Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1990-06-13 TOWN OF ITHACA -TOWN OF ITHACA , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 13 , 1990 PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Robert Hines , Edward Austen , Edward King , Joan Reuning , Town Attorney John Barney , Building Inspector/ Zoning Officer Andrew Frost , Town Engineer Daniel Walker , Assistant Town Planner George Frantz . OTHERS PRESENT : William Paleen , Edwin Hallberg , Maureen McKenna , Chuck Jankey , Jon Thompson , J . Zachary McKenna . Chairman Aron called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order . The first item on the agenda was the decision of the Board regarding the Appeal of Cornell University requesting modification of the Special Approval granted for Maplewood Residential Community on April 19 , 1989 . Chairman Aron stated that the public hearing on this matter was closed so the Board has a decision -making agenda on this matter before them , Chairman Aron read from ' Part II , Part IIa , and Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form that was revised on June 12 , 1990 by George Frantz . The Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . Mr . Frantz stated that there is a correction on number 19 , page 11 , of the Assessment Form . The question was " Is there , or is there likely to be , public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? " He said that should have been checked " yes " Mr . King noted that none of the Column 3 spaces , " Can . impact be mitigated by project change ? " are marked . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Frantz to explain that to the Board . Mr . Frantz said that he thinks in all cases where it was a potential large impact , the answer would be yes , " by elimination of the warehouse " . He made that correction also , for the record , Mr . Paleen asked the Chairman if he could speak to the Board . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 13 , 1990 2 OTown Attorney Barney advised the Board that the applicant can certainly speak if the Board chooses to let him or to respond to questions , but it was announced at the preceding meeting that the public hearing was closed , and as a result the public generally , which might have chosen to come to hear and offer their comments have probably not done so . Therefore , he suggested that if the Board wants to hear from the applicant , the Board probably ought to reschedule , adjourn and re - open the public hearing to give anybody else who wishes to speak , the opportunity to do so . Mr . Paleen stated that he has some material for the Board , intending to , if nothing else but to refresh the Board on the issues , since it has been some time since they were last here . He said that this is a very serious matter and they are hearing responses and judgments tonight that they have not heard before presented in a manner that he thinks is quite contrary to some of the information that the Board needs to hear and see regarding this matter . Town Attorney Barney stated that his sense of it is that Mr . Paleen is correct . He said that he was not aware that this document was going to be revised and the applicants certainly are entitled to see the revised document , and are also entitled to comment on those revisions , but the only fair way to do it is to adjourn the matter and renotify it as a public hearing and hold a public hearing on the matter . MOTION By Chairman Aron , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the matter of the Appeal of Cornell University requesting modification of the Special Approval granted for . Maplewood Residential Community on April 19 , 1989 , be adjourned until July 11 , 1990 . The voting was as follows : Ayes - Aron , King , Hines , Reuning , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . • ® Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals June 13 , 1990 The second matter on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF EDWIN A . HALLBERG , APPELLANT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE ONE - YEAR TIME LIMITATION FOR THE USE OF A TEMPORARY BUILDING NECESSARY OR INCIDENTAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA . THE SUBJECT 'RESIDENTIAL AREA IS KNOWN AS THE DEER RUN SUBDIVISION , AND THE SUBJECT BUILDING IS LOCATED NEAR WHITETAIL DRIVE IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 32 . Mr . Edwin Hallberg explained to the Board that they built a temporary storage building a year ago and are simply asking for the extension of the use of it . He stated that the real estate market has slowed their progress toward its demolition . Chairman Aron asked what the expiration date for the building was . Mr . Frost stated that the original permit was ® issued in November 1988 , it ran out this past January . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Hallberg if he is asking the Board to extend it for another 12 months . Mr . Hallberg stated , or longer for convenience sake . He said that with some luck they will no longer need it 12 months from now , but given the present conditions it may be longer . He will , however , take whatever the Board can give him . He explained that the storage building sits on what will be building lots and with any kind of luck from the Town Board July 9th , they plan to put the road to it immediately thereafter . Mr . Hallberg said that with luck 18 months should be sufficient for their use of the building . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Hallberg how big the building is . Mr . Hallberg stated that it is 26 ' x 401 . Chairman Aron opened the public . hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Mr . Austen referred to a photo that was passed around to Board members and stated that it certainly would be less objectionable if it was cleaned up around the building . Mr . Hines stated that the building is not visible until you get right to it . t e Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals June 13 , 1990 Mr . Frost agreed that from the homes that are there , the building cannot be seen -for the trees . MOTION . By Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an 18 -month extension of the use of the temporary storage building , with the following condition and findings : 19 that the Building Inspector inspect the building in 7 days to make sure that the debris surrounding the property , that is not new construction material , be removed and that the grounds be kept in an orderly fashion thereafter , 2e that the requirements of Section 77 , subdivision 7 , paragraphs a - f are met ; 3 * no one appeared in opposition to the request ; 4 * there is a need for the building due to the " soft" market in real estate at this time . A vote on the motion was as follows . Ayes - King , Aron , Austen , Reuning , Hines . