building , and that any further consideration of the second additional building on this property is going to be dependent on the test of time of how well circulation can move . Ms . Beeners stated that she would like to see a requirement of a walkway on the east side as it comes down from Coddington Road . Ms . Beeners also mentioned ',,; that there are speed bumps at the site . Ms . Beeners stated that staff is recommending that the employee parking be rearranged so that it would be adjacent to the building where three spaces can go and that " 'I six spaces could be moved to the western edge of the proposed parking , area for a total of nine spaces . Mr . King asked ;for clarification that the proposal being presented is only for the northeasterly building and if it would serve two purposes , that is , ` ' the pizzeria and the laundromat . Ms . Beeners stated that Mr . King was correct , adding that there would be some seating - - 19 seats - - in the pizzeria . Chairman Aron asked about the structure that is located behind this site which is for sale . Mr . Rogan stated that that building is going to be taken down . Chairman Aron , noting that the Planning Board . had recommended that the Zoning Board ° ( make a negative declaration , stated that he would point out for the benefit of the public that any resolution addressed to the Zoning ',IBoard of Appeals by the Planning Board was not totally binding . p Chairman Aron invited Mr . Rogan to address the Board about his Zoning Board of Appeals 'll June 24 , 1987 request . Mr . Rogan appended '; his site plan to the bulletin board and stated that he was proposing to take the pizza business out of the existing building and put it in ' '� half of the new building , and use the other half of the new building for a Laundromat , all of which will be operated by the Rogan ' family . Mr . Rogan stated that the proposed building will be brickland wood with a greenhouse effect similar to McDonald ' s . Mr . Roganp ' added that , basically , where the hardship exists is that under Business District " A " , you are quite limited as to what can be done . Mr . Rogan stated that , also , they feel there is a need for a laundromat , in this area , and by taking the pizza business from the existing building and putting it in the proposed building , that would alleviate the stress of the pizza business . Mr . Hewett asked Mr . Rogan if most of the pizza business would be on - premises consumption or delivery , with Mr . Rogan responding , delivery . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyoneP resent to speak for or P against this matter . No one spoke . Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing and brought the '!`matter back to the Board . Ms . Beeners recalled that the pizza operation was given approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1984 . Ms . Beeners stated that the • laundromat could be designated as a Business " B " use , and the pizza business could be under '''? " Restaurant " which is a Business " C " use . Ms . Beeners stated that , in 'lher opinion , the proposal is one of trying to develop a small neighborhood center for fairly immediate shopping or maintenance needs and this is part of putting that together within the confines of one of thei , strict business classifications . Ms . Beeners commented that this type of situation is something that will be requested in the future .!: Ms . Beeners commented that she felt there is an unsual circumstance ! ' here of a fair amount of student population with certain needs and' she did not think you can put together something for them that would really be successful for them or the landowner under strict Business " A " zoning . Chairman Aron stated that he had visited the site and noted the following : ( 1 ) a speed trap is not that meaningful - - vehicles use that highway like a raceway ; ( 2 ) parking spaces have not been striped - - people have parked their cars any way they please , ( 3 ) a truck was parked by the pumps for at least 25 minutes , thus creating an obstacle . Indicating on theh p , Chairman Aron wondered if the proposed building could be turned " this way " , and commented that it was his opinion that the proposal would be too much in this neighborhood for the size lot indicated . ' I Mr . Rogan spoke of !, another plan which he had thought about and • ' which he termed " plan b ' where the building was turned along the back of the lot line . Mr . Rogan stated that in this plan the' building was a little longer , 90 feet by 30 feet , and went across the back and 11 °ii Zoning Board of Appeals !, - 15 - June 24 , 1987 allowed just about the same amount of parking spaces . Chairman Aron , • II again It on thee' map , stated that there has to be room in " this parking lot " and " this parking lot " to enter and exit , adding that , if the building were turned , it would be safer for the cars , and further adding that safety is the most important factor . Chairman Aron stated that , in addition , he would like to see stop signs before exiting on the highway . Mr . Rogan stated that the reason the building is proposed in its present location is because of the view , adding that if the building were turned , you would not have the openness of the existing building . Mr . Rogan noted that the buildings to the north are the Hudson Heights Apartments in the City . " i Chairman Aron asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board . There being none , Chairman Aron asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion as to environmental assessment . MOTION by Mr . Jackl' '' Hewett , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make ' a negative declaration of environmental significance with respect to the proposed construction of one building in the northeasterly corner of the Rogan ' s Corner site , as recommended by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on March 3 , 1987 . • There being no further discussion , the Chair polled the members for their vote , as follows : Mr . Hewett . . . . . . . !! . . . . . . . Aye . Mr . K ing . . . . . . . . . !0 . . . . . . . Aye , Mr . Aron Aye , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron asked that the Board move on to the proposed structure . Mr . King asked Town Planner Beeners if she saw any problem in asking the Town Board to rezone this property to a Business " C " district . Ms . Beeners responded that this would open the door for using the district for many other things that she did not think would be appropriate , adding that there are considerable amounts of uses permitted in Business " C " that do require a lot of space . Ms . Beeners offered that , also , rezoning to Business " B " would be opening it up a little too much to some uses that would not be appropriate for this site or particular neighborhood . Ms . Beeners said that at some point the Boards are going to have to address these types of business uses , she thought in the context of different geographic areas and different needs in different parts of the town . • Mr . King mused asto how much of a variance the Board is being asked to grant , noting that one would be the location of the proposed structure from the rearllnortherly lot line with a 10 - foot deficiency . Zoning Board of Appeals - 16 - June 24 , 1987 • Mr . King asked Ms . Beeners if she , as Town Planner , saw any problem in locating the building that close to the lot line , with Ms . Beeners responding , no , adding ,; that she was of the opinion that there would not be any expansion of the Hudson Heights Apartments property in the City and that the Staro Oil property , also adjacent to this site and also in the City , has no plans to expand . Chairman Aron asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board' . There being none , Chairman Aron stated that he would entertain a motion . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : WHEREAS , the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that there is a substantial need for this kind of proposed business use in this area , and WHEREAS , this Board finds that this particular lot is ideally ly and almost uniquely appropriate to the proposed use in an area close to the College and to housing units which would benefit by it , and WHEREAS , this Board finds that the relatively small size of the lot and the location of buildings on adjoining lots would seem to impose little , if any , hardship on either of the neighbors if the proposed building were permitted to be located as shown on the plan , • which is within ten feet of the north lot line , rather than the usual twenty feet , and also which is in a variation from the buffer area usually required between buildings in this zone and the adjoining residential zone , and WHEREAS , this Board finds that , under Section 77 , paragraph 6 , of the Ordinance , there is unnecessary hardship to the . applicant because of the uses permitted in Business " A " districts , and WHEREAS , this , Board finds that no one appeared or submitted statements either for or against the subject proposals NOW , THEREFORE , IT„ IS RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , based on these findings , approve and hereby does approve the proposed construction and the use of the northeasterly building , as shown on the site plan , for the pizza operation and the laundromat , subject to the following conditions . 1 . Approval of final grading , drainage , and utilities plans by the Town Engineer , 2 . Approval of the final landscape plan by the Town Planner . 3 . The construction of a pedestrian walkway , of suitable design as approved by the Town Engineer and the Town Planner , along the easterly side of the entranceway which extends southeasterly from • Coddington Road , 4 . The applicant ' s adding at least one more speed bump farther Zoning Board of Appeals - 17 - June 24 , 1987 • northerly on that entrance roadway to slow down traffic into it . 5 . The applicant ' s delineating the parking areas by painting stripes on the pavement , delineating them substantially as shown on the site plan . 6 . The applicant ' s placing stop signs on the north and south sides of the exitway onto State Highway 96B , to stop traffic exiting the site but not traffic entering the site . 7 . The pizza business operation may be started anytime but shall be terminated at 2 : 00 a . m . There being no further discussion , the Chair polled the members for their vote , as follows : Mr . Hewett Aye , Mr . King Aye , Mr . Aron Aye , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Rogan Appeal duly closed . The third matter before the Board was as follows . • APPEAL OF HERBERT N . MONKEMEYER , APPELLANTr ANDREA B . COBY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR , AGENT / APPLICANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR / ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DENYING PERMISSION FOR A SCHOOL USE , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE ', WHEREBY APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS IS REQUIRED FOR THE OPERATION OF THE MONTESSORI ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL OF ITHACA , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON EAST KING ROAD , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 , ON A TWO -ACRE ± PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 ( 46 . 96 - ACRES ) . PERMISSION IS FURTHER DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 16 , OF SAID ORDINANCE , WHEREBY NO BUILDING OR STRUCTURE MAY EXCEED 30 FEET IN HEIGHT ; APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SCHOOL BUILDING WITH A TOWER 43 FEET IN HEIGHT . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman Aron read , aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Andrea B . Coby under date of May 7 , 1987 , as follows : " Special Approval Request , . * Having been informed that the proposed operation of a school at King Road East . . . Our proposal is for an aesthetically beautiful new building to house our private elementary school which has been in existence since 1979 . % Because of the site ' s overwhelming beauty , as well as its close proximity to both Ithaca • Talent Education and the Community School of Music & Art , both of which are frequented by many of our families , the addition of our school in our minds would make for a very congenial mix . 