HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1989-08-23 FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date S� 8
Clerk
Town of Ithaca 1
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 23 , 1989
PRESENT : Vice Chairman Edward Austen , Joan Reuning , Eva
Hoffmann , Edward King , Town Attorney John Barney ,
Zoning Enforcement Office/ Building Inspector Andrew
Frost , Town Planner Susan Beeners .
ABSENT : Henry Aron
OTHERS PRESENT : Thomas Bell , David J . Stotz , Nick Barra ,
Slade Kennedy , Gene Corbett , Myrtle Whitcomb ,
Dave Auble , Robert Hines , Esq .
Vice Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 03
p . m . and stated that all posting , publication and notification of
the public hearing had been completed and that proper affidavits
of same were in order .
• The first Appeal on the Agenda was the following :
APPEAL OF DAVID J . STOTZ , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 65 , OF THE TOWN OF
ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
FENCE , 8 FEET IN HEIGHT , LOCATED AT 1438 SLATERVILLE
ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 6-58 -2 - 36 , RESIDENCE
DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ORDINANCE WOULD PERMIT A FENCE 6
FEET IN HEIGHT .
Mr . David J . Stotz appeared before the Board and explained
that , as the application for the fence indicates , his wife has a
very severe medical problem that prevents her from sleeping when
there is undue noise . Mr . Stotz explained that the angle from
their bedroom , which is in the front of the house , is such that a
6 foot fence would not block any sound from their house , thus the
request for the extra 2 feet above that .
Mr . King questioned how many bedrooms are in the house and
where they are located . Mr . Stotz responded that on the second
floor of the house there - are 3 bedrooms , 2 of which are located
on the street side and 1 is located on the side of the house .
There is a living area in the back of the house . He said that
essentially it is a ranch house that is turned sideways because
of the narrowness of the lot .
Town of Ithaca 2
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Mr . Frost presented photos of the house and Mr . Stotz
pointed out in the photos where the bedrooms are located . In
answer to Mr . King ' s question , Mr . Stotz said the house is about
60 or 70 feet from the edge of the road .
Mr . King asked Mr . Stotz what makes him think that a 6 - foot
or an 8 - foot or even a 10 - foot fence is going to have any
appreciative effect on the sound from that highway .
Mr . Stotz replied that he is not sure whether that . is going
to have any effect at all but they are in a situation now where
they have got to try something . He said they have tried
everything else and they have the house on the market for sale
right now but the market is such that houses just are not moving .
They have tried to relocate their bedroom in another part of the
house but that doesn ' t work either . Mr . Stotz stated that people
have told him that a fence will work , and if they can get that
fence high enough so that they cannot see the road from the
bedroom , that should block the sound .
Vice Chairman Austen asked Mr . Stotz what kind of a fence is
• he planning on . Mr . Stotz replied that they have talked with a
number of fence builders and what they are looking at is a
decorative redwood fence . It would certainly not be something
that would be offensive to the neighbors .
Mr . King asked if it would be a solid fence or louvered .
Mr . Stotz said it would be a solid one . He said that in his
opinion a solid fence would do a lot better job in blocking the
sound than a louvered fence would . Mr . Stotz stated that he did
visit a neighbor who has a 6 - foot fence located closer toward the
Ithaca City line and that does block the road and he noticed that
it does reduce the sound substantially but their angle from the
house down to the road is different than his . That is one of the
reasons that they are trying this .
Town Attorney Barney asked if this fence is going to go
along the road or in from the road . Mr . Stotz responded that it
will be going in from the road , clear of the utility easements ,
parallel to the road .
Vice Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one
appeared before the Board . Vice Chairman Austen closed the
public hearing .
Ms . Hoffmann asked Mr . Stotz if he had tried shutters on his
house to try to reduce the noise element . Mr . Stotz said they
still have the problem of summer and having the windows open for
air getting through the house . An air conditioner is not
Town of Ithaca 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
feasible , both financially and also because of the noise that
would create .
Mr . King asked Mr . Stotz how long they have lived on the
property and how long has he had the property for sale . Mr .
Stotz replied that they have lived there for 3 years . They have
had the property on the market since June 28th . Mr . Stotz said
he has no intention of putting that fence up tomorrow and if they
are able to sell the property in a reasonable period of time , he
will not put any fence up .
Mr . King stated that he does not think that such a fence
particularly adds to the beauty of the area or the neighborhood .
He thinks it becomes a question of weighing the private benefit ,
if any , against the impact on the public .
Mr . Stotz responded that they intend to build that fence as
nicely as they can . Again , without going into details , he does
not think that anybody ' s sensibilities are going to be offended
for 2 feet additional fencing to the extent of the detriment that
it does to his wife and her rest . Mr . Stotz stated that for the
• Board to suggest that they are going to deny a variance like this
on the basis of aesthetic reasons , because of a 2 foot height
difference , knowing the repercussions that it might have for
somebody who is in agony , would be a travesty and he thinks the
Board should consider that very carefully .
Mr . King asked Mr . Stotz how far away the neighbors are from
his property . Mr . Stotz responded that the Bangs are about 25
feet to the east and the Mettlers are to the west .
Mr . Frost suggested to the Board that perhaps the fence ,
whether it has any real value in eliminating the sound ,
psychologically it could be beneficial to Mrs . Stotz just by its
being there .
Mrs . Hoffmann stated that she doesn ' t think that 2 feet in
height would make that much of a difference in this case . Mrs .
Reuning said that Route 79 is going to become increasingly
noisier so perhaps in this instance the fence would be justified .
Vice Chairman Austen asked if Mr . Stotz has talked with the
Mettlers about this . Mr . Stotz said , no , he has not talked with
them but he assumes they received a notice . Vice Chairman Austen
confirmed that they had received a notice , as did Bangs and other
neighbors .
•
Town of Ithaca 4
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Ms . Hoffmann made the following motion :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant a variance to Mr . Stotz for the
property at 1438 Slaterville Road , allowing him to build a
fence 8 feet high , which is 2 feet higher than is allowed by
the Town Zoning Ordinance , according to the drawing
submitted to the Board showing a fence that would be 50
feet long along Slaterville Road and 15 feet for a short
stretch at a right angle to that on the westerly side of the
property , with the following findings .
19 that the visual impact of this fence as compared to a
fence of the size that would be allowed in the Zoning
Ordinance is not that different ;
29 that there is a medical necessity in this case , and a
letter from Dr . Kilgore was submitted substantiating
the claim ,
3a that there is practical difficulty and unnecessary
hardship due to the traffic and noise impacts on the
property ;
4a no one appeared before the Board to oppose the proposed
fencing .
Ms . Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting on the motion was as follows :
Ayes King , Hoffmann , Reuning , Austen .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
The next Appeals on the Agenda were the following :
APPEAL OF THOMAS BELL , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCES
FROM ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 44 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING ORDINANCE , AND SECTION 280 -a OF NEW YORK STATE
TOWN LAW , FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 12 , 000 SQ . FT .
WAREHOUSE ON RECENTLY SUBDIVIDED PORTIONS OF LAND AT
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS # 6 - 33 - 3 -2 . 2 AND # 633 - 3 -2 . 4 ,
AT 614 ELMIRA ROAD , LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT . THE
PROPOSED WAREHOUSE WILL HAVE A 43 - FOOT REAR YARD
BUILDING SET- BACK TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE , WHEREBY
50 FEET IS REQUIRED , A FRONT YARD BUILDING SET-BACK TO
THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF 40 FEET , WHEREBY 150 FEET IS
REQUIRED , AND A 40 -FOOT EASTERLY SIDE YARD BUILDING
SET-BACK , WHEREBY 60 FEET IS REQUIRED . IN ADDITION ,
THE PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE A YARD FRONTING ON A NEW
YOROTATE , COUNTY , OR TOWN HIGHWAY , THOUGH A 50 -FOOT
4
Town of Ithaca 5
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
WIDE ACCESS DRIVE IS PROPOSED OFF NEW YORK STATE ROUTE
13 .
APPEAL OF THOMAS BELL , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 44 , OF THE
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR A REAR YARD
BUILDING SET-BACK OF 28 FEET , (WHEREBY 50 FEET IS
REQUIRED ) , AT 614 ELMIRA ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL # 6 - 33 - 3 -- 2 . 4 , LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT .
SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS AN EXISTING RETAIL
STORE WITH AN EXISTING REAR YARD SET-BACK ( TO THE
WEST ) OF 83 FEET , HOWEVER , SAID PARCEL IS BEING
MODIFIED BY A SUBDIVISION , WHICH WILL RESULT IN A
NEW REAR YARD SET-BACK OF 28 FEET . A VARIANCE OF
22 FEET IS REQUESTED .
Mr . Thomas Bell appeared before the Board .
Mr . King remarked to Chairman Austen that he was just
discussing with the Zoning Officer the problem of orientation on
these Bell Appeals . Unfortunately , Route 13 runs northeast and
southwest .
Mr . Frost stated there may be a slight misprint . He said
that when he wrote the appeal up , he was using site plans that
were submitted to the Planning Board . He said there seems to be
a difference based on the copies that Mr . Bell originally gave
him , in that we are showing 43 feet on what he was calling the
rear yard , and Mr . Bell is showing 30 feet in " this " plan . Mr .
Frost said that he wants to clarify in his mind , as the Zoning
Officer , what he is calling the front yard . Mr . Frost stated
that the private drive that comes in off the Elmira Road , which
is to the top of the site sketch , has the entrance from that
private . drive into the warehouse . Should that private drive ,
among other things , end up becoming a Town road , that is if this
larger property gets developed , that would make it the front
yard , in his mind , which would make the south , the bottom
portion of Mr . Bell ' s site plan , the rear yard . Mr . Frost
further stated that in his mind , the road that services the
property is the front yard road frontage . ( The map that Mr .
Frost was referring to is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 ) .