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The next matter on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF THE WALDORF SCHOOL OF THE FINGER LAKES , APPELLANT , MAUREEN MCKENNA , APPLICANT , REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF THE TWO-YEAR TIME LIMITATION AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS ON NOVEMBER 30 , 1988 , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE USE OF A TEMPORARY PORTABLE CLASSROOM , ( A 12 -FOOT BY 60 -FOOT MOBILE HOME ) , AT 855 FIVE MILE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 31 - 2 - 15 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . Mrs . Maureen McKenna , Director of Administration and Development at the Waldorf School , explained to the Board that the School has been looking for a permanent site for several years and it has been very difficult to find . She said that as the Waldorf School ' s needs have increased for a site so has the enrollment in public school , so any big building that is f Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals June 13 , 1990 particularly suitable for their needs is also in high demand for the Ithaca Public School system . Mrs . McKenna stated that in the interim they have expanded one program into an additional site . Mrs . McKenna stated that she contacted the Department of Transportation about an extension and the Department does not foresee any change in the use of the road and they would be willing to support the School ' s request that was granted to the School in October 1988 . Mrs . McKenna stated that Mr . Frost had suggested that she address some life safety and fire concerns that the Fire Department has expressed and she passed out copies of a letter to Mr . Frost regarding those issues . A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 . Mrs . McKenna went on to explain that the School would like to continue to use this facility as a temporary classroom , as they have been using it . She said that this is necessary because their enrollment is continuing to expand and they do not have an alternate site to move their entire School . She went on to say that part of her responsibilities have been to develop a capital campaign so they have the funding to support an additional site . As a private school they tend to use their money very carefully and they are mostly supported by tuition . Their original idea was to have a new site within two years but they found that to be an impractical possibility . So they are continuing to look for a site , and at the same time they are beginning to realize that in order to start this capital campaign it will be a long term process so their original estimate of two years was a little optimistic . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . McKenna to give the Board an idea of where they looked and why it was not feasible to purchase it . Mrs . McKenna stated that she has a list of about 18 sites . Being a school there are very strict zoning regulations and practical considerations and most of those sites were impractical because of those reasons . So although they looked for space , there was space available , it would not suitably meet the School ' s needs . Some of it involved a considerable amount of construction work that the School could not fund , so it was not just a case of moving into a site , it was also a case of buying another site and then renovating that site which was not possible for the School to do . • Chairman Aron asked Mrs . McKenna if they have been looking for land or real property . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals June 13 , 1990 Mrs . McKenna responded that they have decided at this point to seek land and then to build a school , which they know would involve a capital campaign , which they have begun . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . McKenna how many students there are presently at the Waldorf School . Mrs . McKenna replied , 117 students in two locations . She stated that their two kindergarten programs are in the old Speno mansion in back of Oak Hill Manor on South Hill and that involves 40 students coming in the Fall . There are 80 students in their grades at their current location . There are 12 of those students who will be in the temporary facility . Most of the other children will be in the regular building itself . She stated that they use the rear end of the trailer for music lessons and things like that on a very temporary basis - a couple of hours a day - perhaps two or three students and one teacher , for 45 minutes . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . McKenna for how long she wants the Board to extend permission for the temporary schoolroom . ® Mrs . McKenna replied , that she would like to extend it until 1993 , a period of three years . She said that the School feels that in three years they will be able to make some provisions so they will not have to use that trailer . Mrs . McKenna stated that she does not believe that there is any life safety or any concern for the safety of their children in that facility . Mr . Frost asked Mrs . McKenna if the main building fire alarm system has been connected to the trailer . Mrs . McKenna responded , that that is completed . Mr . Frost stated that there have been several fire safety inspections on the . building . There were parallel inspections done , one by him which was done in conjunction with protocol set up through the State Education Department which involves numerous stages of the Fire Safety Inspection book . He referred to the letter that Mrs . McKenna had handed out ( Exhibit # 2 ) and stated that that is a response to the specifics of this State Education Department booklet . He referred to a letter dated March 15 , 2990 , signed by Paul S . Hansen , Assistant Building Inspector , attached hereto to Exhibit # 3 , which was a response to a complaint from the Fire Department . Mr . Frost stated that some of the problems that have been experienced - in the school have been more of a maintenance kind of situation , not so much a problem with the building . ® Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals June 13 , 1990 Mr . Frost stated that the Fire Department offers Fire Safety training and he asked Mrs . McKenna if that has been pursued . Mrs . McKenna stated that that has been pursued and they will do that in September when school re - opens . She has spoken with Lt . LaBuff with the Fire Department and there will be training for the facility in the first week of September . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Chairman Aron read a letter from Gertrude Armbruster , ( undated ) , which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 , in opposition to the continued use of the mobile home as a classroom . Mrs . Reuning stated that she was approached by the Waldorf School to rent some of her space out to them and she had to refuse them because she did not have enough room , so she knows that the School has been actively looking for space . • Mr . King asked Mrs . Reuning , as a resident in the area , if she could speak to the Armbruster complaint about the visual impact of this trailer . Mrs . Reuning stated that she passes there every day and the trailer is down so far she does not even see it . Even when you , drive on Five Mile Drive , you have to really crane your neck to be able to see it . Mrs . McKenna said that plans are already in the works to improve its appearance this summer . Mr . Hines stated that he agrees with Mrs . Reuning that it is very difficult to see the School from the road when driving by . Mrs . McKenna stated that at the current time the School does not own the building . It is something that the Board is very interested in pursuing and it is on the School Board ' s agenda to discuss . Mr . Austen asked what the condition of the trailer is . Mr . Frost stated that in April of 1989 he requested a letter from Peter Novelli , who is a Consulting Engineer , that the structural integrity of the building be certified and that was done . Mr . Frost asked Mrs . McKenna if the smoke detector was ever installed in the music room . ® Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals June 13 , 1990 Mrs . McKenna said they have purchased the smoke detector and it is in the process of being installed at this time . Town Attorney Barney stated that back when the original permission was granted , there was a contingency , or a ' condition , that the School obtain a use and occupancy permit from Department of Transportation because the building is located largely in the right - of -way . He asked Mrs . McKenna to speak to that . Mrs . McKenna said that she spoke with the local Department of Transportation person today . He claims that he has the School ' s letter in his file still to be addressed and he asked Mrs . McKenna if she had received any information from the Syracuse office . She is not aware of that but that does not mean the School did not receive it . She said she will check on it and follow up on it . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an extension of the Special Approval for a period of 12 months , starting in August of 1990 , with the following conditions and finding . 10 that within 3 months the School furnish to the Zoning Officer evidence that the State Department of Transportation consents to the occupancy of the space and any other building requirements that Mr . Frost may find are required by other ordinances or statutes , without prejudice to further extensions thereafter ; 29 that the request is in accordance with Section 77 , subdivision 7 , paragraphs a - f ; 3 * that the School obtain an inspection by a licensed architect or a structural engineer of the building within a 3 -month period , 4 * that the appearance of the outside of the trailer be improved . The voting on the motion was as follows : Ayes - Hines , Austen , King , Reuning , Aron . • Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . r Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals June 13 , 1990 The meeting adjourned at 8 : 20 p . m . Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary APPROVED X0004 Henry Aron , Chairman Pllif't 2— PROJECT IMPAU U AMU 1' MWK tMAUNI I vine Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information ( Read Carefully) - �✓ /� • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question : Have my responses and determinations been reasonablef The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. / 00000) • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided aro to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation In Part 3. • The impacts of each project on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and -thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1 . d . If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 . e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained* in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be IMPACT ON LAND Moderate . Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change :to the project site? ONO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0N foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 1096 . • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 3 feet • Construction of paved parking area for 1 ,000 or more vehicles. 11 ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ ❑Yes [] No 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or Involve more ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1 ,000 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No tons of natural material (Le., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0N • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts -1wcunsu) ttTe iiiiiomi . r_oyckA & F& ❑ ® ❑ Yes [] No 2 . Will there be an effect v. "dy unique or unusual land forms found on the site ? ( i . e. . cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc. ) ONO OYES • Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 6 EXHIBIT # 1 IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential Can Impala Be 3 . Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected ? Moderate Large Mitigated By ( Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law. ECL) impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply XNO MYES PP Y to column 2 ' Developable area of site contains a protected water body. I ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution fatalities through a protected water. body. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Construction In a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [I No 4 . Will proposed action affect any no"rotected existing or new body of water? NNO ❑YES • Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C2 No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ [1 Yes ❑ No S . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ANO OYES Examples that would . apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contaminationof a water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No supply system. Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ [Dyes ❑ No • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of. 20,000 gallons per ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No day. • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No existing body of water to the extent that there will be obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action . will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No products greater than 1 ,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses In areas without mater ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N require new or expansion of existing waste treatmentand/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 6 . Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff ? ONO ,AYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 7 EXHIBIT # 1 1 7 3 . Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change ® • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Cl ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ [Dyes ❑ No • Other impacts: -41TIE L. 00AL. 12. ao DRA NALLE 1NPRDV1=MENTS ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AIR 7 . Will proposed action affect air quality? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce. 1 ,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ 113 ❑ Yes ❑ No hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Oyes [:] No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS • 8 . Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife. habitat. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C1 No than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No 9 . Will Proposed Action substantially affect non•threatened or non-endangered species? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C3 No migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. - • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 . acres ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 . Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ C1 Yes C3 No land ( includes cropland , hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 EXHIBIT # 1 � a ./13/90 - 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By • Impact Impact Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres . ❑ - ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District. more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ONO ® YES ( If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617. 21 , Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ® ❑ Yes ❑ No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether . man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 . Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pret historic or paleontological importance? ENO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [3 No project site. • • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 . Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 ONO CkYES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No • Other impacts: KCMDVAl_ OP L. Rwnl Ag - A AD "1'Ac Nr ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No TD C'0M4MmJITq GEI`TE12 EXHIBIT# 1 9 6 / 3 0 - .� GL �9 > 1 2 3 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact Be 14 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems ? Moderate Large Mitigated By ONO %YES Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N • Other impacts: *r &AcK -rKAFF1c TDI Przon ® ❑ Oyes ❑ No w A ►2 � i-i D u s E IMPACT ON ENERGY 1S . Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? CSNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5 % increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [:] No any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [:] No transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 . Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? $(NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1 ,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No noise screen. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 . Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ONO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ D ❑ Yes ❑ Na substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Nc form (i .e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N( gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result - in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N( within 2 ,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous • waste. • Other impacts : ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ON ( EXHIBIT # 1 10 1 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact Be OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated. By 18 . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Impact Impact Project Change • (7N0 EYESExamples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city. town or village in which the ❑ ❑ [] Yes 0N project is located is likely to grow by more than 596. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0N will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ® ❑Yes ONO • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ® ❑ Oyes ONO e Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities. structures ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No (e. g. schools, police and fire. etc.) , • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No C Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 13 No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONo 19 . Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? *0 AES If Any Action In Part 21s Identified as a Potential Large Impact - or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of: Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3 � EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more Impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2. 1 . Briefly describe the impact 2 . Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3 . Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important To answer the question of importance, consider. The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) 11 EXHIBIT # 1 PART Ila ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO MAPLEWOOD PARK SITE PLAN Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals — 61i3/4o Involved Agencies; Town of Ithaca Planning Board , Tompkins County Planning Department impact on Land Retention of the warehouse as proposed under the modified site plan would represent a 12 change in overall site building coverage. ( a change from 20 % to 21 Z . The warehouse however is luted in an area which under the original site plan approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals was to be an open lawn area immediately adjacent to the community center. This lawn area is the only area in the vicinity of the community center suitable. for outdoor active or passive recreation. Thus retention of the warehouse on the site would eliminate a potentially important open space and recreational asset for Maplewood Park residents. Impact on Water Site- localized drainage improvements have been made around the warehouse , and no significant adverse impacts are expected as a result of any of the components of the proposed action . Impact on Aesthetic Resources The retention of the warehouse building , with its attendant activities , on the site may have an adverse impact on the aesthetic quality of the surrounding residential area. Warehouse operations are generally quasi - industrial in nature and not normally considered to be visually or aesthetically compatible with residential uses. Presence of such operations in a residential area may result in significant adverse environmental impacts to the area. No significant adverse environmental impacts are expected with regard to other components of the proposed site plan modifications. Impact on Open Space and Recreation Retention of the warehouse may have a significant adverse impact on open space and recreation opportunities for Maplewood Park residents. In the original site plan the area where the warehouse stands was proposed to be a lawn area suitable for active and passive recreational use. Because of its location immediately adjacent to the community center the proposed lawn area provided for an outdoor area which could be used for community- wide events. Keeping the warehouse eliminates this potentially important outdoor community amenity. Impact on Transportation No significant adverse with regard to transportation are anticipated as a result -of proposed action , although retention of the warehouse will result in truck traffic levels , including large tractor trailer trucks , above and beyond that anticipated under the original site plan . This additional traffic to and from the warehouse may not be compatible with the residential tcharacter of the surrounding area. EXHIBIT # 1 Imnact on Orowth and Character of Community or Neighborhood The proposed modifications to the original Maplewood Park site plan would result in a higher level of land use intensity. The retention of the warehouse in a site originally proposed and approved as a lawn play area would result in a reduction in the amount of open space and recreational space on a site with limited amounts of such space. In addition the continuation in a residential setting of a quasi - industrial land use in the form of the warehouse is contrary to generally accepted land use planning and growth management practices , which strive to separate such incompatible land uses whenever possible. 19 . Is there , or is there likely to be , public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Density and form of the project , particularly with respect to land coverer by buildings , has been of concern to area residents. Also , some controversy may result from the proposal to retain the warehouse on the site. PART Zr Recommendation . A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for those portions of this action other than the proposed retention of the warehouse. Any action that includes retention of the warehouse however may have significant adverse impacts , including: a8 loss of an open space area suitable for community recreational use for residents of Maplewood Park ; b. Visual impact of a quasi - industrial building in a residential area on the aesthetic quality of the area ; C* impact on comprehensive planning and growth management efforts in the Town of Ithaca , in that retention of the warehouse and its attendant activities represents a continued mixing of land uses generally considered to be incompatible. George R . Frantz , Asst, Town Planner x/ 90 • EXHIBIT # 1 f �Ihe WalIdorf School of the Finger Lakes W � r May 17 , 1990 Mr . Andrew Frost Building Inspector , Zoning Officer Town of Ithaca I Z6 E. Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14950 950 Dear Mr . Frc.