9[We also Zoning Board of Appeals - 18 - June 24 , 1987 request an exception to Section 18 , paragraph 16 ( 30 ' height restriction ) so we may build a bell tower . " Mr . John Cake , a member of the Board of Directors and one of the Architects for the Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca , introduced himself to the Board . Ms . Andrea B . Coby , Administrator of the School , gave a brief background summary of the school , noting that the School started eight years ago at a downtown location - - the second floor of T . G . Miller ' s Sons Paper Co . - - with nine children in attendance , and , from that location moved to its present location in the former Cayuga Heights Elementary School , Ms . Coby stated that there are over 100 children presently enrolled - - preschool through 8th grade . Ms . Coby stated that the proposed building will not exceed 100 children . Chairman Aron noted ,, for the record , a letter from Ms . Coby to the Zoning Board of Appeals , dated June 16 , 1987 . The letter reads as follows : " . . . We would like your consideration of an exception to the thirty foot height restriction for zoning district R- 30 set forth in Section 18 , Paragraph 16 . The design of the school includes a central , elevated structure to house a school bell . The structure is ten feet square in plan and forty- three feet tall . The attached building elevation shows the planned structure clearly . " " It is intended that the bell structure will serve a symbolic function indicating that the building is a school . It makes reference to the bell cupola that was traditionally a part of many of the small school buildings that once existed throughout the northeast United States . In the immediate area of the proposed building there are several building types that exceed thirty feet including the large buildings of Ithaca College . The proposed structure is small enough that it will not have an adverse affect [ sic . ] upon the viusal environment neighborhood [ sic . ] . The bell tower will serve as an important urban design landmark that will contribute to the identity of the south hill community for years to come . " Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the Montessori School appeal , and asked Ms . Beeners to elaborate on the EAFs [ Short and Long ] before the Board . [ Exhibit 6 ] . Ms . Beeners , commenting that there are a couple of actions involved in this matter , stated that the Planning Board acted as Lead Agency in the Subdivision Approval [ Planning Board May 19 , 1987 ] , and the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency for the Special Approval and also for the request for height variance for the bell tower . Ms . Beeners stated that , in dealing with an area that is largely undeveloped at this time and with the site plan as reviewed by the Planning Board , with revisions shown as far as parking is • concerned , the site plan being reviewed tonight is very adequate for the use that is proposed . Indicating on a portion of tax map # 43 and a portion of the aerial photograph of South Hill showing the area of Zoning Board of Appeals - 19 - June 24 , 1987 • the intersection of East King Road and Danby Road and the location of the proposed school , Ms . Beeners pointed . out what was being proposed . [ Exhibits 7 , 8 , and 91 . Ms . Beeners noted the Business " C " zone adjoining and commentedl that there is not too much development at the moment around the proposed school location . Ms . Beeners noted that the " Springwood " apartments are located across the road [ 123 East King Road ] . Ms . Beeners noted that the Planning Board granted Final Subdivision Approval for the 2 ± acre site for the proposed school , being a subdivision out of the larger tract of about 46 acres , with certain conditions . The Planning Board Adopted Resolutions of May 19 , 1987 are attached hereto as Exhibit 10 . Ms . Beeners referred to a proposed two - acre park site proposed in conjunction with the school proposal but as part of the remaining acreage and stated that^ ; the Planning Board approved it in concept with further information needed on just what some of the other development will be before they will actually recommend the acceptance of this two acre park site which will have to meet subdivision requirements . Ms . Beeners noted that the Planning Board has recommended that an easement be provided to the park site . Ms . Beeners stated that the Planning Board also recommended': 11 that a negative declaration be made by the Zoning Board of Appeals in regard to the Special Approval subject to certain conditions . Ms . Beeners stated that the request for a bell tower for the school was reviewed as a separate action , adding that , as the applicant has pointed out , a tower is a traditional feature of schools and should be hiconsidered as an architectural element . With • respect to height , Ms . p'iBeeners observed that it would appear that the tower would not be substantially obtrusive to any Lake views from the existing residential houses across the road or from any of the apartments that would ''be built across the road . Ms . Beeners noted that there is a possibility of retaining some trees along the east edge of the property that basically assist in making the transition between open land and ' ', the tower . Ms . Beeners pointed out that the tower would require ` ;a 13 - foot variance of the 30 - foot height requirement . Four coloured pho;,tographs of the area were presented for the record by Mr . Frost - - ( I ) View facing west down East King Road ; ( 2 ) View facing north across property to be developed ; ( 3 ) View facing northwest across property to be developed ; ( 4 ) View facing south across East King Road from property to be developed . 11 Chairman Aron wondered if the bell would be a functional item for the School , with Ms . Coby responding that it will not be used to call the children in , but it may be used on special occasions . Ms . Coby stated that the whole feeling of the design is very much in keeping with the country feeling that they would like to have associated with the School , adding that ` ;' they are looking for an antique bell . Chairman Aron opened the meeting to the public and asked if anyone wished to speak . ' 'I • Mr . Herbert Monkemeyer , 1058 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and stated that the King Schoolhouse used to be across the street from the Zoning Board of Appeals', ' - 20 - June 24 , 1987 proposed building and it had a bell that would ring and no one objected to that . Mr,, '. Monkemeyer stated that that school closed somewhere around 1945 Ilor 1950 because of the establishment of the Ithaca City School District , Mr . Monkemeyer also noted that all of the houses that were there at that time presently exist . Mr . Evan Monkemeyer , 1060 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and stated that bell towers; are architectural elements that are unique to areas and objects that are aesthetically pleasing in the landscape . There appearing to 'Ibe no one else present who wished to speak for or against the matter the King Road Montessori School , Chairman Aron closed the Public tearing , Referring to Ms . Beeners ' review of the Long EAF with respect to the School itself , Mr . '', IjKing read aloud Paragraph # 4 of Part III , as follows : 114 . The Special Approval shall be personal to the applicants , shall not !! ,' be transferable , and shall not run with the land . " Mr . King stated that the ` granting of special approval for a school is within the section of the Ordinance which permits a school in this kind of areaprovided that the Zoning Board of Appeals approves a particular location , and , if the Board were to approve it , it becomes a permitteduse . Mr . King stated that , in his opinion , about the only condition which the Board could put on the future use of that school building would be that it be a school of the nature that it is being approved for . Chairman Aron stated that he concurred • with Mr . King on this , ; ,, adding that it would be tremendously rigid as far as the applicant is concerned . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make„ a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed location of the Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca on East King Road , without regard to the bell tower at this particular time , as shown on the revised site plan subm°itted to and reviewed by this Board at Public Hearing this date , June 'i24 , 1987 , conditioned upon the following : 1 . The final site plan shall be subject to approval by the Town Engineer , 2 . The provision of additional parking may be required by the Planning Board at any time . 3 . Parking , delivery '? and loading rules , and scheduling shall be implemented and enforced by the applicant . 4 . The Town reserves ',the right to impose additional conditions as to the use of any bell in the tower , if that is approved . • There being no further discussion , the Chair polled the members for their vote , as follows : Zoning Board of Appeals - 21 - June 24 , 1987 • Mr . Hewett Aye , Mr . King Aye , Mr . Aron Aye , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed bell tower for the Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca on East King Road , subject to the condition that the Town may impose conditions in the future as to the actual use of any bell in the tower to preserve peace and harmony in the neighborhood . There being no further discussion , the Chair polled the members for their vote , as follows : Mr . Hewett Aye , Mr . King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye . Mr . Aron Aye , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . • Chairman Aron asked if the Board wished to move on to the requested variance and Special Approval . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals finds the following : 1 . There is a relatively unique situation in the matter of the proposed bell tower with respect to the present development in the area due to the topography of the land which slopes northerly from East King Road , and , with the proposed location of the proposed 43 - foot tower being almost halfway back on the lot , such that the tower would not be obtrusive . 3 . The bell tower would serve an aesthetically desirable purpose . 4 . The bell tower would not detract from the value of neighboring properties ; it might in fact enhance their value . 5 . No one appeared in ' " opposition to the proposal . NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town , of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance to permit the construction of the proposed bell tower as part of the proposed School building , subject to this Board granting Special • Approval to permit construction of the proposed School building itself , said variance being a height variance of 13 feet permitting the proposed tower to extend 43 feet above the ground , and subject to Zoning Board of Appeals - 22 - June 24 , 1987 the condition that conditions may be imposed in the future as to the actual use of any bell in the tower . There being no further discussion , the Chair polled the members for their vote , as follows : Mr . Hewett Aye , Mr . King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye . Mr . Aron Aye , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron asked that the Board turn to the matter of the Special Approval , Chairman Aron asked Ms . Coby if there were going to be a playground for the children , with Ms . Coby responding , no , and adding that they will not be constructing the playground the first year , and further adding that there will be outdoor activities , but not on playground structures . Chairman Aron asked what precautions were being taken to ensure that the children do not run into the road . Mr . Cake responded that the access to the school will be along King Road and the playgrounds are intended to be located to the north of the school . Mr . Cake • pointed out that along King Road there is a very deep drainage swale which , if nothing else , presents a natural barrier to the area . Mr . Cake stated that , also , they are anticipating landscaping on the east , south , and west sides of the proposed structure . Chairman Aron asked how the children were transported , with Mr . Cake responding that nearly all of the students that are above the preschool age are transported by the Ithaca School District . Chairman Aron wondered how many of the children are brought in by their parents , with Ms . Coby responding , about 15 . Mr . King wondered how the bus would enter the site , with Mr . Cake responding that the bus would enter the drive along the west side of the site . Mr . King , referring to the proposed park which is shown on the site plan easterly of the proposed building site , asked if that proposed park were part of the land to be developed . Mr . Cake stated that the school has an 'agreement with the Monkemeyers that the school has use of the land and the right to improve it , however , they do not have title to the land and they do not have any assurance that it would become a Town park . Mr . Herbert Monkemeyer stated at this juncture , for the record , that he will turn that two - acre park site over to the school . There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman Aron stated that he would entertain a motion with respect to the requested approval for the Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca . • MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : Zoning Board of Appeals - 23 - June 24 , 1987 RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , noting that there has been no one appearing in opposition to the proposal for the location of a Montessori School on the north side of East King Raod , grant and hereby does grant approval for the location of the private school on the proposed 2 ± acres site pursuant to Article V . Section 18 , Paragraph 4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , such approval being conditioned upon : 1 . Construction of the proposed School in substantial conformity to the revised site plan as submitted to and reviewed by this Board at Public Hearing this date , June 24 , 1987 , with the final site plan being subject to approval by the Town Engineer , 2 . The understanding that the Planning Board may require the provision of additional parking at any time , 3 . Establishment and enforcement of parking , delivery and loading rules scheduling the arrival and departure of students , 4 . Establishment and enforcement of reasonable rules to be abided by for the safety of the children , 5 . Compliance with conditions and regulations required by the New York State Education Department and the Tompkins County Health Department , • 6 . Compliance with the requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code ; 7 . Compliance with the requirements of the Planning Board as to Subdivision Approval and Final Subdivision Map , AND FURTHER , that said approval is being granted upon the understanding from the owner of the site to be purchased by the School , that owner being Herbert Monkemeyer , owner of the land adjacent east , who has indicated to this Board that the area indicated as " Town Park " on the site plan before this Board will be dedicated either for use as a Town park , or that , otherwise , it will be made available for the use of the School ; AND FURTHER , that , it be noted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca that the Zoning , , Board of Appeals recommends the establishment of " School Speed Zone " signs along East King Road in the vicinity of the School . There being no further discussion , the Chair polled the members for their vote , as follows : Mr . Hewett Aye . Mr . King Aye . Mr . Aron Aye , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Zoning Board of Appeals - 24 - June 24 , 1987 Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca duly closed at 9 : 35 p . m . 11 APPEAL OF RICHARD BERGGREN , APPELLANT , MATTHEW ENGELHART AND RICHARD KINNER , AGENTS / APPLICANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR / ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DENYING PERMISSION FOR A SCHOOL USE , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , WHEREBY APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS IS REQUIRED , FOR THE OPERATION OF THE WALDORF SCHOOL OF THE FINGER LAKES , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN THE FORMER INLET VALLEY SCHOOL BUILDING AT 855 FIVE MILE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 31 - 2 - 15 , ( . 