Discussion followed with Mr . Bell regarding the map that
was presented to the Board and the amount of footage that was
printed in the notification of the Appeal .
c
Town of Ithaca 6
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Ms . Beeners stated that , on that , it should be clarified
that the 53 feet that Mr . Bell is proposing is measured from the
edge of the private road and not from any other line , such as the
hypothetical right - of -way for that road , in which case she thinks
it would be more like 40 feet .
Mr . King asked if this is the private drive that the
Planning Board mentioned should be eliminated . Ms . Beeners
replied that in looking at the entire proposed plan for the
remainder of the industrial lands , it was staff ' s recommendation
that eventually it could be eliminated - at least the section on
Elmira Road , in back , so that this property would be having
access off a connection to Five Mile Drive near the former Hannan
property and then over to the Brink property . She said there
were some maps copied to the Board that were handed out tonight
that show this . ( Map referred to is attached hereto as Exhibit
# 2 ) .
Mr . King asked Mr . Bell what use is to be made of the
warehouse being proposed .
Mr . Bell responded that it is strictly for warehouse space .
He said there is a very big demand in the City of Ithaca . He is
a commercial real estate salesperson and his office deals with a
very high demand for quality warehouse space with loading docks
and open space , and there just isn ' t any near the City of Ithaca .
It would be strictly for storage purposes .
In response to Mr . King , Mr . Bell said the traffic load
would be very minor .
Vice Chairman Austen opened the public hearings on both
Appeals . No one appeared before the Board . Vice Chairman Austen
closed the public hearings .
Mr . Bell referred to Exhibit #-1 and explained the utility
easements . He stated that the property is very hard to develop
because of the NYSEG power line . He showed the Board on the map
that the power line takes in about one - third of the parcel and
NYSEG has a 50 foot right - of -way on each side of the pole . He
said that he already owns " this " property and owns " this "
property so he felt that if he could move it up closer to his
building , by doing that , it would still give him an additional
space between it . Mr . Bell said that the corner of the building
had to be 50 feet away from the pole so they had to move any type
of - development up the hill .
Town of Ithaca 7
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Mr . King asked Mr . Bell if he is locating the building 60
some feet away from the center line of the actual power line .
Mr . Bell replied yes , 60 or 70 feet , so all he can utilize that
part for is parking and loading . They said you can do that under
a power line but you can ' t do . any development . Mr . Bell stated
that it is a unique parcel because of the fact that the easement
takes up so much of the lot .
Mr . King stated that in scaling the map , it appears that the
building would be shifted 13 feet to the north from what is shown
on the map . Mr . Bell stated that he thinks that map is very
current .
Ms . Beeners stated that it should also be noted that this
was originally a survey plan which she understands has been
modified by Mr . Bell , although this plan does not say that , but
the 43 feet and other dimensions are things that were added by
Mr . Bell . Mr . Bell said , " right " .
Mr . Bell presented a blown up version of the map for the
Board to look at and further discussion followed on the map and
® the dimensions that are being proposed .
Mr . Bell said that the front yard of the proposed warehouse
faces the power lines . That is where the doors and the loading
dock are .
Mr . Frost stated that by definition of the Town ' s Zoning
Ordinance , the front yard is what is between the building and the
roadway and it does not necessarily distinguish between whether
it is a public roadway or a private roadway .
Mr . King restated for the Board the following : Elmira Road
is north and south ; the private road runs to the north of this
building ; the front yard is considered that between the north
wall of this building and the private drive ; the proposal here is
to have that front yard approximately 40 feet deep as opposed to
the 53 feet that it scales on our map , and the 150 feet set back
from the road is required in this zone . Further , the proposal
also asks that the rear yard be allowed at 43 feet rather than 30
feet as shown on our map ( the statute requires a 50 foot rear
yard ) so we are being asked to grant a 7 foot variance to the
south , to that rear yard , and a 97 - foot variance , approximately ,
for the front yard to the north .
Mr . King further stated that the second Appeal , deals with
the location of the present convenience store which , with this
subdivision , will have a reduced rear yard , its rear yard being
to the west of its building because its front yard is on Elmira
Road now . This map indicates that we will have 41 feet to the
C
Town of Ithaca 8
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
east side of the warehouse , its northerly end , and 28 feet
westerly from the convenience store to the common lot line . Ms .
Beeners said in addition there would be 30 feet from the southern
end to the easterly lot line .
Mr . King stated for clarification that there are variances
being requested for the north side of the proposed warehouse , on
the east side and on the south side , as well as one on the west
side of the existing convenience store . Mr . Frost added , as well
as the 280a for a Town road ; there are five variances being
requested .
Ms . Hoffmann asked if the entire warehouse building is going
to be at the lower level . Mr . Bell responded , the upper level .
The slope of the land runs " this " way and he explained to Ms .
Hoffmann on the map that " this " is lower than " this " . Ms .
Hoffmann said she saw the difference in height when she was out
there looking at it and she wondered if Mr . Bell had any figures
for what the difference is in height between the ground level
" here " and the ground level " there " . Mr . Bell responded no , but
he was told that it makes no difference as long as " this " is
level and he has a 25 - foot clearance from ground level to peak of
roof . Ms . Hoffmann said to her it makes a difference visually
from the road - that is why she is curious .
Mr . Bell stated that he doesn ' t think you could hardly see
the roof line from the road , it being down that far .
Mr . King stated that the elevation mark is almost 450 feet
at the rear of the convenience store and 442 feet at the east
side of the proposed warehouse , so there is a drop of 8 feet ,
roughly , from the level of the convenience store . Mr . Bell said
the elevations were done before they excavated so it will be even
more . Discussion followed on photos that were before the Board .
Vice Chairman Austen asked Mr . Bell the proposed height of
the warehouse . Mr . Bell replied that it will be 23 feet in
height .
Vice Chairman Austen reopened the public hearing . No one
appeared to address the Board . Vice Chairman Austen closed the
public hearing .
Mr . Bell stated that the culprit is still the power lines
that do not allow him to develop any place else but that spot .
Town Attorney Barney said that the hardship is that Mr . Bell
cannot put the building any place else and it does not make
economic sense to build a smaller warehouse than what is being
proposed here .
® Town of Ithaca 9
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Ms . Hoffmann remarked that a warehouse is not the only use
that this land is possible for . Mr . Bell responded that light
industrial pretty much limits him to a warehouse because that is
what is existing in that area - Anderson , Mancini , Iacovelli ,
they are all warehouses .
Ms . Reuning asked how far light industrial extends in this
area . Ms . Beeners responded and referred to the map that is
Exhibit # 2 .
Ms . Reuning asked how the size of the proposed warehouse
compares with the other warehouses in the area . Mr . Bell
responded that Mancini ' s is larger , and Anderson ' s may be 10 , 000
square feet and the building is higher . Mr . Bell stated that he
is also going to do extensive site planning to make it look very ,
very nice . There will be a blacktopped driveway and sidewalks as
well as shrubs and plantings and exterior lighting .
Mr . King asked Mr . Bell if there was some particular reason
for locating this subdivision line 29 feet west of the
convenience store . Mr . Bell said he did not propose any
• subdivision line . He said the reason they did that was so that
physically the warehouse could fit up closer to the convenience
store . He said if it wasn ' t done that way he would not have
hardly any side yard at all for the warehouse .
Ms . Beeners pointed out that Mr . Bell proposed a subdivision
line , the Planning Board did not .
For clarification , Mr . King said that what Mr . Bell is doing
is taking 55 feet off the west end of the convenience lot to
utilize it for the warehouse . Mr . Bell confirmed that that is
correct .
Mr . King asked Mr . Bell if he has in mind to sell off either
parcel . Mr . Bell replied that in the future he would probably
sell the convenience food store off . The tenants that he has
there are excellent and they would very much like to buy it off
him in the future .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he thinks it is more than
just a set -back requirement and there probably is a need for a
SEAR determination on the road under the 280 - a section . He said
that is not a Type iI action , it is an unlisted action and he
thinks Ms . Beeners is prepared to review the environmental
aspects of it for the Board .
Town of Ithaca 10
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Mr . King said that he thinks it makes it a little confusing
when the Planning Board recommends that this private drive be
altered or done away with in the future . How does the Zoning
Board know that it is a good idea to locate this warehouse on
that private drive when we know its life is apparently limited
and some other roadway will be substituted ?
Town Attorney Barney stated that he thinks the problem is
timing . He thinks there is a move afoot to try to come back and
expand the light industrial district back a little bit subject to
re - zoning by the Town Board and also Mancini is being asked to
come up with a somewhat more detailed subdivision plan than he
has here and that may or may not meet with approval . Town
Attorney Barney said that if it meets with approval then the need
to be on the private road obviously would terminate , but if it
doesn ' t meet with approval then this private road provides access
for an indefinite period of time . He said that as he understands
it , the reason for it now is that if we wait for this Mancini
process to work its way through the system , Mr . Bell could be
building this in 1995 .
® Mr . King asked Mr . Bell what his time frame is for this
construction . Mr . Bell replied as soon as possible . He would
like to get started before the weather gets too bad .
Mr . Bell further stated that in regard to the road , you
could shut off from the top but the access road would always have
to be there or Anderson couldn ' t get fed either because he is
directly across from the property that Mr . Bell is developing so
he thinks that spur would have to stay in there even though it
would dead end .
Ms . Beeners said that she thinks it should be clarified why
the Planning Board placed the consideration of discontinuation of
the private drive at this time . There are several matters that
have to be dealt with on the subdivision of this property . At
the time of the Cannon subdivision approval , and the site plan
approval , which also involved variances for the Cannon Pools
( David Axenfeld ) , that involved a front yard variance , and she
thought , a side yard variance on the south as well . At that time
the Planning Board made it a condition of approval that no
further subdivision should take place until a general plan
reflecting how the overall parcel was going to be developed be
submitted . Ms . Beeners said we have a progress general plan
which is what you see at the present time . The road
discontinuation is one thing that has to be more fully considered
• in any further subdivision after this one , and because of the
history of yard variances which have been requested on a number
of parcels within the Mancini property , and the other ones right
adjacent , being about 5 in number , that , and the irregularity of
Town of Ithaca 11
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
the light industrial district , the best route is going to be for
Mr . Mancini to have a re - zoning of this remaining property where
modified yard setbacks might be considered because of so many
platting problems on the site based on the way it lays and the
utility line and the road and the drainage .
