The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 1991-03-27 FIND TOWN Of ITHACA 192/Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 27 , 1991 THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE HEARD ON MARCH 27 , 1991 BY THE BOARD : APPEAL OF HUNNA JOHNS , OWNER/APPELLANT , CHARLES JOHNS , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , AND ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 68 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A PARCEL OF LAND PRESENTLY CONTAINING A LEGAL , NON— CONFORMING FIVE — DWELLING—UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING , LOCATED AT 138 HONNESS LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 -60 - 1- 17 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A PARCEL OF LAND . ADJOURNED APPEAL OF JAMES C . ROGAN , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VII , SECTION 38 , PARAGRAPH 1 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT UP TO FOUR PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD AT ROGANrS CORNER , 825 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 40 - 4 - 2 , BUSINESS DISTRICT "A " . SAID ORDINANCE PROHIBITS PARKING WITHIN THE 30 —FOOT REQUIRED FRONT YARD AS MEASURED FROM THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY TO THE LOCATION OF A BUILDING . IN ADDITION , APPELLANT IS REQUESTING THE MODIFICATION OF PRIOR BOARD ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO A PIZZA PARLOR/SUB SHOP WITH A SEATING CAPACITY OF 19 PERSONS . THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION IS AN INCREASE IN SUCH SEATING CAPACITY TO 44 PERSONS . APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS FLED LI OWN OF ITHAG\ Town of Ithaca 946 OZ 99i 1 Zoning Board of Appeals March 27 , 19 91 k ' TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 27 , 1991 PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Robert Hines , Pete Scala , Edward King , Joan Reuning , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew Frost . OTHERS : Lawrence P . Fabbroni , P . E . , William Seldin , Esq . , James C . Rogan , Charles Johns , Lucia Armstrong , Nell Mondy , David C . Auble , Robert Boehlecke , Jr . Chairman Austen opened the meeting at 7 : 00 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 heard by the Board was the following : ® APPEAL OF HUNNA JOHNS , OWNER/APPELLANT , CHARLES JOHNS , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , AND ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 68 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A PARCEL OF LAND PRESENTLY CONTAINING A LEGAL , NON- CONFORMING FIVE- DWELLING-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING , LOCATED AT 138 HONNESS LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 60 - 1 - 17 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A PARCEL OF LAND . Mr . Charles Johns explained the proposal to the Board and pVesented photos of the area for the proposed second building . He said that he wants to build a three -bedroom ranch in the back portion of that lot which has a total depth of 336 feet and is 202 feet across the back . He stated that it is a hardship for him to go out and buy land when this land already exists in the family . He said he would like to extend the driveway and therefore he would be an on- site landlord and could do a little bit more on the property that they already have there . Discussion followed regarding the possibility of subdividing the property . Town Attorney Barney referred to the map that was presented with the Appeal . The map is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals March 27 , 1991 Ms . Lucia Armstrong , 121 Honness Lane , stated that she is concerned about more commercial activities being on Honness Lane . She also expressed concern about the increase in traffic on Honness Lane . Dr . Nell Mondy , 126 Honness Lane , spoke to the Board regarding the traffic problem on Honness Lane . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Chairman Austen read from the Environmental Assessment Form , Part II , which was signed by George Frantz on March 21 , 1991 . The Form is attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 . Environmental Assessment MOTION : by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning . RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Hunna Johns ® requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , and Article XIII , Section 68 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the construction of a detached single family residence on a parcel of land presently containing a legal , non - conforming five -dwelling -unit apartment building , located at 138 Honness Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 17 , Residence District R- 15 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance , with the following findings : 1 . that the Board adopts the Acting Town Planner ' s recommendation of a negative declaration but not his opinion . 2 . that there are no neighbors close to the property , other than Cornell University . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Reuning , Austen , Hines , Scala . Nays - None . r The Motion carried unanimously . Mr . Hines addressed the question of economic hardship and discussion followed . Mr . Johns stated that the money he could save by not having to go out and buy another lot to build a home , he could put into the existing five -dwelling unit apartment building as far as outside painting , siding , decorating and a new roof . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals March 27 , 1991 Chairman Austen re - opened the public hearing . Dr . Mondy spoke to the Board regarding water run - off which affects her property . Chairman Austen re - closed the public hearing . Further discussion ensued regarding the subdivision aspect . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning , Board of Appeals adjourn the Appeal of Hunna Johns as it appears on the agenda to the first meeting of the Board in May , and be it further RESOLVED , that Mr . Johns come back to the Board at that time and submit an argument regarding the economic hardship issue , and be it further RESOLVED , that the Appeal be re - advertised as a Special Approval for the extension of a non - conforming use . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Reuning , Austen , King , Scala . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . The next Appeal heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF JAMES C . ROGAN , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VII , SECTION 38 , PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT UP TO FOUR PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD AT ROGAN ' S CORNER , 825 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 40 - 4 - 2 , BUSINESS DISTRICT "A" . SAID ORDINANCE PROHIBITS PARKING WITHIN THE 30 -FOOT REQUIRED FRONT YARD AS MEASURED FROM THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY TO THE LOCATION OF A BUILDING . IN ADDITION , APPELLANT IS REQUESTING THE MODIFICATION OF PRIOR BOARD ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO A PIZZA PARLOR/ SUB SHOP WITH A SEATING CAPACITY OF 19 PERSONS . THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION IS AN INCREASE IN SUCH SEATING CAPACITY TO 44 PERSONS . Chairman Austen excused Mr . Hines from the Appeal due to a conflict of interest . Chairman Austen read the Appeal into the record . • Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals March 27 , 1991 Attorney William Seldin appeared before the Board and gave background information on the property and explained the project . He spoke of the previous variances that have been granted by the Board regarding the property in question . Attorney Seldin referred to " Traffic Study - Rogan ' s Corner " which was compiled by Mr . Larry Fabbroni . The report is attached hereto as Exhibit # 3 . Attorney Seldin stated that there were three plans presented to the Planning Board . Mr . Rogan prefers Plan # 1 . However , the Planning Board approved Plan 2A . This plan does not violate the setback requirements . It has 46 parking spaces as opposed to the 56 parking spaces in Plan # 1 , which was initially favored by the Rogans . He said that Mr . Rogan has 'a feel for this property better than most folks because he is there every day and he feels that Plan 2A was the least workable in terms of the traffic patterns that would take place . Attorney Seldin stated that the Planning Board did make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the project . Attorney Seldin presented photos with a building sketched on so that the Board could see the actual way : the building would look on the site . He said that he is hoping the Board will grant the variance as requested for Plan # 1 . Discussion followed on what was advertised for this public hearing . Town Attorney stated that setbacks for the building were not advertised . He stated that the Board can only consider what was advertised and that is Plan 2A as approved by the Planning Board . Attorney Seldin conceded that they will proceed for approval of Plan 2A with the 4 parking spaces and the expansion of the existing use of 19 to 44 persons seating capacity . Plan 2A is attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Chairman Austen read into the record a letter from Richard J . Couture , Superintendent , Custodial Services , Ithaca College , dated September 14 , 1990 and a letter from Harold A . Fish , Jr . , dated September 10 , 1990 . The letters are attached hereto as Exhibits # 5 and # 6 . No one appeared to speak to the Board and Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Mr . King referred to the Traffic Study that was done by Mr . Fabbroni and Mr . Fabbroni responded to his questions . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals March 27 , 1991 Attorney Seldin presented to the Board a lease agreement with Mr . Fish for 10 parking spaces on the side of the property . The lease agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit V . Chairman Austen referred to the Adopted Resolution regarding the SEAR from the Planning Board on March 5 , 1991 and the Adopted Resolution regarding the New Building from the Planning Board on March 5 , 1991 , attached hereto as Exhibits # 8 and # 9 . Chairman Austen read into the record the staff recommendation for the SEAF which was signed by Acting Town Planner George Frantz on February 12 , 1991 , attached hereto as Exhibit # 10 . Environmental Assessment MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of James C . Rogan , requesting variance of the requirements of Article VII , Section 38 , • Paragraph 1 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit up to four parking spaces within the required front yard at Rogan ' s Corner , 825 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 40 - 4 - 2 , Business District " A " and the modification of prior Board actions with respect to a pizza parlor/ sub shop with an increased seating capacity to 44 persons , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows . Ayes - King , Reuning , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . MOTION on Parking Spaces : By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Article VII , Section 38 , Paragraph 1 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit up to four parking spaces within the required front yard at Rogan ' s Corner , 825 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax ® Parcel No . 