54 ACRES , APPROXIMATELY ) , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . PERMISSION IS FURTHER DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 21 , OF SAID ORDINANCE , WHEREBY A SIDE YARD OF NOT LESS THAN 40 FEET IN WIDTH IS REQUIRED , AND UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 23 , PARAGRAPH 1 , WHEREBY THE MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIRED IS 30 , 000 SQUARE FEET . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published , .. and as noted above . Chairman Aron referred to the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Richard D . Kinner for the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes under date of May 18 , 1987 , and reading as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to re - establish a school ( The • Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes ) at 855 Five Mile Drive ( Rt . 13A ) . . . The existing structure ( the school building ) , which is intended to be renovated , doesi not meet the 40 ' ( forty foot ) side yard requirements of the Ordinance . The highway right of way interferes with the side yard requirement . ( See attached . ) The property was formerly used as a school for about 60 children , and would be its most suitable use . ( Proposed 65 - 70 people . ) " Chairman Aron stated that he had visited the property under discussion here and noticed a stone marker located on the site . Chairman Aron stated that , in his opinion , the wording on the marker was very appropriate to the matter before the Board , adding that he would like to read these words to those present . Chairman Aron read : On one side of the copper plaque - - " Cayuga Indian Village which was destroyed September 24th and September 25th , 1779 , by Sullivan ' s Army led by Colonel Dearborn and Colonel Butler . " On the other side of the plaque was an Indian prayer -- " Oh , Great Spirit , Send thy Peace of Sleep and Make the Morning Dew Wash the Evil of this Day Out of our Eyes that We May Better Serve our Children , our Neighbors ,, and our Neighbors ' Children . " • At this point , Chairman Aron asked Mr . Richard Kinner of the Waldorf School to review the following material which had been submitted . Zoning Board of Appeals - 25 - June 24 , 1987 • 1 . Short EAF , signed by Richard D . Kinner , as reviewed by the Town Planner , dated May 28 , 1987 . ( Exhibit 11 ) . 2 . Letter from Yvonne Fogarty , Development Coordinator , Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes , to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , dated May 19 , 1987 ( Exhibit 12 ) . 3 . New Survey Map , dated June 23 , 1987 , entitled " Lands of Richard Berggren & Betty Jane Berggren , 855 Five Mile Drive , Mil . Lot 82 , " signed and sealed by Gary Bruce Davison , L . L . S . ( Exhibit 13 ) . 4 . Letter from Richard Ewald , Public Health Sanitarian , Tompkins County Department of Health , to Richard Kinner , dated June 24 , 1987 . ( Exhibit 14 ) . 5 . Variance Request on letterhead of Tompkins County Department of Health with respect to the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes , initials RE , dated 6 / 24 / 87 . ( Exhibit 15 ) . 6 . Site Plan , Waldorf School , dated June 8 , 1987 , prepared by Peter D . Novelli , P . E . ( Exhibit 16 ) . 7 . Letter from Richard D . Kinner to Scott Heyman , Tompkins County Administrator , dated June 19 , 1987 . ( Exhibit 17 ) . • 8 . Drawing , entitled " Inlet Valley School Real Estate , 855 Five Mile Drive , Ithaca , Proposed Site for Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes " , dated June 24 , 1987 . ( Exhibit 18 ) . 9 . Official Order of the State of New York , Department of Public Works , Division of Highways , dated July 6 , 1938 . ( Exhibit 19 ) . 10 . Letter from Richard Kinner to Fred Grout , New York State Department of Transportion , dated June 18 , 1987 . ( Exhibit 20 ) . 11 . Adopted Resolutions of the Planning Board , June 2 , 1987 , in the matter of the Waldorf School . ( Exhibit 21 ) . Chairman Aron noted that the driveway into the property was rather narrow and also noted that there is an old rusted gasoline pump on the site and next to that pump there is a 3 - foot by 3 - foot hole approximately 5 feet deep . Chairman Aron stated that that hole should be filled in and covered for safety purposes . Mr . Kinner responded that that matter will be taken care of . Mr . Richard Berggren interjected that that cavity is for drainage . Mr . Frost , commenting that he also had noticed the hole , stated that a grate placed on it would suffice . Mr . Kinner stated , ,that he had received a telephone call from one of the adjacent property owners , Al Becker , who said that he owns a • portion of the property , however , according to Mr . Grout of the NYS DOT that is a State right of way . Mr . Kinner stated that he will be 0n contact with Mr . Grout to clear up the confusion as to the Zoning Board of Appeals - 26 - June 24 , 1987 • boundaries . Chairman Aron asked if anyone present wished to speak for or against the matter of the Waldorf School . No one spoke . Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to offer a motion with respect to SEAR . MOTION by Mr . Jack Hewett , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the ' Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the request for Special Approval for the operation of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes at 855 Five Mile Drive , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for this Unlisted action , conditioned upon the following : 11 1 . Approval of the septic system and water supply system by the Tompkins County Health Department ; 2 . Compliance of building renovation with all pertinent codes and regulations ; 3 . Driveway improvements , substantially as shown on the plan presented , to the satisfaction of the Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , with the driveway to be widened to a • 16 - foot roadway with 2 - foot shoulders, and with the proposed shelter to be subject to the approval of the New York State Department of Transportation , and , with the provision that any necessary easements or permits that may be required , in regard to the use of the driveway from Floral Avenue and the proposed shelter location , be provided . There being no further discussion , the Chair polled the members 11 for their vote , as follows : Mr . Hewett 40600609 . . . . . . . Aye , Mr . King Aye , Mr . Aron Aye , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron asked the Board to turn to the matter of the area variances . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , finding that strict enforcement of the terms of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance would create a practical difficulty and impose unnecessary hardship upon the applicants , and also finding that no one has appeared in opposition to the proposed operation of the Waldorf • School of the Finger Lakes at 855 Five Mile Drive , grant and hereby does grant area variances to permit a southerly side yard of 10 - 12 feet and a lot size of 23 , 539 square feet , 40 feet and 300, 000 square Zoning Board of Appeals - 27 - June 24 , 1987 • feet otherwise being required . There being no further discussion , the Chair polled the members for their vote , as follows : Mr . Hewett Aye , Mr . King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aye . Mr . Aron Aye , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Jack Hewett : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordiance , grant and hereby does grant Special Approval for the operation of a private, school , known as the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes , proposed to be located in the former Inlet Valley School building at 855 Five Mile Drive , subject to the following conditions . 1 . Prior to the building being put into use for this purpose , the applicants shall obtain Tompkins County Health Department approval of the septic system and water supply system . 2 . The building shall be brought into compliance with all pertinent • codes and regulations , particuarly those with respect to life safety , to the satisfaction of the Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , 3 . The driveway access road leading from Five Mile Drive ( formerly Floral Avenue ) southeasterly into the site shall be improved substantially as shown on the plan presented , to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and the Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , with the driveway to be widened to a 16 - foot roadway with 2 - foot shoulders , and with the proposed shelter to be subject to the : approval of the New York State Department of Transportation . 4 . The applicants shall provide any necessary easements or permits which may be required in regard to the use of the driveway from Floral Avenue and the proposed shelter location . 5 . All other improvements as proposed by the applicants shall be completed substantially as shown on the plans to the satisfaction of the Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer . There being no further discussion , the Chair polled the members for their vote , as follows : Mr . Hewett Aye , Mr . King Aye . • Mr . Aron Aye , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Zoning Board of Appeals - 28 - June 24 , 1987 • Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes duly closed . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the June 24 , 1987 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 10 : 15 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . v . He y Aron , Chairman . • #### #W# TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Frank R . Liguori PE Commissioner of Planning 3;###;:#?ESE',:zc��E', 3, dEj. �###�e'.;;�i:dE##j:iE#3848#�'c,;3E',:iE3c##i=- - =',.�' '#�'E#•iP3�'�E=c'-iE'P' • ' ='= " „ " " c •, �a �x c , 4E###4E4E�;TToE##4E 1s~ � ..moi Town of Ithaca 87 - 14 ! m AY I [l 1987 May 12 , 1987 , ; To : Susan Beeners From : Frank R . Liguori , Commissioner of Planning Re : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law , Case : Appeal to modify application of nonconformance regulations by Randolph F . Brown III at 1408 Trumansburg Road ( state highway ) This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239-m . The proposal , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity , county , or state interests . Therefore , no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice . or 04 02 E EXHIBIT l Biggs Center , Building A , 1283 Trumansburg Road , Ithaca , New York 14850 ( 607 ) 274-5360 r, fe or May 20 , 1987 • THIRD STREET EXT . , ITHACA, NY 14850 607 -272 - 1478 Randy Brown 428 Shaffer Road Newfield , New York 14867 Dean Mr. Br own a Blease have enclosed applications sig•rred by owner or officer where indicated ( x ) . Return these applications to Frederick A . Grout , N. Y . S . D . O . T . , Third St . Ext . , Ithrac•a , New York 14850 Include the following checks payable to N . Y . a . D . O . T . P40 check for required liability insurance . $27 . 50 check for- required fee a-rid liability i ••r•rsura •rice . NO certified check or money order as a performance bond refundable upon satisfactory completion of the wo-(^ k . $ 51000 surety bond , sample enclosed . this sample must be • followed as to wording , etc. NO drawing of proposed work . NO description of location of proposed work . place a stake to mark center of drive . Upon receipt of the above , we will issue a permit including details of the work requir•ed . SINCERELY , RICHARD SIMBERG, P . E . REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION REGION 3 by I < FREDER C 7GROUT , A . E . RESIDENT ENGINEER TOMPK I NS COUNTY cc• : C . Ames H . Stevens T . Arno l d • A. Frcrst , Zoning Officer , Town of Ithaca EXHIBIT 2 " U p vv ff Poo, „y :, N J �- n; y;itJ alp q J i' r� i IL for O 'I I of , tu lot w it r 1 � w. + J t \V7 �r fry : «• t, (� Fq ;3 Q wJ Q ° t- O 1 kf\ 1 r. v i to k o it to Zt e 1 1 f it a W tirJ ro kill It or en ' �� \ ' ,, 1 ► " y(AR k ' 1 }o I } ` wC! qy J P .V 4 Ooltioll. IN u ^f ' . . ' "� 2 1 EXHIBIT ;' 3 a� 1 "' it Ip 0 i"' .r• ft i I Y? I . IkCELS+UK STATE OF N EW YORK D IEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FRANKLIN E . WHITE COMMISSIONER Third St Ext . , Ithaca;,, NY .14850 6'.07 - 272 - 1471 May 19 1987 Randy Brown 428 Shaffer Road Newfield NY 14867 Dear Mr . Browns By copy of this lettere", we are advising our Regional Traffic And Safety Group of your request for warning signs prior to the entrance to your veget!lable stand . This stand is located �along Route 96 , west side of highway , • just south of DuBois Road at Reference Marker 3017 . Sincerely , RICHARD SIMBERG , P . E . ' REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION REGION 3 by FRE R' 7KGROUT -9 P . E . RESIDENT ENGINEER TOMPKINS COUNTY EXHIBIT 4 ll ^ Ni ' k I I rn c m fi G � I V, o I � T7 m C 7TI F�3 1, t I w - - - - u - _ A •�sa III �, i li i 100 E 3s I � P I . 10 - - - - -� rn T J EXHIBIT 5 Jit �' r ' 1418-4 (2187)—Text 12 ' PROJECT I .D. NUMBER 617.21 .SEAR • Appendix C • State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1 . APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2 . PROJECT NAME Montes-sorit Elementary & Secondary School of Ithaca New School 3 . PROJECT LOCATI �St King_ Road , Town of Ithaca Tompkins Municipality County 4 , PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) i East King Road parcel 43 - 1 - 3 , !'2 5 . IS PROPOSED ACTION: ® New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modification/aiteratlon 8 . DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: School bell tower , approximately 10 ' x 10 ' x 43 ' high 7 . AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially 2 . 5 acres acres Ultimately acres 8 . WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? El Yes ED No If No, describe briefly • Conflicts with. zoning ordinance ! section 18 ; paragraph 16 (.30 ' height limit ) 9 . WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial [MAgriculture XPark/Forest/Open space ❑ Other Describe: 10 , DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, , OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER ,GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? ❑ Yes No If yes, list agency(s) and permiUapprovals 11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ❑ Yes Ll1!'No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval 12 . AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑ Yes No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name: Andrea B.'' Coby Date: 6 / 22 / 87 Signature: If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 EXHIBIT 6 PART ll — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617. 12? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. ❑ Yes ❑ No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. ❑ Yes ❑ No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, If legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid wast production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeologi Istoric, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood c racterl Explain briefly: C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: e 04. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or Intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly. C5. Growth subsequent development, or relatI ed a�es likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. q P I C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not Identified In C1 -05? Explain briefly. C7. Other impacts (including changes In use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly. D. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, explain briefly PART III — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (Le. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. ❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. ❑ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination. Name or Lead Agency Rgo6j)2yICON I Z . 8. A Print or Type Name of Respon b e Officer i d Agency Title o Responsible Officer Signature of ponsi Officer ig Lead Agenc Signature of Preparer (if different from responsible o icer) /98 Date EXHIBIT 6 p • PART II - Environmental Assessment - Proposed School Bell Tower for Proposed Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca A . Action is Unlisted . Be Action will receive coordinated review ( Tompkins Co . 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 in regard to these factors , except that localized impact with respect to noise might result from operation of the proposed bell at the existing residences on the south side of King Road , and at potential future residences on the north side . More information is required at this time in regard to the proposed bell type and operation , with certain mitigation possible , such as the limitation of bell operation to certain . times , and the selection of the bell sound type to minimize nuisance . — C2 . Aesthetic , a ricultural , archeolo ica1 , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ., or communit or neighborhood character ? The proposed bell tower , a typical feature of traditional schools , would not adversely impact these factors . It could well serve as a local landmark , in a developing area of South Hill . It would not be substantially visible from Route 96 - B . Lakeward views from existing and potential residences in the area ( particularly the existing residences and the planned later phases of the Springwood apartments on the south side of King Road ) would not be adversely affected . It is assumed that some of the existing trees on the east side of the proposed school site would be retained , and , therefore , would partly buffer the proposed bell tower . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species . No significant species or habitats would be adversely affected by the proposed action . C4 . A community ' s existing plans or aoals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? The proposed bell tower would require a 13 - foot variance of the height requirement of the Zoning Ordinance . • No significant impact is expected as a result of the change in use or intensity of use of land as a result of the proposed EXHIBIT 6 r • bell tower , because of its siting and its scale relative to the proposed school , which was reviewed separately . C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? No significant inducement of these factors is expected . Height variances have been granted in several instances Townwide , and have each been considered separately . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 -057 As in C5 . C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Not expected . D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? No controversy is apparent or anticipated at this time . PART III A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended , with the following conditions : 1 . The granting of a height variance by the Zoning Board • of Appeals . 2 . The provision of adequate mitigation of potential noise nuisance with respect to the bell sound and times of operation . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner Review Date : June 24 , 1987 • EXHIBIT 6 EXHIBIT 6 ' Disposal of waste materials . Dumpster ` Proposed chemical treatments , such as herbicides , dust control , etc . None Special techniques to overcome unusual conditions . None 7 . Describe the type of proposed building and site materials to be used . , Foundation concrete block Structure wood frame HVAC gas Energy Sources Nat . gas Siding wood Insulation Fiberglasr,, cellulose Windows and Glass Double - glazed Roofing asphalt shingle Pavement to be determined Vegetative Cover grass 8 . Total area directly modified by proposed action . 98 , 800 s . f . ( ± 2 ) acres . .3 . Total area covered by impervious surfaces . • Roofs 9800 sq . ft . Parking 4000 s . ft • acres . Roads 3000 acres . 10 . Gross building sizes : Present Total - sq . ft . No . of Bldgs . - No . of Floors / Bldg . - Proposed Total 9800 sq . ft . No . of Bldgs . 1 No . of Floors / Bldg . 1 Future Total - sq . ft . No . of Bldgs . - No . of Floors / Bldg . - 11 . Number of proposed Dwelling Units Number of proposed -Commercial Units Sizes of Units NA Sizes of Units 12 . Parking : 60 � car _ .. trip : Existing - spaces . Proposed . 20 spaces . Traffic generated/day 10 - chool ( Note : Indirect Contamination Source Permit may be required if 1 , 000 spaces provided :bus 13 . Show proposed Signs on Site Plan . To be determined Size sq . ft . Height above ground . Top ft . ; Bottom ft . Wording 14 . Show proposed Lights and other Poles on Site Plan . . .To be determined • Height above ground ft . Total Lumens 15 . Name 'potentially hazardous materials , such as toxic substances , flammables or explosives to be used or disposed of during or after proposed action . None ' •, TOWN OF I THACA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM EXHIBIT 6 r APPLICANT Montessori Elementary & Secondary School DATE May 1 , 1987 of Ithaca PROJECT ( new school ) de LOCATION King Road East To be completed and submitted by the applicant . Comments may be written next to the question or on additional paper . GENERAL INFORMATION 1 . Applicant Montessori Elementary & Secondary School of Phone 257 - 0135 ithaca Address 110 East Upland Road Ithaca Property Owner Herbert Monkmeyer Phone 272 - 8055 Address 1058 Danby Rd . Ithaca 2 . Location of Proposed Action . ( Write Address /Tax Lot ; Attach USGS topographic map with affected lands outlined . ) 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 ( Section of ) ; King Rd . E . 3 . Proposed Action . Construction of new school facility 4 . Activities and types of operation resulting from the completion of the proposed action . New school of ± 100 children Primary Class - ages 212 - 6 Hours 9 : 00 - 12 : 00 The Primary & Ext Day Extended Day - age 5 - 6 Hours 9 : 00 - 3 : 30 children are together in Junior Class - age 6 - 9 Hours 9 : 00 - 3 : 30 the morning . Upper Level - age 9 - 13 Hours 9 : 00 - 3 : 30 IDENTIFICATION OF PROPOSED ACTION Site Plan and USGS Map 5 . State the time schedules for the proposed action : Planning May ' 87 Construction Aug . ' . 87 - Jan . . ' 88 Design , Documents June ' 87 Finished Site Work/ Grading June 188 Preliminary Site Work Aug . ' 87 6 . Describe the proposed construction techniques to be used if building or site development is involved . Show locations and routes to be used on the site plan . • Grading and excavation including equipment vehicles and explosives . to be used . Bulldozer , backhoe Transportation of materials to site . By truck via 96B onto King Rd . onto service road / drive . rgATURAL FACTORS AND IMPACTS 6 . Depth to bedrock at Site of proposed action . ( Check more than one if necessary . ) _ Up to four feet depth Four feet to ten feet • Greater than ten feet 27 . If bedrock depth is less than ten feet , check type of bedrock existing at Site of proposed action . Shale Thinly bedded shale and siltstone Siltstone or sandstone Limestone 28 . Check types of topographic features which describe or are found on the Site . X Level or gently rolling plains I X Hilltop Hummocks with small ponds I 1HIllside Glens and gorges lValley bottom 29 . Name the soils as identified in the Soil Survey of Tompkins County which are found on the part of the Site proposed to be modified . Init0. ials may be used . Erie - Langford ( EbB - Erie channery silt loam , some Langford channery silt 30 . Briefly describe the nature and extent of proposed modification of .existing slopes or soils or drainage : Existing slope is very gentle , grading - tor building and parking will involve little slope alteration . Natural drainage will be improved and channeled . . . YES NO 31 . Will any wetlands or adjacent areas be modified by the proposed action ? If so , designate on the Site Plan the wetlands which will be affected . ( Note : "Wetlands " permit from administering agency required for alteration . ) 32 . Will any . streams be modified by the proposed action ? If so , designate on the Site Plan which streams will be modified . ( Note : " Dam" or " Disturbance" permit from DEC is required for modifications . ) 33 . Will . any waste materials or effluent be discharged into a stream or groun & waters ? If so , designate on the Site Plan the streams which will be affected . ( Note : SPDES permit from DEC is required for discharges . ) 34 . Do any of the following types of vegetation exist on the Site of the proposed action ? X Stands of mature trees greater than 30 feet tall . Young tree species less than 30feet tall . X Shrubs , X Terrestrial plants up to two feet high.. X Ferns , grasses , sedges , rushes . X Aquatic plants . • X Crops . 35 . — 1 X1 Are any vegetative management techniques currently being practiced on �-.he Site of the proposed action ? _ 4 _ . EXHIBIT 6 Purpose of materials ( Note : Permits are required from DEC . and Tompkins County Health Department . ) r ' 16 . If the resulting activities are either commercial or industrial use , write the materials to be transferred to/ from the site , their frequency ; and the mode of transportation . Imported materials NA Frequency Mode Exported materials Frequency Mode 17 : Describe project history , .including controversy perceived by the developer , litigation , court decisions , etc . No controversy , etc . is likely . Is permitted use on small part . of a large , undeveloped , open - field parcel . There is no litigation or pending court . decision at this time . COMMUNITY FACTORS AND IMPACTS 18 . Designated Zoning of the Site of the proposed action R - 30 19 . Zoning changes or variances being requested Permit for special use ( school - permitted use ) 20 . Check if the Site of the proposed action is within or next to the following Districts or Areas . Agricultural District Historic Preservation District Floodplain ( HUD designated ) F9 Unique Natural Area Freshwater Wetland •21 . Check which land uses describe the neighborhood character . Single - unit Residential Recreation Multiunit Residential Agriculture Commercial Forestry Woodland Industrial Wildlife /Conservation - Institutional Inactive Transportation Other 22 . Check which public services are being requested or provided . Sanitary Sewage Gas X Water ] Electricity Storm Drainage X Telephone ( Note : Permits may be required from municipality for hook - up . ) 23 . Check which transportation facilities will serve the site of the proposed action . State Highway Sidewalks On - street Parking County Highway One -way Traffic Off - street Parking X Town Highway Two-way Traffic g Bus systems City /Village Street Traffic Lights school 24 . Number of existing buildings affected by the proposed action : 0 Show on the Site Plan . •25 . Name affected buildings or districts known to be historically or archeologically important or which are listed on the Register of Historic Buildings : 0 Show on the Site Plan . EXHIBIT 6 _ 3- Maximum number of employees present at the Site at one time : ± 30 46 . Number of employees during activities after completion : ± 12 47 . If resulting activities are ' for either Industrial or Commercial use , state the emplo� shifts and number of employees in each shift . NA Shift Employees Shift Employees Shift Employees Shift Employees 48 .. If the resulting activities are for residential use , state the number of planned reside;: . Permanent NA Seasonal 49 . Briefly describe the nature and amount of indirect growth anticipated as a result of the proposed action or resulting activities . NA 50 . Existing community or business or facilities or residential structures requiring relocation . None . 51 . If the focus of resulting activities is for residential use , check if residence is intended for : NA Low income Segment High Income Segment Families Medium Income Segment e Students Elderly . 52 . Will proposed activity substantially change the following socio - economic population • distribution ? NA QIncome . Ethnic Background {� Race Age COMMENTS 53 . In your judgment , will the proposed action result in a significant environmental impact during construction and /or during use after completion ? No . Site is. currently flat bare land , and is part of 'a larger , open parcel with no unique features . GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 54 . Check the levels of government and name the agencies having jurisdiction over the pro- posed action . Indicate the required permits by stating "YES " or " NO" if permit has been approved . (The following pages will advise on the types of actions which require parti - cular permits . ) FEDERAL PERMITS • National Pollution Discharge Elimination System : EPA , Region 11 , �New York City . Activities in navigable waters : Corps of Engineers , Buffalo , Other 1 - 6- EXHIBIT 6 ' YES NO 36 . T Will any trees or shrubs be removed by the proposed action ? If so , designate l X L--J on the Site Plan the area that is to be affected . �7 . X Are there anyplans for revegetation ? If - so , briefly explain . Re - seed , landscape 38 • ® To your knowledge , are there any rare , endangered , or unusual vegetative species which are located on or near the Site of the proposed action ? If so , how are they distributed ? 