Mr . Frost said that given the commercial uses in that area ,
including the existing Mancini construction and the Iacovelli
construction down there , he would not necessarily want to see the
private drive be covered over with soil . He thinks , at best , it
should remain at least as some kind of an emergency access .
Mr . King stated that it seems to him that the Board is being
asked to grant so many variances here that we are in effect
becoming a Board passing on a subdivision and he doesn ' t think
the Board has enough information on the pros and cons of dividing
this property up this way , especially in view of the lack of
knowledge as to the rest of the site , and he is not convinced
that this building couldn ' t be shifted westerly because he
doesn ' t know actually where those power lines are .
• Discussion followed on whether or not the building could be
shifted westerly . Mr . Bell said that he would be willing to
shift it as close to the line as he could get .
Mr . King asked Ms . Beeners if she wanted to do an
environmental assessment . Ms . Beeners responded yes . ( The
environmental assessment is attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 ) . Mr .
King stated that he thinks it would be helpful to the Board and
helpful to Mr . Bell for Ms . Beeners to investigate the
possibility of shifting that building westerly 20 feet . In other
words , would NYSEG give Mr . Bell the right to construct the
southwesterly corner of his loading dock even within the
easement area ?
Ms . Beeners said that it is her opinion that NYSEG would not
permit the building to be shifted any more than the 20 - foot
distance westerly .
Mr . King said it would be helpful to know how far NYSEG
would let Mr . Bell go and for the Board to have some indication
of what this proposed lot subdivision does with the side yards .
Ms . Beeners stated that as far as any progress with Mr .
Mancini , the chain of events has appeared to be that the Cannon
Pools subdivision line on the general plan does sort of lock in
one corner of what is the warehouse site . She has no information
on what options may have been explored as far as any modification
of the southern line as far as increasing that dimension to the
south , except that if you do look at that general subdivision
i
Town of Ithaca 12
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
plan you will see that the warehouse site , southern property
line , is right on line and has probably the same bearing as does
the southern line of the Bell ' s Convenience property . Ms .
Beeners further stated that on the site plan submitted , there is
an iron pin shown on the south line which actually marks the
original Bell ' s Convenience store back property line . That is
the involved subdivision . The Cannon Recreation property corner
is another 30 feet or so to the west and that would further make
irregular any extension of the south property line to this
property . Ms . Beeners said there is really not much space to go
south to reconfigure this Bell ' s property , so essentially there
is not much that can be done with this particular piece of
property given that history , and that Cannon ' s is already taken
care of except for it to be used in some fashion for light
industrial use .
Ms . Beeners stated that her recommendation to the Planning
Board on this was , that indeed , here was another set of variances
being requested and a possible set of yard modifications coming
down the road , possibly in a re - zoning format , that somehow this
parcel could be , at the Board ' s prerogative , actually considered
somewhat discreet from the remaining zoning and set -back problems
of the remainder of Mancini ' s land . This is a site that happens
because of its dimensional constraints and also because it is
located right on an existing private drive .
Mr . King remarked that it sounds to him like Ms . Beeners is
giving the Board an environmental impact assessment , saying that
it doesn ' t matter - go ahead .
Ms . Beeners responded that she was digressing and it was
really not on an environmental assessment . It was more on what
alternatives there would be for this site and what alternative
actions there might be available , and one is consideration of
variances , and the other thing is the feeling that the remainder
of the property has to be looked at for potential re � zoning to
correct and to modify and have special set -backs adopted for it ,
as well as a number of other things , such as road maintenance,
who owns the road , etc .
Mr . King said that is not going to impact directly on this
property . The westerly end of this property is unusable with
that utility line easement over it so it really comes down to the
question of the effect of locating this building north and south , ,
and a little bit west and where to put the division line .
Town Attorney Barney said that he thinks Sue has done the
environmental study . Ms . Beeners replied that it just was not
forwarded to the Board for the meeting .
® Town of Ithaca 13
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Mr . King asked Ms . Beeners if she thinks it makes any
difference whether that proposed subdivision line to the east of
the proposed warehouse , which is to the west of the convenience
store , is 28 feet west of the convenience store to the building
wall or whether we have 30 feet west , and whether the east yard
of the proposed warehouse is 30 feet or 40 feet , and is it of any
great significance to us ?
Ms . Beeners responded , not from an environmental standpoint ,
no . In regard to the location of the building , she does not
think it makes much difference whether it is moved to the east or
to the west . She referred to Exhibit # 3 and stated that she has
shown that it would be tucked back right against " this " new slope
and railroad retaining area so that actually it might be that
there would be less visual impact from the Elmira Road , rather
than if it were moved out farther where the angle of vision would
allow you to see it more . Functionally , given the constraints of
the site , that easterly area did appear to be needed for the
regrading necessary for this project .
Mr . King asked Ms . Beeners what her assessment of the
® location , north and south , of this building , front yard depth
versus rear yard . Ms . Beeners responded that she believes there
is at least a need for a 40 - foot front yard measured from the
Mancini southern right - of -way line to accomplish the plantings
that Mr . Bell is proposing there . The more room that can be
gained in the front the better , as far as aesthetic impact
related to users of the private drive and the whole complex of
light industrial buildings . Ms . Beeners said it should be noted
that to the south the Cannon Pools development ( she referred to a
blown -up version of Exhibit # 3 ) , their building was to be located
in the southwestern part of the site with a driveway coming down
to Elmira Road . One of the conditions with Cannon Pools '
approval was that there be no further development on the property
until there was a right - of -way developed to the Mancini road
system .
Ms . Beeners again referred to Exhibit # 3 and said that the
" Pink line " shows where it is currently proposed as the location
for a rear access to be provided to Cannon Pools and also for use
by a potential new lot to the south of Cannon , and also by a
another possible weird looking lot " up here " , but what this would
do , as far as the effect of having a deficient southerly line on
the warehouse , the prospects of it interfering with any building
that might be developed adjacent are rather slight . She said it
is very likely that the land immediately to the south will remain
either undeveloped as yard or as service space because of the
encumbrance such as the easement here , so , proximity -wise to
other structures , she would not see any great impact .
Town of Ithaca 14
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Vice Chairman Austen asked Ms . Beeners if she had a
recommendation .
Ms . Beeners stated that her recommendation is as have been
required by the Planning Board , that if this project does receive
further approvals that there be further site plans approved by
Engineering and Planning staff related to a number of items such
as a relocation of the pole , the final installation of
landscaping ( the species that are shown are satisfactory at this
time ) , drainage plans are subject to review by the Town Engineer .
Ms . Beeners said that this project itself would represent really
the full development of the parcel . It should be acknowledged
that there is a need , given the history of the Elmira Road light
industrial properties , for an examination of the open zoning and
specific examination of the development of this property .
Ms . Beeners recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance on the requested yard variances and
also on the requested variance from 280 - a provided that there is
a submission of a phase plan for improving the road and also for
considering that the roads within the site be dedicated to the
Town . That is a big question that will have to be resolved but
given the fact that there is an existing .private drive by which
this property would be served , which serves some additional light
industrial uses , and also given that this property has a right of
access to the entrance on Five Mile Drive , she would see no great
environmental significance from the requested 280 - a variance .
Mr . King made the following motion :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca - Zoning Board of Appeals
make and hereby does make a negative declaration of
environmental significance for the use of the part of the
drive for the reasons put forth by the Town Planner , namely
that there are other accesses to the west and north and to
Five Mile Drive .
Ms . Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting on the motion was as follows :
Ayes - Reuning , King , Austen , Hoffmann .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
i
Town of Ithaca 15
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Mr . King made the following motion .
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant the front yard variance for the
set -back of this building from the private drive , to permit
the building to be located as close as 40 feet to the south
right - of -way line of the private drive , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Board grant the variance for the
rear yard such that it may be as shallow as 35 feet from the
south line of this property , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the easterly side yard , toward the
Elmira Road , may be as proposed here , which is approximately
30 feet deep from the south corner of the proposed warehouse
to roughly 40 feet on the northeasterly corner , and that the
three variances be permitted on the conditions suggested by
the Planning Board , namely that :
10 that they are subject to the applicant obtaining
final site plan landscaping , drainage , and access
plans approved by the Town Engineer and the Town
Planner .
2e that the applicant will agree to grant easement ( s )
for water and/ or sewer maintenance which lies
within the area abutting the private drive to the
north , if the Town Engineer determines that such
easements are necessary for proposed area water
and sewer improvements .
and that this Board finds as a basis for these variances ,
the facts that .
19 the site is not readily developable in other
manners primarily due to the existence of the 100
foot utility line easement across the westerly
side of the property .
2e the fact that the area ' has not been fully
developed and that such development is being
undertaken and will be monitored by the Planning
Board , as indicated in its resolutions .
39 no one appeared in opposition to the proposed
project .
• AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that the variance for the proposed
siting of the warehouse on the private drive , as indicated ,
being 50 feet wide , is also approved and is being granted
,
Town of Ithaca 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
under Section 280 - a of the Town Law , in view of the fact
that Section 280 - a presumes that a 15 - foot wide roadway is
sufficient for access by emergency vehicles .
Ms . Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting on the motion was as follows :
Ayes - King , Reuing , Austen , Hoffmann .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Vice Chairman Austen said that the Board needs to make a
motion on the Bell Convenience rear yard proposal ( Appeal # 3 on
the Public Hearing Notice ) .