►st : Thank you for your assistance in completing the ' ' College and Nonpublic School fire safety report " . We have completed the items indicated as "non - compliance" as follows : ipage 8 - 1 D04 - emergency exit in fourth grade classroom is cleared and steps are secured page 9 - 7E05 = furnace room cleared of all combustible material page 10 - 4E14 - electrical service to temporary classroom is now underground and in compliance with electrical code ( see attached certificate ) . page 10 � 5F 15 - .all extinguishers have been inspected . page 13 - 4E60 - smoke detector is being investigated for music room page 13 - 7E56 , main building will be covered by Symplex. inspection and maintenance beginning fiscal year 1990 / 91 ( July 1 , 1990 ) Other items noted in your letter of March 30 that have been corrected include : 1 . the school bell has been inspected by an architect ( Tom Kline ) and • verified safe . This bell was installed two years ago, and is not part of the original school structure . EXHIBIT # 2 355 five Mifz Drive, Ithaca, New ,Yorf(. 14350 (607) 2 73 4033 z a Andrew Frost page 2 2 . the railroad tie will be removed May 26 ; the pipe has been cut at ground level . Thank you for your continuing cooperation . Sincerely yours , Maureen C . McKenna , Director Administration and Development xc: Frank Alessandrini , Fire Safety Coordinator , Bureau of Facilities Planning for school 6106009987460002 and 6 10600998746000 1 EXHIBIT #2 OF 1p TOWN OF ITHACA ER 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N .Y. 14850 • � � TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 HIGHWAY 273- 1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273- 1736 PLANNING 273- 1736 ZONING 273- 1747 March 15 , 1990 Ms . Maureen McKenna Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes 855 Five • Mile Drive Ithaca , New York 14850 Dear tris . McKenna : Thank you for correcting the majority of the items listed in my November 3 , 1989 , letter . I want to address in this letter those items still to be corrected as observed on my January 26 , 1990 , reinspection . The service cable between the main building and the trailer is 8 feet 6 inches from the ground , where 10 feet is required . The service cable is . also accessible from the roof / deck area of the main building . I have spoken with your electric contractor , Pleasant Valley Electric , about having this situation corrected . . They agreed that it is their responsibil - *ity to bring these items into compliance and would do so the week of March 19 - 23 . After they have completed their work , please call me at 273 - 1747 so I may verify compliance . I am satisfied with the storage removal from under the trailer . The intent is to prevent any combustible materials which might lead to spontan - eous combustion . Please comply with this intent in the future . After the fire involving the rags and linseed oil , the fire department suggested you take advantage of their fire safety education program . I also strongly suggest you have the fire safety program presented to your teachers and children to help prevent another such occurrence . If you have any questions please call me . Sincerely , Paul S . Hansen Assistant Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer PSH / dlw • EXHIBIT # 3 w 1 w i? E K O R A N D Tu i'i To : Andrew Frost , Zoning Enforcement Officer , Town of Ithaca From : G . Armbruster , 850 Five Mile Drive , Ithaca Re : Continuation of Authorization of Use of a Mobile Home on the 855 Five Bile Drive Property The mobile home on the 855 Five Mile Drive property does not enhance the school grounds and depreciates the neil7hborhood . I would like to protest the extension of this authorization . • EXHIBIT #4 � �h,6: � AF F IDA VIT OF PUBLICA TION TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS , �� inWEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1990,1-7 THACA 7 : 00 P. M. By direction of ' the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Ap- ' l peals NOTICE IS HEREBY j GIVEN that Public Hearings State of New York , Tompkins County , ss . , will be held l the Zoning ' Board of Appealof the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, June `. Gall Sullins beln �Ly duly s �rorn , deposes and 13, 1990, in Town ' Hall , 126 P East Seneca . Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST says , that she/he resides in Ithaca , county and state afUresald and that Side ),, Ithaca, N. Y. , COM- , 7 , MENCING AT 7:00 P. M. , on she /Ile is Clerk the following matters. APPEAL of Edwin A. Hallberg, of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in Appellant , requesting . the , Special Approval of the Board of Appeols, pursuant to Article Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice , of. which the annexed is a true IV, Section 12, Paragraph 3, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Or- copy , was published in said paper dinance, for an extension of the one-year time limitation �� C 1: 1 �� 6 for theuse a temporary buildin necessary or inciden- tal to t e development of a residential area . The subject residential area is known as the Deer Run Subdivision, and the subl'ect building is located near Whitetail Drive in a Resi- dence District R- 15 on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-44- 1 - ' and that the first publication of said notice «-as on the g 4. 3z. � APPEAL of The Waldorf School / of the Finger Lakes, Appel- day of � L, 19 � lont , Maureen. McKenna , Ap- plicant, requesting an exten- sion of the two-year time limitation authorized by the Board of Appeals on Novem- ber 30, 1988, pursuant to Arti- cle V, Section 18, Paragraph 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the use of o Subscri and sworn to before nle , this day temporary , portable class- room , (a foot by 60-foot mobile home ), 6t - 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31 -2- 15, Resi- dence District R-30. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7:00p. m . , and said place, hear all per- Notary PUb]I ` , sons in support of such matters � J�I}� Cj/ l or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in � C.4N FORD person . Andrew S. Frost, Building In- Notary Public, State of New Yore Spector/Zoning Enforcement Officer, Town of Ithaca No. 4654410 June 8, 1990 273- 17471 Qualified in Tompkins CountyG� Commissicn expires May 31 , 191 • I