39 . X Will activity cause a change in or affect visual character of natural or cultural landscape features ? 40 . To your knowledge , are there any significant wildlife habitats , migration LX__.l routes , or breeding areas located on or near the Site that might be affected by the proposed action ? 41 . To your knowledge , are there any rare , . endangered , endemic , or unusual wild - X life species which are located on the Site of the . proposed action ? If so , flow are they distributed ? � . To your knowledge , are there any known unique natural features on or near the Site of the proposed action ? If sci-- briefly explain . ' 43 . Will any of the following emissions be produced by the proposed action or its resulting activities ? If ' so , describe the -cause , X Ashes Dust X Fumes X Odors X Smoke Other emissions ( Note : Air Quality Permits from DEC or Tompkins County Health Department may be required . ) 44 . T Will there be changes to existing noise or vibration levels due to the pro - X J posed action or its resulting activities ? If so , describe the cause . • .SOCIO - ECONOMIC FACTORS AND IMPACTS 45 . Number of employees during construction : ± 30 EXHIBIT 6 - 5- _ d REVIEWER ' S RECOMMENDATIONS . l Type of Action . >TeD 4.;w 0 d�, Signature of Reviewer r6V � IC)60 � i Title Agency Date Reviewed DETERMINATION BY TOWN OF I THACA �L � ) BOARD Negative Declaration - - Determination of Non - Significance . c v� AAS � a.j %j G 1 J Positive Declaration - - Action may be of Significant Environmental Impact , D/ EIS Required . Signature of Chairperson �2g $ Date i EXHIBIT 6 - 8- STATE PERMITS Certificate of Compatibility and Public Need : PSC , DEC Albany ( Public Utilities ) . Dam/ Impoundment Construction or Repair : DEC , Environmental Quality Unit , Cortland . • Disturbance of Stream Bed / Fill of Navigable Waters : DEC - EQ Unit , Cortland , Incinerator Construction or Operation : DEC - EQ Unit , Syracuse . indirect Air Contamination Source : DEC - EQ Unit , Syracuse , Mining : DEC - Mineral Resources Bureau , Albany , Pesticide Purchase , Use ( 7 Permits ) : DEC , Pesticides Bureau , Albany . Process , Exhaust , Ventilation System Construction or Operation : DEC - EQ , Syracuse . Public Water Supply : DEC , Environmental Analysis , Albany ( Tompkins County Health Department review ) , SPDES : DEC , Environmental Quality Unit , Syracuse (Tompkins County Health Department review ) , Stationary Combustion Installation : DEC - EQ Unit , Syracuse , Wetlands /Adjacent Areas Alterations : DEC - EQ Unit , Cortland . Other COUNTY OF TOMPKiNS Driveways , Culverts : Highway Department . Hazardous Wastes : Health Department . 0> Institutional Use : Health Department . to be determined Mass Gatherings : Health Department . Offensive Materials ( Scavenger Wastes ) : Health Department . Pub ] is Uti l ity Line Extension : Health Department; , to be determined Restaurant Use : Health Department , Restricted Burning : . Health Department ( DEC - EQ Unit review) . Sanitary Facilities for Realty Subdivisions : Health Department ( DEC - EQ Unit . review ) Septic Tank Cleaner / Industrial - Waste . Co _llection : Health Department ( DEC - EQ review ) . Sewage Disposal System Health Department . Solid Waste Management Facility : Health Department ( DEC - EQ Unit review ) . SPDES ( Pollution Discharge ) : . Health Department _ (DEC - EQ Unit review) . Swimming Use : Health Department . Temporary Residence ( Boarding House , Camp , Day Care , Hotel , Motel , Mobile Home Park : Health Department , Water Supply ( Public ) : Health- Department . Wetlands /Alterations : Wetlands, Commission / County Clerk . Other TOWN OF ITHACA Blasting X Public Utility Connection X Building Permit X Signs Street Opening X Subdivision Extraction of Natural Materials Streets and Drainage Land Use Variance Wetlands Alteration Mobile Home Park Zoning( Variance ) Permit Multiple Residence Other Planned Unit Development 55 . Sources -of Public Funds (. if -any ) . for proposed action . none 56 . If Federal review under NEPA is required , name Agency : • EXHIBIT 6 Signature of pplicant Administrator • space dedications . It is recommended that an easement be provided to the park site , preferably to the north of the northern edge of the proposed school parcel so that the proposed basketball court could remain in the general location shown on the site plan . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? No significant species or habitats exist on the site . Secondary growth on the site that would be removed is well represented in other areas of the neighborhood . The final landscape plan should be subject to staff approval . 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 proposal is consistent with zoning and subdivision requirements , subject to the conditions of approval described in Part III below . The change of 2 ± acres from vacant land to a school facility is of no significant adverse impact , with the facility serving a need in the community and acting as a buffer between potential business uses to the west and potential residential uses to the north and east of the site . • C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? No significant adverse impact is expected . The proposed facility would not directly induce growth , and would be a benefit to existing and potential development . 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 for the proposed Subdivision and Special Approval , subject to the following conditions , which are expected to mitigate any potential adverse impacts : 1 . The final site plan shall be subject to approval by the Town Engineering , Planning and Zoning Department . 2 . Expansion of parking facilities from the 12 currently proposed to at least 20 shall be made , with such expansion , and the final design of any other circulation improvements , subject to approval by Town Engineering , • Planning , and Zoning staff , and with the condition that additional parking may be required by the Town at any time . EXHIBIT 6 w w i • • 3 . Parking , delivery , and loading rules and scheduling shall be implemented and enforced by the applicant . 4 . The Special Approval shall be personal to the applicants , shall not be transferrable , and shall not run with the land . 5 . The Town shall reserve the right to impose additional conditions at any time . 6 . The Special Approval shall be subject to all conditions and regulations required by the New York State Education Department and the Tompkins County Health Department , 7 . There shall be provided a final subdivision map prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer , suitable for filing by the Tompkins County Clerk , for approval by the Town Engineer , 8 . The configuration of the park site shall be approved in concept , with further information necessary on potential development of the 46 . 96 acre parcel necessary prior to any final park site approval . An easement shall be provided to the park site from the access road as part of the current subdivision proposal . Lead Agency for Subdivision : Town of Ithaca Planning Board • Lead Agency for Special Approval : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner Review Date : May 15 , 1987 , revised May 20 , 1987 C . • EXHIBIT 6 • PART II - Environmental Assessment - Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca A . Action is Unlisted . B . Action will receive coordinated review ( Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , Tompkins County Planning Department ( 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 in these areas , subject to final site plan approval by the Town Engineering , Planning and Zoning Department . The preliminary site plan indicates feasibility of site development with only a localized and temporary impact on site features . The site would be buffered from existing and potential land uses . Access to the site would be along a potential public road which has been presented previously to the Planning Board . Area roads are capable of supporting the small increase in traffic proposed . Efforts are ongoing to arrange for the extension of a reduced speed zone on Danby Road , which should assist in mitigating the impacts of growth in the King / Danby Road area . The site is capable of supporting the amount of parking and bus drop -off facilities which would be needed for school operation . It is recommended that an expansion of parking facilities from the 12 currently proposed to at least 20 be made , with such expansion , and the final design of any other circulation improvements , subject to approval by Town Engineering , Planning , and Zoning staff , and with the condition that additional parking may be required by the Planning Board at any time . The Erie - Langford channery silt loams on the site would require certain drainage improvements and erosion control practices that are expected to have no significant adverse impact . Tompkins County Highway Department approval would be required for any work in the King Road right of way . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character ? The proposed use will fill a need in the community and will complement other educational uses in the area . The buildings would have no significant adverse impact on views from adjacent properties . In regard to the proposed park site , which would benefit the school and the general neighborhood , more information is needed • on the future subdivision of remaining lands on the 46 . 96 acre parcel , particularly in regard to the potential for expansion of the park , access to the park , and other potential trails ,and open EXHIBIT 6 f .. . 42 • I'I L�saa • - _ III • fJ e+l 8 39 ISI ftelAtCAL= e Z2 - ItN 211.59 AGGI. �II . � tam - �' _ `• III II 46596 RC CbR 29.34 AC. CALw Li ilia ` �' —��� IS AG CA6. � a�tTA� P II' 14 IHIO Ar CAL. 1 !E •18 ^C. CAL` a 6 EXHIBIT 7 I '- � ° Proposed Subdivision for Montessori Elementary School a .r[R dcC� q I tsrgel wrc[ .�l�lr t fJJ/PJ7� MOrMALZAR Ct , ' r.vRtrrrt ( i ` rA� So Air RN� N Awm�.j, No • : z - 000 ' � � `t 1 - - mac• - - --�,- - - _ � "o: - - -r t ACs I � ' Tom. _ 1.,..-►. ,err a ..+ ..,.�� •.. .... r s .. M1J ' � Al . ffl` . ". row rw r r— ]6.., r.+4 e� ` • ^I� Go MLI At r..wW ame ♦ A I , ' ' ' f ' moo • � � � ft* Own soy • „TJq 4C Woo C ••,, Tmw`lj SCA4,E: Gyv.,Iro Rt., �,.er.y [�I*a-r ALN/e • �y d LtwloJ CY f-Ii.' e• OWO XLRmr At 14cwxEmt YER L EVAN NONKEMEYEA LE/VORA AMN NO NXEME YER wilwe" mW ✓ C ...• ,r Il, .err. / Aw..r •.r Ir Q ..r er.r /►L.rom, N .r...r .� r• � b.... e Al J! • NJ ♦ Rfr4 •LJ •y K✓ w .f+... I..r• a ...... w •erw of /...... 61 /Lel • • owe" EXHIBIT 8 is (wo ) em . •• • r ri ..+ to OV - S & S i •-{R .' t\ 4 :.•daR . ., ., ..._, fal, b' 'e}�in �'rN-� '^' �"._s aq,.�t�' �ri�s • 3 �J„t• ,> �._ Y , .. . .4 s �a�.�n.* - :� T�+y>-r. t.',.2u i c�.;. �:� ^:?'. tpn4�*�_•c ! ' .��"7g � saE iE ,f :` 6`K' < �„� da' !' $” , µ�iF »• J\'�' � :��I;,�v_'���.�'�� FS�,}, � .:F ' 7`l����fl �.� sr' '4 ,.. 9 - w "h�1' a`'•�"�=4 !`C�'fj F,'• .��,s�, w - f. ... R h• '"'3-^r ..4 �'. ay` - " '�"` _ ,>r ''Nt.♦4 =' ' i ' 'a ut t r:. y. `J.,rr � 4 ^w.By+"'' ^, i,sp:w :c .:,,� #`'t 1 � � �.r�� ,,, .�.�• ,y `fir'''" �. ++,-k..!' r 'n 4 �t•�`,N•s p Wry { } ry ` ♦ }. yj� }r�xr —� F `if r a 'q'}. rf Y a+^-Y+�" t j',+. �a ^ � fJ1T[�y�c �y'e� � I •x d , ���ID�„r�1• m k Y µ' �. 1 Y�.'ti•.YA �-':{. ��� � � t->'+.I -..� 4.<'' �'� . y a•Pyw �J+: -� � L � .':.'N llt .i � �� - .�.i ��v Ir j�\ Y� �. :K'Sw. 1'y • yy�¢V¢`_y �1 -. .. Tr v '�< i ,may - t•- �tV r��y, �TY ,^� ,�y"��,'s '`"�i-+.,�f _ t;° �. x� ����� ' . ^'+}� •�.rr �tr� � �+ -. T1u'Y�.� . ^�s�.'^.°_:�: n fir, • . �,,.s. - G ' "_ �.7:1JM �j. � CIYn p �f S� s^rv`C'1$�� f f.�.- i� a5 } r• h Y„ ,�h-Ii1:n•- 1 Y': • t ,4 2 � ,} + a0. ;..sT° ,�� *Al a.�1 .ttk;:'�•^, +w Akyq ' ° ''�i "�.n!' ' ! y1 'rY', ` LY '.'r.rr '_. +�+ ._ :i ' ♦✓ �., P . .w h , 5=, ". - '"Y Y".ri �T -.i t :.. a 'yir 7.k'?i �r� - • fy+,. y° r •(t . •t tCt��r 5��.'.�. + s. 'z' :p�.e >' }� . �+ ..., L�. kr, . ' �.4,� •� '�.� k ,�+x��� �^� �?-��].'.�Yj a , d3 .t Nh�yy,+,w �. + 7 fr mrl s� � r �'y - �E<.:($ i ±y�+x 'L'w: �,.y R '.a^�„ R• U "M" -� cey s� six .l 5,,r ._` `t1�,+ a ��, ' � .wl+i� �F ^.��1.Y•'°a + � °3' � - r� y, 'SMh{'S..S�'., si '"kyr' �'�. \ "cTM•,fS�yN a` . � � '£ � _ `+r- j sg lie 5� �Nll � Llf � •,r$ fi -Pf "6b'+s '�"x4 j ;:i!'^'"1` �� � .� .1�0" My Y - '^ y '•a`.'. '�''r :?t�"@�'3r�; r ♦r�a' e� . r '( e� �• *�..t�;��r�q,"�.y+��y _,,,, "�` l��i�' �♦s ' '.r. 'ciAj�i - , - _ µ '.ms ."' "` � r� rvtT"iu e3♦ ,tF. , � y � r3.' � � ac r'.]i' �� � "Ct 'r`�i' } �.�f i - � • F d..1 `. > . �' �a d :r .j Y i.: � t' rl. fy?'.�5;� `t':+r.�t ''tir t`� '`>•dc-i � �•® 1. . �.'Aa �F, _•�'tk`� E J�3r '. } �t 'Fc . .: . ,r;YF Y Ir 'K" �� �q _ ea'� � ��_ y"°��j,��. a.,^_ a� �. • �Yt jr. g.,. �' `r��'H :f y.,.. w �9 t + „ � - � � ;.��.a { �t •,,, • i y_ er,> . a��.n.fi .� . i I:,y ��.N�.tr7"'s: kxA.s I4 �'�s �r� - :- ' rte^ ��v �.�,�,) ;� =� ,'r :i �'�s��'M ,.` ;,"� r�r„ 4� - � � � i �” `�£j,��{°y)p,,, l�.(n.p� 1•.���st!'. P � . � � '-` a - n: I i ."", °N rrrrrr ,Yska's�a , -„ °s ►'^it � •[�� •dam; j; T .ts;. a. .w + hL r.: . 'S Ilk . • 4 'r•'s' li ,,, � t�e^ �, "t�',7 !m. �� �:c ,. s xs: 'iT”' �. ' $�`�xi�,e� ,pSi T• • , ' � . J le n W4 �' 7r}r�. s 'Wt'�K°Ty • "X ,,. , 1'yr ., � y: �. �`w-3 y"' �"S�t� '� K : � ,..51 .I. i° �'� �, ca � �: "� t r r T "� �Ii*: �' w-fC`• ' `�' ' 4 ��x v ' .r. �Y.tt' ,1: 4 ' k:�r \' j i• �w,,, ,1,v c;`k -+3n ? ':x, '1 „��. tda c F �v t r •` t ��. . a '" ��� �q �x r lar� `.n� ,,, #i. d ..i r � -t�fi•; ` . rY ; I - 4 �� ko et�� ����r�y��:' .Z +�,�f P �%4 'pf J �., '�.. t �L R�'tiC' ` �� � , ia:.-+rr:,. .��e "" �r � r�'uhY.��-,�'++ �p � is `` : , � • Y '� kk ` �>fi : ,n ,w t °R •irt _ Vie. .a.,�, � � r r •�r , . f 'f � •. 't ,1� �y�-raa�,'"�a 2� „en. � sl z ��+.�•„�",., .i�1' �v",.'"" . k, v --•f^ •� ��:� .-a . �: ? 2 Y - lam' a/t�i,�.F � g� 1, '� �� � 4 � �? �., - •.: Nei ' ,. a: 'sr� K � •, .+ai _ DRi: :iy. f'( .; - + - . t,•�.°�n,#i` � y Y^4^ 3'b:SMar •5'1��� ��� �b .`s,¢'A14 :Y 1 � •}s"E �„'Yf � •.c� e � '� .i �' it -,yl Y�4� •� -,..e . '�.+�-."'1 � �'!.��o }°t ,r� S A - iZ,� -� . t� �{,�. :.: ^{�` /i'I�s '�- •,`• r .4;r S <,J�'�,tA"'�„1E .' � f;t. �, W ra � �M • � � d 'A'c' ?„ 7• r h���''1 ' .�ip �a g�.- ,� � + g 'r 3. ^'- I •tib ' �vg-c' vg- v `4 ` , - "'N 'pit} E" },�:tk •'`: , +¢ A i 1 .�„y 1 ..y )rt c 1 �aNCs�'xY 1•. K ' . - iii. .:»'- > "":�, { ��' t k •1 lz.d! ,t •w, ) cs .. 4 � 9 ...iii rt� Y j h v Y , iJ�ij`/tj t 6' t �f � •" �' �+,vT ' a 'µ2•+rfri', i -." x . doe r .'' " }'F:1as ii t _: a t � A �. , ry � y z . f t� •`y�'Po, r«""• i + s ((�y{q;�• '° .r c r+ _ f L.g�a y i :: C ZT tr"t . ry '!v-,y. �•.