Mr . King made the following motion :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
approve the requested variance , having found in the previous
application that the proposed subdivision for the
construction of a warehouse would leave 28 feet to the west
of the Bell Convenience Store at 614 Elmira Road ( that being
the rear yard for that particular building ) , and that the
Board finds that the topography would add little to
requiring a full rear yard at that point , and that there
will be no adverse effects to visitors of this property or
to the users of the adjacent properties by permitting the
variance , and the fact that no one appeared in opposition to
the proposed project , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the rear yard be 28 feet as indicated
on the survey map which has been submitted to the Board .
Ms . Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting on the motion was as follows .
Ayes - King , Austen , Hoffmann , Reuning .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
. Town of Ithaca 17
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
The last Appeal on the Agenda was the following .
APPEAL OF NICHOLAS BARRA , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , OF THE TOWN OF
ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN
EXISTING TWO-CAR GARAGE ( ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ) INTO LIVING SPACE , LOCATED AT 212
EAST KING ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 6 -44 - 1 - 4 . 40 ,
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID GARAGE HAS AN EAST SIDE
YARD SET-BACK OF 12 . 5 + OR - FEET WITH SAID ORDINANCE
REQUIRING A SIDE YARD BUILDING SET- BACK OF 15 FEET FOR
LIVING SPACE ( 10 FEET BEING PERMITTED FOR GARAGE
SPACE ) . A 2 . 5 + OR - FOOT VARIANCE IS REQUESTED .
Vice Chairman Austen read the Appeal into the record . Mr .
Nicholas Barra , Appellant , appeared before the Board and
explained that since the last time he was before the Board for
the variance that was turned down , he has consulted with Mr .
Frost and Lawrence Fabbroni , P . E . , and they have come up with a
tentative plan that would meet code and would still allow a two -
family dwelling .
Mr . King , for clarification , said that Mr . Barra has a house
with an attached garage and the proposal for making it a two -
family violated the Ordinance requirements that a separate
dwelling unit not exceed 50 % of the floor area of the major
portion of the house . He asked Mr . Barra if he has now come back
to the Board with a plan that would not violate that rule .
Mr . Frost stated that originally the house was issued a
building permit to have a two - family house except that the
secondary unit was to be in the basement . The finished product
resulted in the absence of a basement whereby Mr . Barra had a
first and second story of equal floor area . The variance was
denied to have a two - family house .
Mr . Frost continued that the most recent building permit
issued was for the conversion of the garage space into living
space as well as a modification to the living room on the second
floor , taking it from the second floor apartment and adding it to
the first floor apartment which will result in one unit being 50 %
larger than the second unit ( the second unit being on the second
floor ) . Mr . Frost said that is attempted to be accomplished by
converting the garage , which is not habitable space , into
habitable space which will increase the floor area of the first
floor unit .
• Mr . Frost stated that a permit was issued and in
conversation and thought after issuing the permit , he realized
that in terms of set backs , if the garage is converted , the side
Town of Ithaca 18
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
yard now has to be increased from the minimum 10 feet to a
minimum of 15 feet because the garage would no longer be
uninhabitable space , thus the side yard would have to be
increased , so he voided the permit .
Mr . Frost said that he thinks it is important to note that
as the plans for this conversion show , the intent is to build a
false wall inside the garage so the garage door is visible from
the outside but there will be a wall inside the garage whereby if
they ever convert it again , they can just take out that wall and
they have a garage again . However , it would also mean that the
addition of windows into the garage to provide the light and
ventilation requirements of the Building Code , and it would also
include the opening of an interior wall from the first floor
apartment into the garage through a doorway and a stairway so , in
fact , that garage will become habitable space through the
addition of windows and everything else . Mr . Frost further
stated that from an aesthetic standpoint on the outside , you
will still see a garage door . There is nothing in the Code that
says you can ' t do that . The inside of the house will be dealt
with , keeping the garage door as it is is not his idea .
Mr . King stated that in effect what is being proposed is to
move the cars outside in the driveway and people inside . Mr .
Frost said that no matter what is done , you do not end up
changing the basic facade of the building . It becomes a single
family residence with six bedrooms , 2 living and dining rooms , a
kitchen plus the space that used to be a kitchen , but the basic
facade stays the same . Mr . Frost said that from the standpoint
of raising the grade , it could be done with modifications to
outside portions of the building where the exterior parts of the
building are not appropriate for contact with the soil ; some
changes would have to be made so the soil could go up against it ;
it would be a lot of soil , and in the end you really have not
changed the height of the building either . The modification that
is shown on the plans that we have , we are not really changing
the height of the building , so he is not sure exactly what is
being accomplished , outside of having the Zoning ordinance
observed .
Mr . Barra stated that this is the only way they found that
they could solve their hardship and right now it is a hardship
because they cannot rent it . He said they do have a potential
buyer if these changes are approved of for a two - family house .
Mr . King stated that his first reaction is would we do less
® violence to the neighborhood by leaving that . as a garage , to get
the cars off the street and under cover . Mr . King ' s impression
of . the house when he saw it was that it is too big and kind of
overwhelming but if we aren ' t going to change that , but to allow
® Town of Ithaca 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
mickey -mousing inside to try to meet the Code about 500 , we would
be , in effect , increasing the habitable space in the house and
you have lost the garage . He does not think we are accomplishing
anything .
Mr . Frost said that they do have a certificate issued as a
single family residence . He has had a few calls complaining
about a large number of cars on the property which apparently
belong to the single family that lives there .
Ms . Hoffmann interjected that there are three names on the
mailbox .
Mr . King asked Mr . Barra if a family is living there and how
does he define a family . Mr . Barra replied that there is a man ,
a woman and a daughter of 17 . Mr . Barra further stated that they
are not asking for a variance for the house itself - all they are
asking for is a variance for the 2 1/ 2 feet . He wanted the Board
to know that the changes that were made were not made to spite
anyone or any reason other than at the time the excavation was
done the contractor that was digging it out thought it would be
best to raise it . Mr . Barra said that this cost him a lot more
money to do it this way with the floor system having to be put in
and so on . He said they did not do that for any other reason
than they thought that what they were doing was for beneficial
reasons of the house . They were not doing it to save money or
not to have to bring in fill . Mr . Barra wants the Board to
understand that it would have been much easier to do it the other
way . He remarked that they were unfamiliar with the specific
Codes of the Town of Ithaca .
Mr . Frost explained that the original building permit , which
was drawn by Larry Fabbroni , who used to be the Town Building
Inspector and Town Engineer , showed a basement . Mr . Frost said
that when he was doing the framing inspection on the property ,
before it even got near a finished product , he observed that all
of a sudden that grade was not what it was supposed to be . Mr .
Frost thinks the change occurred without the builder or the sub -
contractors realizing the change that they were making was
violating the Ordinance . He said that he is not defending Mr .
Barra , he is just saying what he perceived was the case .
Mr . Barra interjected that if they did know , they certainly
would not have done it . He said there is crushed stone under the
house and there is a spot where there is standing water under
there even now and that is what made the contractors make the
decision to elevate the structure of the house .
Town of Ithaca 20
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Ms . Hoffmann asked if she understands correctly that Mr .
Barra had a contractor building this house for him . Mr . Barra
responded that this was his son ' s first house and he had sub -
contractors also . Mr . Barra said that he was not here all the
time to supervise . He said there was a misunderstanding about
the elevation and the floor requirement - if he had to do it over
again , he would not take any chances .
Ms . Hoffmann stated to Mr . Barra that the plans that were
originally submitted quite clearly show a basement . Mr . Barra
replied , that at the time of the construction , they ( his son and
the sub - contractor doing the excavation ) should have had that
okayed before they did it . When they hit the water they felt
that they couldn ' t put a concrete slab down , that they had to go
up with the house four feet . That in turn is what ' s caused the
problem of not having a two - family dwelling okayed .
Vice Chairman Austen opened the public hearing .
Slade Kennedy , 227 East King Road , stated to the Board that
he is across the street and one lot displaced from being directly
® across from Mr . Barra ' s construction . He said that he spoke the
last time Mr . Barra applied for a variance and he wished he
didn ' t have to but he feels he needs to speak again and state his
personal perspective on this , and that is that what Mr . Barra
built was a duplex apartment house on a lot that is zoned for a
residence with an apartment allowed if it ' s 50 percent or less of
the square footage of the primary residence or if it is below the
grade .
Mr . Kennedy said that what Mr . Barra is trying to do is
increase the square footage of the primary residence to meet that
requirement of 50 percent of the primary dwelling for the
apartment and the house is large as it sits on that lot , making
the interior even larger , and forcing the occupants to park their
cars in the driveway is really even at half - occupancy , which is
where Mr . Barra claims to be now , creating an eyesore in the
neighborhood . Mr . Kennedy stated that there are four cars
parking in front of that house each evening and only the
downstairs unit is occupied .
Mr . Kennedy stated that it is his opinion that Mr . Barra
should not be granted this variance and he should approach this
problem by another means that does not involve such a
modification to his building . Mr . Kennedy remarked that two
means that were suggested at the last hearing were the
possibility of the house being converted to a single family home
or that the interior be reproportioned to scale the second unit
to 50 percent of the primary unit .
Town of Ithaca 21
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Mr . Gene Corbett , 221 E . King Road , addressed the Board . He
agreed with the views that Mr . Kennedy expressed to the Board .
He said that he lives directly across the street and it is more
like 5 or 6 cars there all the time , plus the van . Mr . Corbett
said that the house is huge . He would hate to see it change
because of the size of the house and all the other problems it is
going to have . Only the bottom of it is rented and the
neighborhood already has this tremendous car population , which is
not even in the driveway - they are all over the yard . He would
urge the Board to deny the request .
Mr . King asked Mr . Corbett what he thinks the solution to
the problem is . Mr . Corbett said that he personally does not
have a solution . The solution , to him , would be that somebody
should have dealt with this before Mr . Barra just changed their
plans . Mr . King said it is too late now . Mr . Corbett remarked
that he would like to see them just leave the " thing " alone as it
is now and just make the top come to Code , as it exists at the
moment . He would hate to see it get any worse , that is all .