+'� � ty �' � r L a a 'C �� �ri�4 , .Z ,�" ' 1 '•t` ••,�, �< > sf $t �` �Yr`f{�,, :' `. ,, ` - . w'•; ��+ P�, dP aL r�., e KY K $;» ,. r 2.'".w' . A a�; .,rJ w,> •ice 'a �.� • Y t..�,_ • 't i• 4.1�ti/ _ t J^ . ?era r- Nom-+• , 44 a �1 t� , ...f. x +1. 0:{�. j[. ( i >y Lit ., �l �• �9 N � 13,` ft `� u� ^f„ "� r` ,rYr • t.BE .�'� ,t } ' `�'� �.�f• j �•�+ r.t'VRL i:, � y.� ' ���1p� `y ,�.` .Y�t '4'� a A � ° �`K+ Y #?fti• t •r�� X ,ti y S* 't yty •. r t. ^1 s �d�k, ti e t ,3�t� •tr"�",5�1}Y� a qq'� }j.�i` '°`r k '•' � X y 't� ��'s •�y9+i+ • �'1if ';V��.. -aS-`r1. 4 _ �v "�4 7 _ -S+'By y.•. N. +� �yy 3 �� N t° �YT,��r}},V* �z !. t -. k a '• -... .rX. /^ ' trtf` �?'Zf .,' d t �t5 tNaRjJ f~�Ya+^f-yQ't•S4r' t. �I 'Rr x .. f'•' }a'.I: - 1��� Td^ U 7�•r+f "A �' . t 1. a i` '. : .... .. `�,ti,t � " • �x!y,'!. t`a4��1 �r� � �.� r�� r'Ift1�.•r �.i� •� '�'.T' J . '� . •�,ti�• 3 L�>. ♦� y4 •+ '~ .}4 "f�i � � • . 'j. } �1• if �:...r � \` A � 4•:'T• �]f1P''3 ,.'� • J us Saf IfFh 14�, f3 -r ip� T 1 �j .aX 4•-1F=�c' :.1.w- � f �. 1 4�r. �. �R;,;,. I s 'T��S'�, � � . � • to � � +* �t ?", t� ar � ' / �1;, Y � 7 1,r f v. 3 ��Fjk •sg. t i� 6 . w� v 4• -S '�,.T•lYf.. .1 ''} S .r! .r -4,"L urriY� ..•,}!,� ._Y .Y' N , } .`. LR� < .. .y ...: � � lRP . •yyl i � ';1 {.r+l 6e":7 ^;�� ,• i'i� !" f�� ,`�e:',-��±1� �,� � . -'l,' { � °d 9' - ♦ t r�r1 4 F �i'i1s ♦ �1 7 e' t .r ✓ i ' ,i xt 3i � e� a j••:- .h' il+ , ,,��`*Z •x '� ' .+ tfT,r� �y,', ,:! 'Ls�, � v Eu'l c ;`, i+ �w.-'i \ �r . •!` 1 L ti"i: xv ��1. ; I+ ^} �i :�,•t` �'�.i•f• ''kj:� �! �� � y .2�(r 1..,,+. . "'►`. .••r.T��y y'!,� " , �.rr�o. � t� :t;� � r+ti.• ��a 'i s:�4�.Ar���i�F+i �n"� ,.� � C� { tis tr �`"�'� ���'..� •. .. ,�,i ,ayetr } ��^. a y� ••r >.+ !'7.� ;1 4• � �t �Lri� , t��ty a'! !� '' ,t-`9_ • ' �`�` - ' • r .Cac _ >+ .z 4 w Sz.'° F fi •rt jy� h�" L �f}rLC>►av >` > r,'1 w.x"Y� ,L� .� ' .>, r�' ^ • 4.`� � Y- ' t we Y.., c � .iPy�s',y ^I'. . ._: \ i.+vOCT- �� •V r' +a.. Fr [ � � .> ei. , t :,, �" �i�:�N" � 3.�yNG� �" � • �i�FG"3,` +`, �vQa v � �{������''�ti�k� i.�,4ta<I ! 'T$ .- .. ' `l��•TL lw.3-ii' W • S� i•i�. tlt� `w�• . -. 1 , f r ff1 ).. fi/',.. � .�y}. .t+-iy IIKK - 1.3 `Y Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca - 1 - East King Road Subdivision Approval and Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , May 19 , 1987 • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca Subdivision Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on Special Approval Planning Board , May 19 , 1987 MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 2 ± acre lot from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 ( 46 . 96 acres ) , located on East King Road , and the consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval of a School Use , pursuant to Article V . Section 18 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed operation of the Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca on said 2 ± acre lot . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed subdivision , and the Zoning Board of Appeals to act as Lead Agency for the proposed Special Approval , 3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance , with certain conditions . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the proposed subdivision , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for the proposed subdivision , with the following conditions : a . The provision of a final subdivision map prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer , suitable for filing by the Tompkins County Clerk , for approval by the Town Engineer , showing the precise location of access and manner of construction of driveway over the " future right. of way " . b . The configuration of the park site is approved in concept , with further information necessary on potential development • of the 46 . 96 acre parcel necessary prior to any final park site approval . An easement shall be provided to the park site from East King Road either over the access road or EXHIBIT 10 Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca - 2 - East King Road Subdivision Approval and Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , May 19 , 1987 directly from East King Road as part of the current subdivision proposal . c . The building shall conform with the Zoning Ordinance requirements including as to height . 2 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for the proposed Special Approval with the following conditions : a . The final site plan shall be subject to approval by the Town Engineering , Planning , and Zoning Department . b . Expansion of parking facilities from the 12 currently proposed to 20 shall be made , and the final design of any other circulation improvements subject to approval by the Town Engineering , Planning , and Zoning Department , and with the condition that additional parking may be required by the Town at any time . c . Parking , delivery and loading rules , and scheduling shall be implemented and enforced by the applicant . d . The Special Approval shall be personal to the applicants , shall not be transferrable , and shall not run with the land . e . The Town shall reserve the right to impose additional conditions at any time . f . The Special Approval shall be subject to all conditions and regulations required by the New York State Education Department , the Tompkins County Health Department , and the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca Subdivision Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on Special Approval Planning Board , May 19 , 1987 • MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker : EXHIBIT 10 Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca - 3 - East King Road Subdivision Approval and Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , May 19 , 1987 WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 2 ± acre lot from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 ( 46 . 96 acres ) , located on East King Road , and the consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval of a School Use , pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed operation of the Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca on said 2 ± acre lot . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed subdivision , has made a negative determination of environmental significance for the proposed subdivision and has recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals a negative determination of environmental significance for the proposed Special Approval , with certain conditions . 3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on May 19 , 1987 , has reviewed the following material : • " Proposed Subdivision for Montessori Elementary School " on " Composite Plan Showing Certain Features on Lands of Herbert N . Monkemeyer , Evan Monkemeyer , and Lenora Ann Monkemeyer " . " Site Plan - Montessori School " . SEQR Long EAF , Special Approval Request , THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval , having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board , 2 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive Preliminary Subdivision Approval and grant and hereby does grant Final Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as proposed , with the following conditions : a . The provision of a final subdivision map prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer , suitable for filing by the Tompkins County Clerk , for approval by the Town Engineer , showing the precise location of access and manner of construction of driveway over the " future right of way " . b . The configuration of the park site is approved in concept , EXHIBIT 1 � Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca - 4 - East King Road Subdivision Approval and Recommendation to Zoning Board of. Appeals Planning Board , May 19 , 1987 • with further information necessary on potential. development of the 46 . 96 acre parcel necessary prior to any final park site approval . An easement shall be provided to the park site from East King Road either over the access road or directly from East King Road as part of the current subdivision proposal . c . The building shall conform with the Zoning Ordinance requirements including as to height . 3 . That the Planning Board , determining that there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location , that the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be located will not be adversely affected , and that the proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town , recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that Special Approval as proposed be granted , with the following conditions : a . The final site plan shall be subject to approval by the Town Engineering , Planning , and Zoning Department . b . Expansion of parking facilities from the 12 currently • proposed to 20 shall be made , and the final design of any other circulation improvements subject to approval by the Town Engineering , Planning , and Zoning Department , and with the condition that additional parking may be required by the Town at any time . c . Parking , delivery and loading rules , and scheduling shall be implemented and enforced by the applicant . d . The Special Approval shall be personal to the applicants , shall not be transferrable , and shall not run with the land . e . The Town shall reserve the right to impose additional conditions at any time . f . The Special Approval shall be subject to all conditions and regulations required by the New York State Education Department , the Tompkins County Health Department , and the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . EXHIBIT 10 . „do . . . NA' '► alp Ost 1 _ a d c sa 0� oil t < • F � f�+; ' �v MoN�Nn •� r 1 " ' s _ f,• I III 70 / d .• � '1ovH7S � s � oH ➢ •M ,o , b / rs 6r 1 oc:b ,Kr p 3V�n ,e L �� rn o 0 A � o ui d Q sn • -o S EXHIBIT 18 Montessori Elementary and Secondary School of Ithaca - 5 - East King Road Subdivision Approval and Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , May 19 , 1987 • Nancy M , uller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . May 22 , 1987 . • • EXHIBIT 10 • PART II - Environmental Assessment - Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes . A . Action is ' Unlisted B . Action will receive coordinate (3 review ( Tom }_ ) ]ca ns County Planning Dept . - N . Y . S . G . M . L . 239 -- 111 , Tompkins County Health Department , N . Y . S . Department of Transportation ) C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising from the following : CJ_ . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste roduction or disposal , potentia ) for erosion , drainage or_ f 00 ng roro ems ? -- - — No significant adverse impact is expnected . No major_ site alterations are planned . Tompkins Couty Health. Department approval will be required for the site septic system . It Is recommended that the driveway be widened to a 16 foot roadway with 2 foot shoulders for adequate site access . Any work in the right of way of Five Mile Drive ( N . Y . S . 13 - - a would he subject to the approval of the New York Stae Department of Transportation . The Ithaca City School_ District has indicated the feasibility of school bus service , With pickup and dropoff on Five Mile Drive , Proposed parking is adequate for the proposed use and meets zoning requirements . The site is nearby , but not within , floodplain and wetland areas . The distance, o f the site from these areas is adequate to anti_ c '_ pa1 - (:-,. no � 3_ dn .f_ i. � < ). 1 ) 1- �-ldver_ r, ca impacts to these areas as a result of school oper_ at1011 . - C2 . Aesthetic , T_ icvltural , a. rr ) leoloqi:r ,aJ_ , sLQ .1: i_ c , r� ) . ------- --- -- --- ---- other natural or cultural resources ' 03 y c (AIMIUD ] � or nei hborliovct character ? - - - ------ . . -- -- ' ..._ . - - -- -- - Proposed use represents the cr) ri � �- vat i- on building , and the restoration or i_ ' , j., �. e ;, ; ot , �, ) c, ,, There would be no adverse i_ lnpacl_ 1 _ o i lle r' ) > 1r: a � 1. , nta of } lot }11P community , which includes mired 11g111- indllstri � l , cc � nunc� rci. aJ. , residential uses , and public and pr .i_ va f: e 1-Jel.-J ;:1. 110 a ) ) (1 l. 00rlpaa :i. 11 areas . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fis1 ) , r, liea. J_ fisl ► or � a :i. :Ld .l_ iie species , si nifi_ cant habitats , or i_ hreatened .. o .l: _._ c iiclal > c�ered species ? - _ There are no significant species or habitats oll the si. t. that would be adversely affected , Speei- cis an �1 11 ,, 1� i. ta � C i_ n adjacent wetland and floodplain areas wolal: d not 1 impacted , • subject to approval_ of tha site snpi. i c system by Fhe Tom};� k. i. n County Health Department . EXHIBIT 11 14.18.4 (2187)—Text 12 F O ECT I.D. NUMBER 817.21 SEAR Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . FORM . For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) I . APPLICANT /SPONSOR t" D� Oc 1 G " im LkY, I � 2�►jPa TkBL �� NM D A iawL 3 . PROJECT LOCOJECT NAME W"VKATION* IION: $ 5 FIM 0411ort (a �j K � v' Y Municipality 1 County f' Mr 4 . PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, promine t landmarks, etc. , or provide map) . OtCAsMAMa 9AW i fA Me (?Ana G oo 31 Z • 15 ) 5 . IS PROPOSED ACTION: ❑ New ❑ Expansion Modification/alteration 8 , DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: 10 &WOV4Z M*P WVWI >u s r ttNf ZMCC W11A) IQ4 jirg Mf7kph XW- Vy IR6 "m 7 . AMOUNT OF LAND AFFE TED: Initially acres Ultimately acres 9 . WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ( Yes ❑ No If No; describe briefly C g . WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? rim ❑ Residential ❑ Industrial Commercial CommerciaallAA ❑ Agriculture � /L Parkl1F,o�reest/Open space .►y� ❑/Ot�her � $ Describer V IV / 60M 914 wiWr '! ( tvOt/ �'`+ 'JA'�.