Myrtle Whitcomb , Troy Road , addressed the Board representing
the Executive Committee of the South Hill Association . She said
that their primary concern is about the utilization of the garage
conversion . She has also seen between 4 and 5 cars on a regular
basis parked there already with only one unit occupied , so there
is a concern about enlargement in the living area and the
potential for problems with the number of occupants in this
particular area , and also the removal of an enclosed parking
space for some vehicles . Ms . Whitcomb stated that the South Hill
Association feels very strongly about preservation of character
of neighborhood and about things that happen that affect that
character or affect the resident ' s perceived quality of their
lifestyle .
Ms . Whitcomb said that she thinks most of the Board members
have heard the South Hill Association ' s stand on the granting of
variances . If we start with the concept that there is a reason
for regulations and there is a reason for Code and that a part of
that reason is to protect the residents of our Town , then we
expect that these codes and regulations should be respected and
they should not be compromised easily ; that variances should be
granted only when it is clearly in the public good and certainly
not to any public detriment .
Ms . Whitcomb said that personally the Association would
like to see something that works a little bit better than the
conversion of the garage space .
Vice Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
Town of Ithaca 22
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Mr . Barra said that he thinks he has to state this - that he
did get a phone call and he was threatened . That if he did not
give an easement across his land , that he would be fought for his
variance , so he thought the Board should know that .
Mr . King asked who wants an easement and what kind of
easement . Mr . Barra replied , the people across the street from
him want a sewer line easement .
Mr . Corbett responded that Mr . Barra left a note on his door
( which he had with him ) that said he had heard from his son that
Mr . Corbett was having a septic problem and that he wanted to go
across Mr . Barra ' s property . In the note , Mr . Barra said that he
Just realized this problem and according to his lawyer he could
not give Mr . Corbett permission to go across the property at that
time . Mr . Corbett said that he has spoken two or three times
with Mr . Barra ' s son about it . He said that he spoke with Bob
Bartholf today and the Town is talking about putting the sewer on
Mr . Corbetts side of the road . Mr . Corbett stated that he
certainly did not threaten Mr . Barra . What is acted on in the
first place is that Mr . Barra came to his door .
Vice Chairman Austen asked Mr . Frost what the situation is
on that sewer . Mr . Frost said that there is a public sewer line
that comes down on the rear to the north side of the Barra
property . He referred to Exhibit # 5 ( which is attached hereto ) .
He said that the two gentleman that have appeared here live on
the south side of King Road , they would have to cross King Road ,
cross properties to get to the rear of these properties on the
north side of King Road , to access public sewer .
Mr . King remarked that this subject is not the main
consideration here anyway . Mr . Barra said that he would agree
but he wanted the reasons to be known . He said it is strictly a
hardship case with him and he would appreciate that a variance
would be granted for 2 1/ 2 feet .
Ms . Hoffmann stated that in reading the notes from the
earlier meeting and the letters that were presented in
preparation for this hearing , it seems to her that this is a
self - imposed hardship . She would prefer to see it as it is , with
the garage staying as a garage . She does not think she would
like to see soil banked against the house like the house on the
Slaterville Road .
Robert Hines , Attorney for Mr . Barra , addressed the Board
and stated that Mr . Barra does have water under the concrete . He
stated that one is inclined to lose track of the fact that they
are asking for a side yard exception , which doesn ' t require all
of the problems and criteria that are normally attentive upon
• Town of Ithaca 23
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
some sorts of variances . Two and one -half feet , without any
exterior change in the property , is what is being asked for .
Atty . Hines said that what we have is a man , who in good faith ,
built a building . Unfortunately , it rises farther above the
ground than he had intended or wanted . Now he is confronted with
a rather expensive two -unit property which he cannot use as a
two -unit property .
Atty . Hines further stated that it is two units . In order
to accommodate that Mr . Barra does not need to ask anybody ' s
permission to gut the insides and do what he is asking to do .
What Mr . Barra is saying is , in order to . do that the way he has
planned it , the net result will be the side yard will be 2 1/ 2
feet short of that required by the Town Ordinance and that is
why he is here - for the practical difficulty . Atty . Hines said
that parking may be a problem but it is not addressed in the
Ordinance . The issue is whether Mr . Barra should be allowed to
operate his house in a manner which has a living unit which is 12
1/ 2 feet from the side lot line rather than 15 feet . The
background illustrates why he got into this situation . It was
not malicious ; it was not an effort to carve up an existing house
so he could make more money ; he built the house and spent the
money as if he were building a two -unit house and now finds after
having spent the money , he can ' t use it that way . Atty . Hines
stated that that is certainly a practical difficulty .
Mr . King commented that the Ordinance says reduce the
visual impact of the house and you can have two units of equal
size . In Mr . King ' s opinion , it is a self - imposed hardship .
He thinks that the request to enlarge the occupancy of the
downstairs , taking over the garage as living space increases the
problem , which is the impact of that house . He thinks if the
Board is to allow the house as a two -unit residence , we would be
better off to grant a variance to let it be used the way Mr .
Barra built it and leave the garage a garage .
Mr . Barra said he would go along with that .
Town Attorney Barney stated for clarification that that was
voted on once already ( at the previous meeting ) . The Board is
free to take a vote to reconsider . However , there would need to
be a new public hearing , if that is what the Board chooses to do .
Mr . Frost said that whatever the Board decides , since there
have been some complaints to him about the number of vehicles and
the number of occupants there , he would like to openly address
this now with Mr . Barra in front of the people in the audience .
Mr . Barra remarked that there are four people living in the
house . His son is sleeping in one of the rooms and there are
Town of Ithaca 24
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
three other people in the downstairs apartment . He said that his
son is moving out next week - that was just a temporary
arrangement .
Mr . Frost said that one of the things he made Mr . Barra do
in order to give him a Certificate as a single family was to do
away with the kitchen in the upstairs unit because that then
changed the definition of a two - family house . Mr . Frost said
that what he wanted to establish for the record is that what we
have there . is in compliance .
Mr . Barra said his son will be out next week . In answer to
Mr . Frost ' s question of whether this is a traditional family or
three unrelated people , Mr . Barra said that he is not positive
if they are married or not but he knows the daughter belongs to
the lady .
Mr . King asked Mr . Barra if he would be happy to put the
second apartment back the way it was and keep the garage as a
garage .
Mr . Barra said that he would be willing to do whatever the
Board wants him to do . This is the only solution that Mr .
Fabbroni , Mr . Frost , and he could come up with to meet Code and
still have a two - family dwelling .
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Barra if there is not some
other way to divide the building in such a fashion that he would
move 25 percent or 50 percent of one of the units without having
to use the garage .
Atty . Hines stated that the house has a central staircase .
Mr . Frost said that he met with Mr . Barra after the last time he
was before the Board to perhaps offer some solutions , but he
could not come up with any and he suggested to Mr . Barra that he
seek out an architect and Mr . Barra went back to Larry Fabbroni
who did the original plans . Mr . Frost said that perhaps Mr .
Fabbroni concurs with his original thoughts that there is not a
whole lot that you can do unless you make this a single family
residence . In terms of modifications and the actual floor plans ,
anything is possible - Mr . Barra could rip out whole walls
completely , and gut the building and rebuild it if that is what
the Board so chooses .
Mr . Frost went on to say that Mr . Barra has been very
cooperative . He has dealt with people where there have been one
problem after another and they get very hostile . He said he is
not trying to influence the Board in any way but he wants to say
that Mr . Barra has been a real easy guy to deal with considering
the multitude of problems .
• Town of Ithaca 25
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
In answer to Ms . Hoffmann ' s question about the porches on
the back of the house and the stairways leading to them , Mr .
Frost said that Mr . Barra had to eliminate the stairs on the deck
because they did not meet Code .
Ms . Hoffmann asked Mr . Frost if it is impossible then to
have an entrance from the outside to part of the upstairs . Mr .
Frost responded that it could be possible . Perhaps Mr . Barra
could enclose the first floor deck and make that living space but
then we are back once again to increasing living space .
Ms . Hoffmann clarified that she was thinking that the
interior stairwell could become part of the lower apartment ,
together with a couple of rooms right adjacent to the stairwell
upstairs and the rest of the upstairs could be a smaller
apartment served by the stairway on the outside .
Discussion followed on the different things that could be
done to accomplish what Mr . Barra is trying to do . Mr . Frost
stated that Mr . Barra could end up with an efficiency apartment -
that is also possible . I .
• Atty . Hines asked the Board if it would not be cheaper to
move the garage wall in 2 1/ 2 feet . Mr . Frost responded that as
compared to cutting a doorway into the existing side of the
house on the second floor , it probably would be .
Mr . King stated that the request to utilize the garage as
additional living space to get to the 49 % - 51 % is not really
addressing the problem .
Ms . Hoffmann asked Mr . King if he is saying that the Board
should look at it as a two - family house . Mr . King answered , yes ,
that we should grant a variance to permit it to be a two unit
house the way it is without expansion into the garage area .
Ms . Hoffmann said she had a little trouble with that ,
especially after hearing tonight that Mr . Barra , according to
what was said , wanted to build it the way it was supposed to be
built . She just can ' t quite believe that and also since it was
an extra investment of a lot of money to do it this other way .
She thinks that somebody who isn ' t concerned enough about making
such an investment and who really wants to do it the right way ,
somebody like that who does not go and check out the right way ,
then that is too bad . She thinks it is really Mr . Barra ' s own
problem that he created himself .
® Mr . King stated that what the Board is talking about is that
had Mr . Barra sunk the building 4 more feet into the ground , he
would be okay .
Town of Ithaca 26
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Mr . Frost commented that that is what the original plan was .
In the original plans the foundation was a living space . That is
not what turned out - what turned out was a crawl space for a
foundation and a two story building . If Mr . Barra had built it
with the first floor 4 feet deeper , everything would be fine and
that would have been consistent with the plans as submitted for a
building permit .
Mr . King stated that it may be a self - imposed hardship but
we are all faced with a situation as it exists now . We ' ll put
cars out on the street , we ' ll make more habitable space inside
this monster and he does not think that is the proper solution .
There is no happy solution but he thinks it would do less
violence to the neighborhood and to the spirit of the Ordinance
by taking the situation as the Board finds it and granting a
variance because we have some sympathy or do we say " no , you
have a one family house , period . " Mr . King feels the Board would
do better by granting the variance in this particular case for
the existence of the two units as built , as two separate units
upon condition that there be no expansion of the living space
into the garage or elsewhere , if that is acceptable to the
• applicant . Mr . King thinks that avoids further detrimental
impact on the neighborhood and it certainly would be consistent
with what the Board has heard from the neighbors - that they
don ' t want to see the garage used as additional habitable space .
Ms . Hoffmann stated that she does not find this solution
acceptable . In Ms . Hoffmann ' s opinion , the only acceptable
solution is to have this considered a one family house .
Mr . King remarked that that does not foreclose Mr . Barra ' s
options of trying to find some way to increase the size of one
unit and decrease the size of the other so that he uses it that
way .
Mr . Barra stated that it cannot be a one family house . No
one could possibly afford a house that size for one family .
Ms . Hoffmann asked Mr . Barra if he has tried to sell it as a
one family house . Mr . Barra said he has .
Mr . King addressed Ms . Hoffmann and said that by saying it
is a one family house and that it has to be utilized that way ,
that doesn ' t prevent the owner of such a large house coming up
with some plan later on to create two apartments there which will
meet the Code . So all the Board has accomplished is to make the
owner work harder and increased the habitable space in that
building .
• Town of Ithaca 27
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Ms . Hoffmann said that she would like to see a solution
where the habitable space is not increased , just shifted in such
a way that it would conform with the Ordinance . Ms . Hoffmann
asked if there are other ways to change this house so that it
conforms to the Ordinance , why is the Board not seeing it .
Mr . King replied that he does not think they are good
solutions . It is a bad situation and the Board might better
accept it the way it is to protect the neighborhood and the
applicant and hope that nobody else commits this type of error in
the future .
Ms . Hoffmann said that she is afraid that if the Board does
permit this , other people will see this as an opportunity to
" accidentally " build their houses wrong and then come to the
Board and hope that the Board would do the same for them .
Discussion followed on the issue of it being Mr . Barra ' s son
who was in charge of building the house , not Mr . Barra himself .
Mr . Barra stated that at the time this happened he was out
of town and his son relied on another contractor ' s advice which
was wrong . He is sorry that this happened and it was not
anything that he would have done . Mr . Barra said that he does
not like to get into these messes ; he likes to follow the law as
Mr . Frost well knows .
Discussion followed between Town Attorney Barney and Mr .
Barra about the possibility of carving out a relatively small
apartment , that would be accessed from the lower left end of the
building . Mr . Barra commented that it would not be feasible .
Town Attorney Barney and Mr . King had a conversation
regarding the matter of a re - hearing for this case . Town
Attorney Barney advised the Board if they are going to reconsider
the application which was made at the last hearing to make it a
two - family house , that does constitute a re - hearing and draws the
Board into a re -hearing requirement which is basically unanimity
of both to hold the re -hearing and then to overrule the Board ' s
prior decision .
Vice Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the request of a
variance for the 2 1/ 2 feet .
Mr . King made the following motion :
Town of Ithaca 28
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
deny the requested variance but with the consent of the
applicant , the Board grant him instead a variance to utilize
the structure as a permitted two - family dwelling upon
condition that the habitable space be not increased in
either floor of this building , and that the garage space
remain as a garage , upon finding that .
1s there are practical difficulties and unnecessary
hardship to the applicant in requiring in this
situation a strict adherence to the letter of the
Ordinance without there being any appreciable benefit
to the neighborhood as a result of such a requirement ,
and the fact that there might even be a detriment to
the neighborhood in requiring the applicant to force
this construction into a mode which would comply with
the terms of the Ordinance , and
2o the public who appeared before the Board have all
voiced opposition to the utilization of the garage as
increased living space , justly so , and the Board
believes the public safety and welfare would be secured
and substantial justice done by granting this
alternative variance , it being understood that that
garage will be kept as it is and utilized as a garage .
Ms . Reuning seconded the motion .
Vice Chairman Austen asked the Board if there was any
i further discussion .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he has a great deal of
respect for Mr . King but he thinks he is treading on very thin
legal grounds for a couple of reasons . One is the public
hearing tonight was for a 2 1/ 2 foot variance and the people were
here to respond to that variance and they did not have an
opportunity at any time to comment with respect to maintaining
the building as a two - family dwelling in its original
configuration . He thinks that if the Board is going to take
action along those lines , it certainly would want to re - notice
the hearing if that is going to be the topic of discussion .
Town Attorney Barney stated that the people who commented
here tonight , commented adversely to that proposal once before
when it was before the Board of Zoning Appeals . It is his
opinion that for the Board to consider leaving the house as a
two - family dwelling , it needs to be re - advertised as a new public
hearing .
Town of Ithaca 29
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
Ms . Hoffmann remarked that she also has objections to the
motion , mainly because she thinks the hardship is self - created
and that the only solution is to have this house be a one family
dwelling unless Mr . Barra can come up with a different acceptable
solution .
A vote on the motion before the Board resulted as follows .
Ayes - King .
Nays - Hoffmann , Reuning , Austen .
The motion was defeated .
Vice Chairman asked for a motion to re - hear the Appeal .
Mr . King made the following motion :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
deny and hereby does deny the requested variance as proposed
by Mr . Barra and that the Board vote to re -hear the matter
of the utilization of the two units as constructed at 212
King Road for the grant of a variance for the use of the
building as a two - family dwelling , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that there will be a further hearing with
that matter advertised .
Ms . Reuning seconded the motion .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - King , Reuning , Hoffmann , Austen .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Mr . Austen stated that the variance is denied on the request
for the variance on the 2 1/ 2 foot variance . He informed Mr .
Barra that he will be able to come back to the Board with an
Appeal for a two - family residence as it stands and the Board will
re - hear that Appeal and if there are any further solutions that
Mr . Barra could present , the Board will look at them at that
time .
•
• Town of Ithaca 30
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23 , 1989
The meeting adjourned at 10 : 20 p . m .
Respectfully Submitted ,
Connie Holcomb
Recording Secretary
Exhibits 1 - 5 attached
AP D :
OA 14
Edward Auste , Vice Chair
��,•, TIF /N LiNe Al GZ °
R E tt
4� = � '� • .
' `. .: }' / w
S
Id
1-7
� .
� 7Q v
C�
erO
.40 cp`i w5rv >1 Q I l
n rA 0 p
rh
1rt
� rh tiZti ��
rh
k2b I p 6\ � o E
V
rh
o � rn 2 o
u 3 d 3
A
la _ i1C
n
40
444
i
200 ' -
W
_/v o ^ GSA R.
�1 41 c 2
v, c
aC 4 °� I < z 2 % Abp �
2 � b ('r
oc%
m `° odn Ir . o Clrwma \
�c qa co
S 1 n1rtLl (3 I
C 3 Q d 6\ ° 7/MB6e cu Q C
2 �a a
ry
� O r
� c ?
tnn � o -, .w3eR s �GN I
s6�`-�o v✓ 700 S� ./
ou e 4
6.
ANN, A
ANN `NAA
• St rr� • o' \ tiA 0P PGa♦.'� ' � , �\ .� • . 'P`{Y� .� \ 1 , t,
` pS P . A . 'ice • '`� ' t. .\ < ,(� . � • C •h / ' � .
RN i 1, w � (to1 v �J
tK �• N. i�
t r �i _ _Vi1K i j• /-
/
� 1�r! r \ i ,
G ti ^• of P • � �j /
f.' Alf v . A
All,
,t CJ t A 1. 1
If
1.
• , `� • YY „
'Y r
ANN
A Id
A 50
c3
NOW
00
i �• r, ,,
''� V
1 , v J
` J � AN IN.
P '
1
7 � ' � 1 . .
l 111 .1
�. ) �� P�
• , ,a ♦r '1' . \ w, N.
IN
.1, he : ' ''G . ( ' • r': V .j t 1 ;Pr, K NI
, r htih
ANN
All
" ] �' ' y �. •��r : • >.11 ry ` 'Soo y, ,° I �.� -
lip A
\ , ftAN
1
/y c J c. ,
X.
NO i !. �K . , tb � i '.., h` 1 \
s
\r � 1 ;t Ltti r
pp IN.
f 1 ( , Jv 1. 1
id
: n • . ry. �k rT �
♦ rte : {, .`. p} 1 i ,
NN
Of I IN 47-
Alp
y� t5NA •r tL y
NL
DoAN
fV
.iTF,.•fyi1� ,r � b '
AN
ISO ` IN'
ANN
All
r \ oo y •„ dt l
C^1 �A .•y .LE r1� � 1
al I
IND VPN \i E� t 4 _• \�0
1 , d �.• � 'tS '•'ANN . v • ,� ...
AN, h.,y1 it w �� N
f v
of
l/? q .,y,
' • `fn� ��, , til P ;�4 � K •• off' ♦ 1 ,
. � / i •r SSS' . A� d+.� .• , ' n f ANN,
4. t
� . v
/� NN;LNAN
AN
46)
.\ j A. , S ,
ON
N) ANN
WIN el
i T '
N L
Ht
40 A
AN ; AN
w �—
• a, LnI n
Its
••VIM [ IM•I~PMl n•n1 ••Nrn• N•1
.. aP,. •� •W N. I N.
•
was
0 WN[•
Nn• •W Pn• p P.•. I e1•,\
ntuW Of * A" tlM J.M<•.no• W
N•. W Nn•••I
G {•
4•
n•l.