�' MAI ` 10 . DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, . STATE OR LOCAL)? Yes ❑ No If yes, list agency(s) and permit/approvals I , lo e m rmnir"W 6rkM bn l b rA, 4*1't> eML y NC" CODE 1MW EPAW" �, . tab &KfUgh k*'7tW MT1W 4$6ZAee WWIk MJ 11 : DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? WYes ❑ No If yes, list a ency name and permitlapproval + • � 1""W N camy 1 . v 19+"s It kza 94*ft Nots 12 . AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE . MODIFICATION? ❑ Yas No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AppllcanVsponsor name: " "' � L e ' " " " lic Date: o i Signature: If the action Is in the Coastal Area , and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER EXHIBIT 11 • C4 . A community ' s existinayl. ans o �.coals as officially adopted , or a change in use orintensity of use of land or other natural resources ? The site was recently rezoned from R9 to R30 , in which respect the lot is in legal non - conformance , and is riot considered of significant adverse impact provided that the septic system is approved by the Tompkins County Health Department . Because of the amount of State Highway ]_ and adjacent to the site , the side yard deficiency on the west side of the building i , not. considered of any significant impact , Variances were previously granted for this site ( July 24 , 3. 967. ; variance to use building for medical laboratory : December lei , 7. 986 ; variance to use building for sculpture studio and second studio / arti. san shop ) , The change in use of the site from i_ ts inactive status to the proposed school use is of no significant impact in r_ e �4ar.. d to land. use intensity , and is of benefit to the community in filling an educational need . C5 . Growth , subsequent devel_ o meat , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? No significant growth or subsequent development is expected on the site , nor will the proposed school operation significantly i _ nduce growth or development in the Five Mile Drive / Elmi_ ra Road • area . Any other requests for development in the area would be subject to further review . C6Long term , short term , ctinlU. J_ ati. ve , car other effects not identified in Cl - 05 ? - -- -- - — - --- Not expected , subject to the cr) n %i i_ t .i_ ons of Par i_ JI ): 1: be ]_ ow . . - Other impacts ( includirr changes a- n USe of e �_ ther quantity or t g- g ype of energy ) ?_ � - ---�------ -� ._. .. . ..... gam ) _ _. . -- ---- ._... . Not expected . D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controvers - 7 related Lo potential adverse environmental impacts ? ---- - - - - There is no public controversy at this ti_me, and none .i. s anticipated . PART III A negative determination of er).v i_ r_ onmeni: ,i 1. si. yn .i_ f icance i s recommended . The site is removed from resi �ienti_ �� .1 . pr. or, e .r. t .i. e , , and site capacity is adequate .for the proposed use subject to • the following : a • Approval of the septic System by i: he 7. omp }:. i_ n C011111--' yHealth Department , b . Compliance of building renovation cai. th rla 1 pe .r. l-- Inent.. codes and regulations . EXHIBIT 11 ce Installation of fencing and driveway improvements , substantially as shown on the plan presented , to the satisfaction. of the Town Building Inspector . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of: Appeals Reviewer : Susan C . Beener_ s , Town Planner Review Dates May 28 , 1987 • • EXHIBIT 11 Waldorf School of the Fingerlakes 54 Gundenrian Road • P. O. Bog 4551 Ithaca, NY 14850 May 19 , 1987 Tann of Ithaca Planning Board 126 E . Seneca St . Ithaca , NY 14850 Dear Sirs , In reviewing our initial zoning packet we feel it is important for you to know score of the history of our school ; its current status ; our governing body , and our involvement in the Ithaca ccauunity . Waldorf schools were started in the 1920 ' s by Rudolph Steiner . Currently there are over 400 Waldorf schools in 160 countries . There are seven in New York State alone . . Our school , started by involved parents in 1982 , now serves over sixty children in grades kindergarten through seventh . These students represent forty-eight families , many of whom moved to the Ithaca area because of the Waldorf School . The= Waldorf - School of the Fingerlakes is chartered by the New York State Department of Education and sponsored by the Association of North American Waldorf Schools . We are a non-profit organization governed by a Board of Directors composed of parents , teachers and community unity members . • In the past five years our school . has provided workshops , lectures , study groups , and holiday faires for the general Ithaca community . We are currently providing jobs for fifteen Ttrflpki_ns County .residents and expect _ t:his figure to increase in our 87-88 ' school year . We have become an established institution in the Ithaca ccanx ity and are excited about the prospect of acquiring a permenant facility . Our two current sites ; Cayuga Heights School and the Danby School are no longer available to us . The Building Cannittee has searched for the past year for adequate rental Property and found there is a shortage of available sites suitable to house a school . We feel the Inlet Valley School site is the best opportunity for the future of our school . Please consider our plans with this in mind . Sincerely , Yvonne Fogarty • Development Coordinator Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes EXHIBIT 12 . J 0 �J �O J\ S / o q� 10300At �o 2 e� ,, IL Q� * 0 , 540 GAS LINe s. t . P. pct C 23, 539 s4 . Fi. ) fiSlf. 44 7NT PG 48°1 TAX MAP No , -pEED REF. / • V� � / f 312 - i5 sK . r000/Pc. . loz8 � .� 'S P. 91 L11 Ct yl- �, HI STORI [AL •� MON VNIC.NT 6� ZA6 • \ i( � / V {ll1 \ 0 P 00>> Gi ® ( RO.e .) SGNOD4 I�Ousb AV • . , ti� - . tr o, q ct �Q 01, oK / jaw [PINE FORMER LY Of 7TNgtA - ELnnIRA ROpa N't �Op'V// �Ir[tG coa .f�y� r� CT� pF ITMAGf. 16 0 A4 ; / va°+� ae r to EXHIBIT 13 Warning: It is a violation of Section 7209 , Subdivision 2 .of the New York State Education Law to alter , In any way , a map bearing the original seal and signature of a licensed professional , Only maps gearing such seal and signature may be considered valid . LANDS OF RIG ►-IARD $ ERGC„ REn1 6 $ ETT`{ .JAn1E BER6149, Eh1 LOCATED 855 FtvE MILS ORI � E , MIL . Lo { f3Z . -- �IQF NE �y y UCE p � (T ) ITatACA , TOMPKIN, $ CIIII - r 4jQ C> ']' f • Z '�► i .': 11:11 I hereby certify that this '-map accurately represents an actual surveyr performed by me or under my direct supervision and Is subject to any sto'te of facts that an up - to - date abstract of title may show , // Nn • 43603 Z A N 0 S . BRUCE DAVISON , L . S . 4903 DATE JOB 140 . B7- 15a Montessori Elementary and Secondary . School of ' Ithaca - 5 - East King Road Subdivision Approval and Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , May 19 , 1987 • Nancy M , uller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . May 22 , 19870 • • EXHIBIT 10 t TOMPKINS COUNTY ';DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SUZANNE R. STOPEN , R .N., M .P.S. Environmental Health Division Public Health Director ; 1287 Trumansburg Road June 24 , 1987 Ithaca , New York 14850 607-273-7275 Mr . Richard Kinner c / o Dick Wilson Real Estate 119 West Green Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Dear Mr . Kinner : The sewage system construction permit application submitted by you for the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes at 655 Five Mile Drive , tax map # 6 --- 31 - 2 - 15 , has been denied under the Tompkins, County Sanitary Code , Article VI , Rule IV A and R . These rules require one acre minimum lot size in which a 150 ' diameter circle can be inscribed for any new development or conversion . The lot in question does riot meet this requirement . • A variance request , with Tompkins County Health Department staff recommendation for approval , has been prepared to be presented to the Board of Health on July 14 , 1987 , at noon in the Biggs Building R Conference Room . A copy of the request and recommendation is enclosed . If you wish to speak to the Tompkins County Board of Health at this meeting , please call John Andersson prior to July 14 , 1987 . Please call if you have any questions . Sincerely , Richard Ewald Public Health Sanitarian RE / kr encl . cc : Ms . Susan Heeners , Ithaca ( T ) Planning • EXHIBIT 14 TOMPKINS COUNTY-; DEPARTMENT OF ]HEALTH _ y_ f SUZANNE R . STOPEN, R .N ., M .P.S. Environmental Health Division Public Health Director VARIANCE REQUEST 1287 Trumansburg Road Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes { Ithaca, New York 17850 855 Five Mile Drive , Ithaca , New York 607 -273-7275 Variance Requested : From Tompkins County Sanitary Code , Article 'Ji , Rule IVA , Rule IVB : Rule IVA - Lots must be shaped so a 150 ' diameter circle can fit inside it . Rule IVH - Minimum lot size for each new and converted building required a sewage disposal system is one acre of useable land area . Facts : The Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes has been in the former Danby School , but will not be allowed to continue occupancy there . As a result , the school representatives are hoping to be allowed to use the facility known as the Old Inlet Valley School at the junction of Routes 13 and 13A in the Town of Ithaca . • This building , formerly part of tele iviaCa SC1C0i District , i5 On a parcel Of 13nd approximately C2 . 700 5 -� lare is _ t C ✓ . "�r acre ) and d circle n013r7 r than 114 ' in diameter can be drawn in the lot . The parcel is bordered by State Highway lands to the north , west , and south . To the south and southeast is the Lehigh Valley Railroad right - of -- way . A parcel to the north by northeast is privately owned . The building was formerly a school and was closed in the late 1950 ' s or early 1960 ' s . It has not been used much since then , except only occasionally as a shop and apartment . Mr . Richard Kinner , agent for the school , has records showing enrollment of 60 - 70 people in the school in the late 19L0 ' s . The current enrollment of the Danby School is 60 students , The well serving the building is located on County owned land near the Cayuga Inlet . The existing sewage system was examined in June of 1987 on site . It is a four feet deep by four feet diameter seepage pit in good condition . Soil tests indicated a 4 '¢ ' layer of permeable soil over a layer of dense silty soil . A replacement system to serve 60 students will fit on the pr.operty.. • EXHIBIT 15 Variance Request ( cont ' d . ) Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes Page Two Discussion and Recommendation : The Health Department staff recommends the approval of the waiver . While the acceptable lot size does not exist , the lot is bordered by State rights - of - way and the Railroad right - of - way which will lessen any negative impact on neighbors as the land is unbuildable . The well is located on County property , far enough away so separation distances between wells and sewage systems will not be a problem . An engineered designed , Health Department approved sewage system will be planned , so should the present sewage system fail a property designed replacement will be promptly installed . . Current enrollment will he =_ imiiar l .o e ^ rcl ' ,;, e - t in the 1940 ' s . The sewage system appeared to have functioned in the past . An alternate facility does not appear to be available at this time , so denial of the variance could result in closure of the school . RE / kr b / c4 / 87 • • EXHIBIT 15 f q PETER D . NOVELL] , P . E . p,,,;,•� I /A/_Dp,� l� c fi�' �� c_. CONSULTING ENGINEER 424 Harford Road , R . D . I • Brooklonclale , New York 14817 r:a,•. i P / 1' Chcckrd hy _ . .. . . . . Utnr 5 MILC D re. IV 2: { r Lirncls � { /V Y - vC..) 7- Pel Pel CI X !S T'in U� / \ StPrlc Tnn/ve � 7 \ i t root p/Pe • (� n r _ ' -F \ AX ' S � ., � Ate/ '� � ✓ W � // c7, 46 ' fie EXHIBIT 16 • ICI( Witsm REA ESTATE, INC. Box 57 , 119 West Green Street , Ithaca , New York 14850 • 607-272- 1122 { June 19 , 1987 Mr . Scott Heyman Tompkins County Administrator 320 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Re : Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes Mr . Heyman ; I am writing to request an easement from the town for use of an existing well located on county property , along the creek at Five Mile Drive . • The Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes , a non-profit NYS chartered school ( see attached letter ) has purchased the real_ estate at 855 Five Mile Drive , Ithaca , the former site of the Inlet Valley School , with the intent to reestablish use of the property as a grade school , beginning in September of this year . At the request of the school , I am coordinatinq the project , which evolved rather quickly as a result of the sale in mid-May of the school ' s home-to-date , the old Danby school . In the process of my efforts , it has come to our attention that the artesian well , which has been serving the schools ' needs for years , is in fact on county property . The flow of the well and its apparent condition indicate it can continue to meet the proposed needs of the Waldorf school , in addition to saving the i. minediate expense of (1ri_ l. .l. i. ng a new well at a time when pennies are being counted for this ambituous project . We realize this is short notice--the zoning board has requested the school obtain an easement for the well use for .its approval. of a variance to be ( very hopefully ) granted on Wednesday , June 24 , 1987 . I certainly hope you can acco►Tm)odate the schools ' urgent need . Thanks very much for your help . • Respectfully yours , EXHIBIT 17 Richard D . Kinner / PEALTOR® " a : , + � . ^,, atitnt � c► 1 iticw g � 1r1. „. ., `*t $� IN ro { r " f�' 1) cnnrllnrnt � ) 1 I l : hlic '4ti• orltA A I !3'�WnA. C" ?,ii 5 + { ' 4 _ ': ' � ) 1 \' INio11 o 1 � 1 � - t G x tA . i , p , '1 a . , Ma , i, �71 �� ' �F �'� s t7�rv� ,. , 1`; 61 �.3 Ii�A' i,' Fti � _ <' 'a U1 I� ICT I . UIilll: lt I, FY4 J `' : a �l' I . �. `•a .0 v � � " .. . ....... .... : � 1 ,1.....11 .y.. ......... . .. ... .. . . . ..... ........... /�1� .�, `{ .. . .. �.. ,. �, .•, rl 1976 ";. `; gaD1 '_: 11IG 'fi � ��' 1:0 . 454 . `i'UIiLIC 5w (VICi; C .,Ts'' 1A.70 45356 &. "` ` � :: CO i� i' C0 RUCTIOIv i':Z :_CT lTGH : . C . rk AiAs A d, ,'JI' ' ; : ;1 lin the elilainution of a (r�rade crossing; on the Ithtrec� ' Road ► tate 1. • i1 � ,ay ' 1 :h . �t54 AllTAsks, o%': n of It _: acv ,9County of iO.V. : I ': ill : , �'u'Jlic �erti• ice Co:>i . � � � ion lk: , ., � . �,IfIll All, c ' : r �' 1 ( ' ' C i n lcCcl u1U11 of a y d sec u.Lon Oi SClid ILJ , ! . ' " i $0 . J � JI , C7 �I1L. .LL . ItC. � s „ �, Y ' , , , f. ,:' L 1 cieter . i : ineu upon by .L ?:e order of the i' ubIic aerv � ce CoI"�.:11 .; � i. on , ... a . icC 'i. lOn b'pint_, described a :.: IO 'lIO':1 : : " Be " im inr; a -t Jt at 1, 011 JJ / 7J O1 otcac :v0 . `1J �_ tilC: rlC :� y � „ ly and so �.ltileas e � 1 � O � � 4, � 1c , 1 b :: - . not t her" stiez 1 eus l (. � 01' said hi �. ir,:uy " and . :r? i ' ; E::S , in ti: e elimir_ ution o _i' raid cror_, � il` in -i) lc : CC of sulci o1c.. � c � ... o1� them � ;er © built nes': scctic:, n on net l .:. ucltion u0se 100(1 . as ioJ.. lOlt . kit 01 StCt101'1 55 . 