••° 1
r
••0 ; \ ' •Mn P•,
\ Y•I\n
r♦a Was,
0.0 am
•h
WNN I••Pl
Ntnale• P• •••
i Pawn unm•
•46
••°
pa
.•0ietu.ri •Ia•rle•
• —1 wna• •w
/ • Imn •W a•• Ir : M ON
of,A / 1" adv i Wn P .•iiwi w
° Mn na• • •
- T•• n/r. /•:w • •wan•"•'•' P
• A" s.n 12 I.w raa w•: wr am
aPI W 1 Hr..w N• . V. n•
n two YI P..• W�,1'♦a a•I.M•1 AWN9II
W • I•.r . .rN. r
M• •• / a . to" • •Nr . T•/I •I IW.
Iminn t•I•n.
60
••O WMI•aa I
aatnllP "I /
aw •T•
NWWmW W*
.Iw.laln NII
a{I W I n•
1••TL a�1 Nr MI P•N
•60 I1 aI- t. ••
' • K
N I
1•
WI
TAX YAP PARC[l 66- D • �t
MCIMI IR.0.1 �• «` IR/
167/660 ;
61.230 ACRE[ MET TO ROAD R/M
• ILuulv
II• ••I• — 600 [WIRA ROAD
.•nrI`
�l.I •• • I _ \ e
u .00 110• J r
aa•r.. W n_aa . 1
•aN .IWT1 most
•a . a . � 1M• / a••
IND gIBIE FUTUR DEVELOPMENT 1 •/ 40 9%011
e •`p/ice ,• •
NC � • •p .•
a:v
•l0 t• ea
w r
0 •nn •1
• e• its/@"
/I •ll.i
/•J • Iwwwa i. •i..�w 1� a
f1"J.J ar•••n Na.nu wt.
adsd; • anal • •tl •Ia
• 1, +\
+• •
OF • ar• WINt e •+
t • ae{•floe ON•W
•O ' • O• •\•0lop-0'O •te ••MetIMTa WNameN • ••IW
-0
0 e • ••s•
'filaANN as
oi� as Or to
• J
p d , Oar ° • •° r
IF
40 a / •{a \ ♦ •0d� ,I•�,+ia1•NOV -'$AA •N •aa a .+I fo %r
of 0000l'
AN VON
ad
+1�,.are/ Iri IN i
• i ` i '4p' ao°s� '
to to 6 0
NSA P.v It. NAP
to
• 10 ��JJ t►y _ .P r
If • •, 0
�4
IN •� '� / ,O4� •♦ GENERAL SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR
• �'r�:+ , • LANDS OF MANCINI WITHIN TOWN OF ITHACA
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
0` NT6 ROUTS I& M 66 MUMMA ROAD)
��� aP ``• TOIIII OI RMw. . iO•VRb1 COIIYTI. NEW •ORR
♦ ) a• r r•
�1 r �� a.�••r
OF •sN ll0-N
•+
Itself I.
AAT. 6. MIUR ASSOCIATES P.C.
u•In aWPn ���-�-�_ ��,-�V�`••^^•••• •�••.••• a and aw14
Is a.call the MTr
l�yll uuuu���� IIII RGpq,m Rw M• Npl �. 1
• i4 tti 112187)— Text 12
PROJECT 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)
1 . APPLICANT ISI )NSOR Tl.an.•tt Ma►v% tMa.. fie «. 2 . PROJECT 14AME
T Ar mrue F =*tiac.: 01 .t+VC 9
S. PROJECT LOCATION:
Munitlpallty Tuw,J o� =+ hac... County 'Tvr„ qt. Ns
1, PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarlts, ,etc., or provide map)
61`1 E Iw. 6Qw, Q J . 110%%ow-t..o
rZ,L b - 33 - `I d- 6 - 33- 3 - 2 . 2
5 . IS P,R-,p{ POSED ACTION:
U New ❑ Expansion ❑ ModlfleatioMalteration
8 , DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY:
Cv ✓► � } r ,� ct �oa �F 10 � uo0 5r6 • 4P JV. wc.rehG... sL'
7 . AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: +
Initially ) • 1 �1 acres Ultimately I ' 17 - acres
8 . WILLoPROPOSErD- AACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS?
1i Yes L`7 No if No, describe briefly
Yckila v�. 2 :.tees 6e Q.eq,�eek.
9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT?
❑ Residential G 'fndustrlal Cl commerclo ❑ Agriculture ❑ ParklForest/Open space Other
Describe:
tyw.�d � :.}s. o•reo.. Cor15 � S �S orF A Genf +cwt,-�l. .J wri► re1•.oa. seSl tFi+ lett ^%avow% LV&6W .o.aie- r
f3e l � t;rrr� ier�+ F�.ulZ S �slQ
10 . DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL.
STATE OR LOCAL)?
C1Yos l 7 No It yes, list agency(*) and pemdVapprovals �j �i� R Y�"� a "" CAW,,)
11 , DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE-ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VAUD PERMIT OR -APPROVAL?
❑ Yes IN No If yes, list agency now and pemdlhppmal
12. A8 A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXWTiNG PERMIT/APPROVAL REWRE MODIFICATION? k 1 4 -
❑ Yes IR No
1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE 118 TRUE TO THE BUT OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Appitcont"onsor name: T V%0 (60k& +0t .` (3e L L_ 7 2 6
Signature:
14 the action Is In -the Coastal Area, and you ars a stats agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form tutors proceeding with this assessment
OVER e )( #/ All 7w T
1
PART II — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency)
A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE 1 THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617. 12? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF,
❑ Yes 40
B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If Nov a negative declaration
may be superseded by another Involved agency.
ea ❑ No
C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, If legible)
C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal,
potential for woalon, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly
C2 Aesthetic, agricultural, erchesotogical, historic, or other natural or cultural rssoumW or community or neighborhood character? Explain bristly:
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife apecies, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain bristly:
C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or Intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly
CS. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be Induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly.
C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified In C1•CS? 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 K 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 sbove, deterMine infwthor It Is substantial, large, Important or otherwlae Significant.
j Each effect should be assessed in connection with its. (a) setting p.es urban or rjn* (b) PMbOblllty of 0=01011F (0 "SM9 fa .
i Irreversibility; (e) geographic scope: and (f) magnitude. If neceaeary, add attachrnef* ts or Ifamnw suPPO" @mW31L IMexplanations contain Sufficient detail to show that all reletrant adverse Impacts have been IdenUfled and adequately addressed,
MONOSSON
ON
" " ❑ Check this box* if you have )dent"Ied one or mon potentially large or significant advereae impar do Which MAY .
occur, Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF andlor prepare a positive declaration.
Check this box if you have, determined, based on the information and film sis above and �an,�y..es.,u� pporting
documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result In any significant adverse wilvlr ntal ImpaM
AND provide on attachments as necessary, the maws supporting this detwmdnation:
%Cd ry t h n G fi $eL "" Gh4.:,l�ir rs
Nit vo� - - z . . >g , . � .
or Type Manx o e: ecw m Le Aeency KU
,
1 ,109 P 011 - - - 01111Of�c er in a As"Kv Ia1latYle rel won rom icer
e• r /• C�ll�ftl�ra� + � Z
I
I ate M040 A
— 2 -
PART II - Environmental Assessment - Proposed Subdivisions
• and Warehouse . R. ]Mi rA Road
A . Action is Unlisted .
Be Action will receive coordinated review ( Town of Ithaca
Planning Board , Zoning Board of Appeals )
C _ Could action reault in any advert . effe . _ s on , to nr
arising from the following :
Cl - Existingairguality , surface nr groundwater
guality or auanntity - noia _ levels , existing traffie
patterns , solid waste prod u _ tion or di_ sgosa ], , gntent i al _ for
erosion , drainage or flooding problems ?
No significant adverse impacts are expected with
respect to these factors . The site was formerly - disturbed
old field in the past . Recently it has been partially
filled and graded in anticipation of building construction .
Final site plans may require modification of preliminary
plans with respect to driveway location , and will require
minor drainage improvements to minimize the effect of runoff
from the proposed warehouse . Plantings on the bank to the
south of the proposed warehouse have .been requested to
include shrubs , small trees , and ground cover suitable for
bank retention and erosion control . The entrance driveway
may be relocated to the north , and an existing pole in the
proposed entrance drive has been required to be relocated .
Access on the Mancini " Private - Drive " from Elmira Road
is generally suitable at present , but traffic entering the
Bell ' s convenience store cuts across the intersection ,
posing hazards . The warehouse site would have a right of
access along the Mancini private drive to Five Mile Drive ,
as do the other warehouses and other facilities in the Light
Industrial District . It is recommended that , in a longer
range , subject to further definition , the private drive from
Elmira Road . be discontinued when a new outlet is developed
to Seven Mile Drive , and when improvements are made by N . Y .
State to the Elmira-Road / Five Mile Drive intersection .
C2 Aesthetin , agricultural , archeological, historic ,
nr other na n nl are fultmral resnurces nr enmmunity nr
neighborhood character ?
The proposed warehouse site , located in the lower
interior of the Light Industrial District , is approximately
20 feet lower in elevation than the nearest adjacent
residence on the south side of Elmira Road , and 8 to 10 feet
lower than the Bell ' s store . Siting the building as
proposed , with appropriate buffer plantings , is expected to
mitigate possible impacts related to the scale of the
building . Proposed masonary and steel construction would be
similar to that of the Mancini Construction company
building , with no height variance proposed . Subject to
approval of final landscape plans , no significant adverse
impact is expected .
C2 - Vegetative or fsatinsa _ £ is hshellfish or wi ldl if e
• species , significant habitats . or threatened or endangered
species ?
No significant species or habitats are known on the
site .
C4 _ A community ' $ existing plane_ nr goals as
Offieiglly adopted , or a change in use or in . ensi _ v of nae�
of land or other natural resnurces ?
The development of a 12 , 000 square - foot warehouse on
the site would have a moderate localized impact with respect
to a change in land use intensity . Proposed siting appears ,
however , to be an efficient use of a site which abuts an
existing private light industrial drive , close to existing
and proposed utilities .
Because the site is bisected by a powerline easement ,
and given the proposed size of the warehouse , variances
would be required for the proposed rear setback from the
Bell ' s store , and for the west , south , and east yard
setbacks of the proposed warehouse . In addition , the
proposed warehouse lot would not have frontage on a public
road . Subject to the necessary determinations of the Zoning
Board of Appeals with respect to these variances , no
significant adverse impact is expected .
CS - Growth , cgnhgRQn . nt. d _ vR1 npmPnt_P nr rpl atPd
activiti . s lik . ly tn he indLced by thp propns _ d action ?
• No further development would be possible on the
proposed warehouse site . A general subdivision plan for the
remaining lands in the Light Industrial District has been
submitted , and it is very likely that official subdivision
application will be made soon for some of the proposed
parcels shown . On several of those proposed future parcels ,
variances particularly with respect to front yard setback
and lack of frontage on a public road may be required , based
on the information submitted . Yard and other area variances
have been granted in the past for several properties and
site plans , including for Cannon Recreation and Spa ,
Anderson Moving Company , and for the Benjamin / ( Hannan )
warehouse site , and would also be required for the Burkhart
development if that proceeds . The location of the power
line and easement , the stream , and the existing/ future road
alignment , as well as access difficulties along Elmira Road
pose unique circumstances with respect to site platting and
development .
Provided that there is further detailed review of the
poss. ihle faatiire subdivisions shown on the submitted overall
plan , with consideration of possible zoning requirement
modification and other matters , and given the location of
the proposed warehouse site in context with overall possible
platting , no significant adverse impact ' is expected by the
reviewer with respect to the warehouse development proposed .
C: 6 Long term short term , cumulative , or other
• effects not identified in C1 - CS ?
As described above .
C7 Other im8acts ( including'_ changes in LGA of either
gnantity or type of energy ) ?
Construction and operation of the proposed warehouse
would have minor energy use increases . Energy expenditures
related to site development would be minimized given the
location of the site with its access to existing and
proposed utility and road infrastructure .
Q IG them., or is there likely to he , controvergy related
to Potential adverse tntal impacts ?
No controversy is known at this time .
PART III
A negative determination of environmental significance
is recommended for the proposed warehouse development and
the land subdivision directly involved with the warehouse ,
for reasons stated above , and given further requirements of
project approval .
Lead Agency : For Subdivision Planning Board
For Variances : Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners. , Town Planner
® Review Date : July 28 , 1989
ad
too
0 a to
or
11
me it
it 11
/ ;0
to Fat
`.-
1Got ' f
1. '0 MMOOP
.. � -. D /
1 / ' •: 'i
1
• ` A0
. !
too
of
00 am
So
to
% to/
/
if a
% - , ' - -
Itax
LAW/�
a to
G
0
/ �� / �rn>,a>• • ► � t 00ro '100) 0 00
9` ►Nod �
oP
R .
ma"
' a 0 K c— 1 00 /
loo. ' Ovate
• -
tomwoo
00
wovo 410
� ' " JG • /J . iIP " of%u •mss ._ - - }yz;;{J.. r /
i �✓ 0/' /��1 �• H •i � /1' : /.� .t��, t�J(/• .�, iii` / I •✓1� • �.t: �
• /o aff � .
I at 040000P 0 /a
t0000
06 0
1 " y . `
tom
at
j , ; oo I
/1 / r �•
too, k
4 at
0 Is 0 loam,
, • / 1
lip" 4
at
a to
1.1.► . r �—C ---+ Ida -_ �72� 2t ?� ~ �' D ' � :tfCl' �ro a at : q'SrH - �
am, OWN, amm
OA
Mar
rom
' 1 , -1• , � ., . . .,. Im --ter _. aet.' C:7'/.r. • • • uI•. _� . _ '/ a,' t
l f t �• 11 _ r •
• / n
-
t:
TOWN OF ITHACA
ARD OF ZOING
APPEALS
NOTICE OFOPUBLLIC .. HEARINGS
1 uE ..JTHAC&
RtWED. , AUG. 23, 1989, 7P. MA
j 1" J a UR1 ` �� By direction of the Chairmanof the Zoning Board of Ap-
peals NOTICE IS HEREBY
• . ' GIVEN that Public Hearings
will be held by the Zonings
Board of Appeals of the Town
tt" � L C' � t � L" L ••�� �--� �, - - of Ithaca on Wednesday, Au
'+ � ' gust 23, 1989, in Town Hall ,
126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST
Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST
v� Er . ...._. . __.- . . _
.... . . Side ), Ithaca, N. Y. , COM-
MENCING AT 7:00 P. M. , on .
the following matters
t `
>L� 34 \Z , . : IY Tom.-.: : I '� : �:.c M. IF.Lri ' ZJ' L ^"ri ". i :I
APPEAL of David J . Stotz, Ap-
pellant, requesting a variance '
,�„Z ; jt -� e Cr`_ r -• ,____�_ _ __ , •_ . ._ . .-. .. .: _.._:. .._. � .._ from Article XIII, Section 65, of
the Tc.wn of Ithaca Zoning Or- ,
dinance for the construction of
- • 1 ' . .� - 7 a DIis.1. a fe ce et in height, [a-
Ile Road, _,.1
n e
_ - — - -- • . . toted at 1438 Slatervi
` of ha Tax Parcel -___ :.._. _._: —_�:... "id�y sp1- : _.:t�ti..�•E�.15��; s.., ^—, ._ . ; __r_— _' , n. _ -_ ----- -. . . - T .
= � LiLcz � : tr- -
;
jS ..t: rt „}_ 58-2-36,, Resdence District R-:
15. Said Ordinance wouldpe�-
mit n
PEAL of Thomas Bell, Ap
1L , r� requesting variances� From Article Vill, Section 44,
f
Or-
1,
-
1 `Q the Town of Ithaca Zoning Or
` 9
dinance and Section 280-a of '
New York State Town Low for
the construction of a 12,000,
sq. ft. warehouse on recently
-.._ . . _ .-- -.... . . . . - - - - . .....- ••• •. subdivided portions of land at
Town of
haca Tax
.. , . It
3-3-2. 2 and #6-33-3-2. 4 #
t
✓L� , y L"S•� - _ .: mac 0 . ..__._. . 614 Elmira Road, Light Indus-
:. . _ :
-t
- _ strio
l District.
illave
nrwarehouse
wa43 ANJ
. _. . _. rear yard bldg set-back
�Z . J
the south property line ,
whereby 50 feet is required, a
front yard building set back to
. .
_ _. .. . . . _. ._ . _- _ . _ .
_ �-••'M the north property line of-40-
feet,
f_40_feet
___ _ - Yi__� •...ya1 ��' �' i— •. . v . r �w-, \1V••� -
whereby 5feet is r
foot easter
)
.:fV _ y0.. • aC uired and a40
sideand building set-back,
' whereby 60 feet is required.
In addition, the property does
- - - • - - . . _ . . _. . . .. . . _ � . -- __ -_ _ - - - •--•. .. ._ not have a yard fronting on a +
- New York State, County, or I
Town highway, though a
- _ . . —�.._ . _. •-••._ . --• •• -. .. -- — -... ..... . . . . . _
oat wide access drive tsSro
posed off New YorkState
11 .
. .. .
Route 13..
APPEAL of Thomas Bell , Ap
�: pellant, requesting a variance
JEAN FOR
from Article VIII, Section 44, of
t P Town of Ithaca Zoning Or_ ..
No ar u e
.. . th
Y 7lIC, S ; � ; E' Of. 1 t dinance for a rear yard build-
. �' - _ .
41yF ' . -
.-OD -4410'. :::: '. . .___. .. .. .. .. . . 50 t required
- ( 614
Elms o Road,, 2 owneof .
No • .
at
_ ualified in TOma!<ins Count Ithaca Tax Parcel #6-33-3-2. 4,
Light Industrial District. Said .
I. r--afTlltlf551Q(j ,@XPIf@5 Ma- i -31, 19 � parcel of land contains . on l ,
- existing retail store with an
-back of
ard set
-. - : - :: . � .. . -,:: ,:. _.-• .,: :.; - ::. .: , . ` - - - - - - _ _- - : _ 8ifeetg. A rear
,f variance of 22 feet � .
- is requested. ,
APPEAL of Nicholas Barra, Ap-
pellant,
p pellant, requesting avariance -
u
from Article IV, Section '14, of -
i"•.'`--.:: ':: • ;'- ;.. • _ - -" _ - the Town of Ithaca Zoning Or-
r _ - = dinance for the conversion of
L an existing two-car garage ,
(attached to an existing resi
dential building ) into living `, . • - >
I a _ space located at 212 East King j
_
Road, Ithaca Town of Ith T P -
l #6-44- 1 -4. 40, Resdence
. . .. • : . . . .. . . ( - _:'. .: District R- 15. Said garage has
-- -- ' - an east side yard set-back of
_:.. . : : . . .. .: . -.
12. 5 plus/minus feet with said
Ordinance requiring a side I '
Y: :-cr:�: :`.'-:-.� _: =-:. C N .. : .�,.• _ . . __ . _ _ _ _ -_ - c and building set-back of 15
- et °f g
livin space ( 10 feet
being ermiite for garage L
- - space ). 2. 5 plus/minus vari-
- once is requested . � �-
it
, - r; Said Zoning Board of Appeals =
will at said time, 7 :00 . m.
- ' and said place, hear ollPper,- t '
sons in support of such matters
or objections thereto. Persons
1 '~ may appear by agent or in
person .
. Frost
- r--'. -.•-cc r:.•.u..mac.:-..c^_•,..•rr. ..'�. ..vx :• :•. . u'._ - '-e.: _..>_-_�_ . - : :. .. _: .. : • e:.. _. ".. ..._ . .. . _- _: :-
Building rcmelns (icer
__ Zoning Enforcement Officer j -
j Town of Ithaca
273- 1747