00 Of i' Llb :, 1C � E) r �' 1Ce Co:?1'ili .3u1. : 7 : 1 Ci_l ::� ir U � JIi �. ; CI1C (: �' _Atsterly tO :� 'i Lit ... on G7 -� ' . J 01 5 `11a. 1` '•.1J11C se. rV ,'. CG' (i0 : . . : 1 :; .. 1011 ("1L, "., A, aild " e ! tttn ' 745 UL ` eUnStruet1oil Conti' :kcL,l ; rlln; 0 c . . ` . , irk. TSj ' ,. ; . � :I) J� ) ; -611e11.ue ea � tel.' ly to tC; 't10 , djj 50 OI Sal i t n _ . C' COIIStrtlCt ' On COr1tI' : � C "G " and ;•z ;r`, ;? �. , ; 1;:1,5 , ;vection 6 ;5 oi. the rii � n ';ay La•rr provides that t'lhenever in �. ;:e =. � illina - • . . , ., ' mac ., - '- ; de AL .;.'i; ��. �: . . ' 01 c1 All_;ru , Aie eros in :; on a 5 „ ate t< i �i1 , . .. y , ,. hc � �..: . e is ai' i ..0 ills d b ; � : . Or I: Iln �i I OCat1011 , in ac col dt: nee '. : 11; h � ztC O � : . c TATy O � V11All .. Lby _ ., ; i: ' : 1kk C, . , uv a result t l ! lt r CoC a JUl' 'i,All. . Uil C) 1 111 ., -� v : '.'iC :11 '.11 • • - G : .i '" 1� _ ) Ii ; 1 ' . ' IlU X011 " Cr ' .1 11 . , 1 C I Alpaw . ., . , Il C. 0rvL :S USc i U.l L.1 kkk ! O � < F1 y O1 � L C 'tl S � " � 0 ' .1 C' i , 10" ALI •`J ` i ] .' lyC CCiil 1Cti0I1 O1 -G he e1 i : : 1 .LIi '1L1011 ' ' eT ' , • ' 4% ` C1 � O V % ' . -. - : Oy ,c i cec� � : . . A1.0? i'aJ.. Ui. : Cllt OTS 1� U1) 11C ' � ori :: ; '6 r0 :1 " ' l: ui :C All All JIlUCIl'G Uf L?h . l ... . . is l% , ,, : , a `nI;T1. 4A01Q .: ` ; c1l: :l isever -t to the jurl : diction ci' the torn , IT 1 el: All ; , 0 : ; � . .: lk D : That the lil:: i. ted section of 6taIf -tc 1 4 rphway r , o . 4 :: I first cc I) All cribed is ilereb Discontinued as sec " ion of State iii n �;�, ► 1., 0 -: ;.:re,,u:. Y 3 I I - s ' i: hhr maintenance by the State slit-L11. b0 uerfor; iled thereon , Al sAll I y +: ;. C� ' i _)::,;: � D : That said section o1 said hiCh1vuy be and it is hereby -':i' '? rC r,D +a , vile ; lbti'rn of Tthaerz , COun � y of lompkinL3 for fu � ts e nath,i r_ 1: ena. n. c � and r ei . x , ` 0h and 1'T, IS FU�Z7.I = k"„1', ' : cp :Tt D : That tn �: records of .' this Uepartalent be revised as to the correct __ - '•,.Iki,)r' : `. � r as reconstructed and relocates under Yub13c`A14 0 _ Length of” State Hlchv.uy i'�o . 4 ,.' VIC Lokrmi . sSion C £1Je JJ56 and ReconS 'Jl llction Contract ''Ad" G11 R , C638650 ; i1. i :. 13 Pa"L11T kit 1 EXHIBIT 19 CO1\ L'l: ISSIONM 411 . A q ) _ r r . .. l + V r Dick WASE,» REAL ESTATE, INC O AIM& • Box 57 , 119 West Green Street , Ithaca , New York 14850 • 607- 272 - 1122 t June 18 , 1987 Mr . Fred Grout NYS Department of Transportation Third Street Extension Ithaca , NY 14850 Re : Waldorf School_ of the Finger Lakes 855 Five Mile Drive , Ithaca Location of bus shelter Dear Mr . Grout ; • I appreciate you taking the time to meet with me at the old Inlet Valley School grounds , the proposed Waldorf site , to discuss the plans for a bus shelter for the children . Following our conversation , I undecstand the shelter_ can he located in an area of the state lands at least ten ( 10 ) feet from the guardrail on Five Mile Drive and , at the (Ii- scretion of the school. , a reasonable distance from the school. driveway . In accordance with the requirements of Ithaca Flarmi. nq Pc)::rr_ d , please confirm our understanding of the matter . Thanks very riiuch . R6spectfully yours , Richard D . Kinner RDK/jlb EXHIBIT 20 • REAITOR`� Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes - 1 855 Five Mile Drive Planning Board , June 2 , 1987 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , June. 2 , 1987 MOTION by Mrs . , Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS * 1 . This action is the consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval of a School Use , pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph , 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed location of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes into a former school building at 855 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 2 - 15 , Residence District R - 30 . 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for envirommnetal. review . The Tompkins County Planning • Department , the Tompkins County Health Department , and the New York State Department of Transportation are potentially - involved agencies which are being notified as to this action . 3 . The Planning Hoard has reviewed the proposal at. a Public Hearing on June 2 , 1987 . 4 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative dok-. ermi. IIatAr-) II c) f environmental significance , subject to certain Gond itions , which are part of this report . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board recommr� rld arid hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negat .i_ ve determination of environmental significance be made for this action , conditional upon the following : a . Approval of the septic system and water supply system by the Tompkins County Health Department . b . Compliance of building renovation with all pertinent codes and regulations . c . Installation of fencing and driveway improvements , substantially as shown on the plan presented , to the satisfaction of the Town r3ui_ ldinq Inspector , with the driveway - to be widened to a 16 - foot roadway with 2 - foot . shoulders , with the fence in its proposed location to be EXHIBIT 21 Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes - 2 - 855 Five Mile Drive Planning Board , June 2 , 1987 • subject to the approval. of the New York State Department of Transportation , and with the proposed shelter also to be subject to the approval of the New York State Department of Transportation . 2 . That the Planning Board determine and hereby does determine that : a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location . b . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected . C * The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . 3 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals that Special Approval as proposed be granted , subject to the following conditions : a . Approval. of the septic system and water_ supply system by the Tompkins County Health Department . b . Compliance of building renovation with allP ertinent codes and regulations . c . Installation of fencing and driveway improvements , substantially as shown on the plan presented , to the satisfaction of the Town Building Inspector , with the driveway to be widened to a 1. 6 - fool= r_, oadway with 2 - foot shoulders , with the fence in its proposed Location to be subject to the approval of the New York State Department of Transportation , and with the proposed shelter_ also to be subject to the approval of the New Yort. State 1 e[N-Ir_ tment of Transportation . Aye - May , Grigorov , `Langhans , Klein , Y. etlerson , Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , June 4 , 1987 . EXH. I, B I%T 21 r FILED TOWN OF ITHACA 9 Date O FINDINGS Clerk. • ON APPEAL OF RANDOLPH F . BROWN DECIDED JUNE 24 , 1987 WHEREAS , this Board of Appeals ruled on an appeal of Marie Louise Brown , Appellant , Randolph F . Brown , Agent , on June 24 , 1987 ; and WHEREAS , the Board made implicit findings in conjunction with deciding that appeal but neglected to express those findings in its formal resolution granting the appeal ; and WHEREAS , the Board now wishes to articulate those findings and confirm its prior decision , it is RESOLVED , that this Board confirm the following findings made in connection with the above - mentioned appeal. on June 24 , 1987 : 1 . The construction of the proposed inflatable plastic greenhouse as shown on the site plan submitted to this Board , provided that the traffic and parking arrangements are completed in accordance with the site plan and in accordance with New York State Department of Transportation • requirements as expressed to this Board promotes the health , safety , morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purposes of the Zoning Ordinance . 2 . The greenhouse , being an agricultural use on property that has been dedicated to the use of agriculture since before the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance is reasonably adapted to the proposed use , and such use will continue to fill a neighborhood and community need for the provision of fresh garden produce . 3 . The proposed greenhouse and the location and design of the structure is consistent with the character of the district and area in which it is located . 4 . The proposed greenhouse is , in essence , a replacement for a barn that was destroyed by fire , the greenhouse to be sited further north on applicant ' s property than was his original barn - and hence , further away from the barn on the property of Mr . and Mrs . Bower to the south ; and 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 . 5 . The applicant has made , with assistance from the • Department of Transportation of the State of New York , adequate plans for traffic and for parking so that the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses has • been safely designed . 6 . The general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole , including such items as traffic load upon Route 96 ( a heavily trafficked road that will see no significant increase in traffic as a result of this project ) and load upon water and sewage systems ( the proposal will not require any additional water and sewage systems except on those already existing on the property ) is not detrimental to the health , safety and general welfare of the community . 7 . The construction of said greenhouse in the proposed location is a minimal extension of a non - conforming use given the fact that it is largely a replacement for a barn that was previously destroyed by fire ; and it is further RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby confirms the granting to the applicant of approval for the erection of the proposed inflatable plastic greenhouse 30 feet by 75 feet , in the location shown on the site plan , conditioned upon his also completing the erection of the planters in a semi - circle around the easterly side of the road stand , and his putting up suitable signs directing traffic in and out of the parking area behind the stand , all as shown on the site plan . • Approved and filed this 9th day of Se ember , 1987 Henry Aron , Chairman Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Beatrice Lincoln Recording Secretary • GRANT OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT • Made this 071 O day oftAriB; 19879 by Wayne Co Bortz of 106 West Jay Street , Ithaca , flew. York , hereinafter called " Grantor " ; TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA , a Municipality within the County . of Tompkins and State of New York WHEREAS , the Grantor is the owner of real property on the southwesterly side of Siaterville Road in said . Town of Ithaca, designated as 1513 Slaterville Road , . and which properties are now designated on the Town of Ithaca Tax Map as # 58 ® 1 = 32c- 1 ; AND WHEREAS , the Grantor has a dwelling on these parcels ; AND WHEREAS , said property is situated in an R@15 Zone under the current Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance as readopted , amended and revised as of February 12 , 1968 , dwellings of no • more than two family size and lots no smaller than Q 15 -s000 s uar fleet being -permitted in this Zone ; AND WHEREAS , the Grantor desires to obtain authority for occupancy of the building to include two dwelling . units , and ha himself offered to devote the entire tax parcel mentioned above to this proposed building ; NOW THEREFORE , in consideration o tthe premises and of the grant by the Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals of a Special ' Permit to authorize the use of the building as a. two apartment dwelling , no other consideration herefor being given or intended , the . Grantor does hereby impose upon said real • • property, in said premises described , viz . , 1513 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 58 " 1 = 32 . 1 RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS to run with the land untiT such time , if ever , that the Town of Ithaca or one of its duly authorized Boards or agencies shall by written instrument or Order release the same as follows : 1 . Said land shall not be subdivided , but shall . remain ' intact as part and parcel with the said dwelling thereon , 2 . No building other than . an accessory building permitted under the then applicable Zoning Ordinance shall be constructed upon any other part of said premises 3 . The proposed dwelling shaTI not be enlarged nor made into more apartments or dwelling units than the two permitted b • the Variance nor shall any such dwelling unit be occupied by more than three unrelated persons unless authorized by a new variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals or unless the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance is amended by the Town Board to specifically permit occupancy by a greater number of unrelated persons . 4 . . Ex_ce_pt as - specifically modified by the variance and this Grant this entire parcel shall continue to be fully subject . to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , 5 . The owner agrees to designate a contact person for eact unit to be placed on . file in the Town Office at the commencement of the lease term . • 6 . T. he - owner agrees that any lease for these premises wil contain a provision obligating the tenants to refrain from making excess noise on these premises . . i R3 � 7 . The southwesterly portion of theseP remises are to. remain undeveloped, said portion being described as : All of the above mentioned parcel of lands which is southwesterly of , a lin running parallel with the center line of Slaterville Road and 420 ' therefrom . Nothing contained herein authorizes a.. ny further develo,,, pment of the northeast portion of the premises except as specifically permitted by this Grant . I; N FITNESS WHEREOF the Grantor has hereunto set his hand -and seal as of the day and year last above written , AYNE So TZ - Town fo Ithaca Tax Parcel 58 - 1 - 32 . 1 • STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOM.PKINS ) SS : On this a7d day of SIA par A 1987 , blefdre me , the subscriber , personally appeared. WAYNE Cc BORTZ to me known and known to me to be the same person described in and r; ho executed the within in-strument and he duly acknowledged to me that he executed the- same , i Notary Public EDWARD k MAM &4= k. State of k'eq Yeti 5230K Tom COJOY •