6 - 40 - 4 - 2 , Business District " A " , as shown on Scheme 2A , Nos . 28 - 31 , with the following findings : 1 . that the site is configured in such a way that it is not practical to provide the required number of parking spaces without providing parking places in the front yard , if the Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals March 27 , 1991 building is to be located in such a way that it does not require variances for front yard setback requirements . 2e that the Board found previously that the use as a sit - down pizza establishment was needed and was acceptable to the community . 3e that the neighbor next north , which would be most affected by the location of the new building and the parking area-, is in support of the project . 4a that no one appeared in opposition to the project . 59 that the existence of these additional spaces in the separated area would facilitate the movement of traffic and make it safer within the complex . A vote on the motion resulted as follows . Ayes - Scala , Reuning , Austen , King . Nays - None . The Motion was carried unanimously . MOTION on modification of previous variance : By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , for the same reasons and findings found previously on the motion for the parking spaces as well as those contained in the Board of Appeals resolution of June 24 , 1987 on this proposal , that the Board permit a variance to the Ordinance , Section 32 , Business District " A " Permitted Uses , with the following findings and conditions . 19 that the area needs a business district which does not quite fit into the pattern of the Town ' s Ordinance for business districts " B " and " C " but does contain all the elements of " A " as well as some of those of " B " and " C " . 2 * that the Board permit this modification of a Business " A " use to the extent of permitting the development of the new building for the pizza operation with a seating capacity of 44 patrons and that may be located either in the building originally proposed or this new building that is to be constructed . 3 * that the hours of operation are to be 7 a . m . to 2 a . m . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals March 27 , 1991 4e that any use of the basement area for any activity other than storage as proposed by the applicant be subject to site plan approval . 5 * that there be approval by the Town Planning Department for the development and implementation of a final landscape plan . 6 * that approval be obtained from the Town Planner and the Chairperson of the Planning Board of the final revised site plan as submitted to the Planning Board , which is Scheme 2A . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Reuning , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion was carried unanimously . Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 9 : 18 p . m . Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary APPROVED : Edward Austen , hairman � I , ? IPE ( FOUND} COCIQELL UNIV , i e • U .) — � 179 - 665 6D P. I — 9 FEWCE � S S 83 4G ' w ZO2 , S ' - !. P�ON COME I IP1PE I ( Fou") Iz t.• : . IMP 4. IC W %ji 1 Ia ; 0 IMP HUNkA JOHNS ( e . o .) MdMMMk �t 43S - 474 Go - 1 - 1 ? QI I SU (51TO : PUIILIC HWY. CIC. HTS 0 � I' - ;i - — igF- xPM t 31 , ine! e.f�, . rf , �! Z 7, Q IF V I PIH Y ` L , r L, rNE . w I .:a, . =own 1114, ` amm" ' I 4 tiI - � to� ;; e ' rYi If v PEZIALAS (e•0 � -� V' ` >� Ocyv M<` . + . 56S — 304 11 . 41 60 - I - 1 � ; M-'M IC Me N ` lIt I A-11f Y• MM I. - I' M It P IMP. IMP X14 , f F t v J \4/ \ ' C` '3 fM. It � y1 I O -I/ \\ PIP, IMP, JPIP Z � :co IIYff;n eEr . t ':Gnr /log CFOUND)58Z� s6 ' � — \ 11RPE _ d. r Zv. ' ;i Joe S ' 84 -40 -1 � � PINE l eM e.0. b' 4 % <c < / f-} O N (.j E 5 5 LANE e ® Z r fY7 e O/ - PP_ESENT PAVEMENT \ CI PI(( ` r 3` O �•• Y,pCF ' - r K .. I` \ { ' It �IHANOLE L.I 1- Ce INLL. 1% J - r, Mel E IInNNG. S � LV . ICON G (-- 1 -11-14CA jet- 410MIl,I G; i� t. TIM' 5�� 1/� I � . IMP*M F-OK 1105E r3Y TGwIN Of IrullfA' 4 . B - 0 . rCr1, i� l '.. iU05s1i> 1y tYNPPC!> E5 OILY . ! , a'• . f�OCs )JOT R� YI' L5l NI" SLlf: b � y I' i'DI 'L 05i U PLAT O1Z FLAT rtC�ltilILA ' 1,; D [SY ToL N 01= ITHrIL .M PL ANA 1176, 51 AF / nK i1Pl'Ke.11 'c1J (3Y &JY $011e' Of' M. TNC 'TOLY' N / J I 1 .' S � • M • ,i ti it y t IMP ` - y P. 10 ' 7 91 Iit Y y, ' yIMP, I I Mr w,� l 1 1j fLif . ,. ,t A'. '41Z �ilf . ! Hcr� I III , __. --_.-r _r" 1 ♦ t ,{; 'l ix .45. igg't�"rY,Yf L > I. i I ,� � f t: f+� - t f! .f.+ t L .f - I l L• . . I. f . ,1 ''- n. I r . 5i. — .. . .. . 3. PART I i — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca • Us* attachments as necessary ) A . Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES NO If yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF , B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? ® YES NO ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) C1 . .Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C4 . The Town '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 SEE ATTA= C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACMD C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - C5 ? Explain briefly : SEE ATrA= C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTA= D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO 171 If yes , explain briefly E . Comments of staff CAC Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART III — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ( To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above , determine whether it is substantial , large , important or otherwise significant . Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (ie . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude . If necessary , add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . ❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . Then proceed directly to the full EAF and /or prepare a positive declaration . ❑ Check this box if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Name of Lead Agency Preparer ' Signature If different from Responsible Officer) ward . Austen , Chairman Name itle of Res)ypnsib weffic!! 'jjijLead Agency -Signature of Contributing Preparer 1 41 Date : i na ure of es nsib�e Officer in Lead Agency ore � PART II - Environmental Assessment - Request for variance from • Article IV , Sect . 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 17 , 138 Honness Lane . A . Action is Unlisted . Be Action will not receive coordinated review . C Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising from the following : C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? None anticipated . Proposed action is the grant of a variance to allow construction of a single family home on a 1 . 3 + / - acre parcel which contains an existing 5 unit apartment building . No significant adverse impacts to existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production or disposal , or potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems anticipated as a result of the proposed action . C2 . Aesthetic , agriculturalF archeological , historic , o_r other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character ? None anticipated . No land currently in active agriculture is expected to be affected by the proposed action , nor are any known aesthetic , archeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources expected to be affected . No adverse impact on community or neighborhood character is expected * the proposed single family home is in character with the surrounding residential development , and consistent with the permitted uses under the Town of Ithaca zoning regulations for the parcel . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? None anticipated as a result of the proposed action . No threatened or endangered plant species or aninmals , or significant habitats , are known to exist on the site . 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 ? Grant of the variance as requested would be contrary to certain community goals and plans as officially adopted . The subject parcel is located in a R - 15 Residence District , the regulations for which allow only one single - family or one two - family dwelling on an individual lot . The parcel has on it a five - unit apartment I building constructed prior to 1968 and which does not conform to current zoning regulations . Currently there is a very small number of parcels in the Town of Ithaca which have more than one single - or two - family dwelling on them . Most of these appear to be longstanding legal nonconforming uses . Granting a variance to allow the construction of a second dwelling on the parcel may thus set an undesirable precedent for similar requests elsewhere in the Town of Ithaca . C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? None anticipated . C6 . Lona term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - 05 ? None anticipated . C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? None anticipated . D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts I s anticipated . PART III Because of the relatively small scale of the activity for which a variance is being requested a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended . However it must be noted that the grant of a variance may result in the establishment of a precedent which may facilitate similar requests for variances elsewhere in the Town of Ithaca , which together may result in a cumulatively significant adverse impact on community land use plans and goals as officially adopted . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals / — Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Acting Town Planner Review Date : March 21 , 1991 # z TRAFFIC STUDY ROGAN ' S CORNER by Lawrence P . Fabbroni , PE , LS MSCE Transportation Engineering I I ® TRAFFIC STUDY ROGAN ' S CORNER PURPOSE Rogan ' s Corner is planning to relocate to another building that will allow more work space for the existing pizza and sub elements of the food business . Since the existing business combines grocery , pizza , sub , food , and gasoline sales and since the additional space will largely adc. ress an insufficient work area for the pizza and sub business , the traffic study is based on field observations and projections therefrom rather than traditional ITE trip generation rates . TRAFFIC COUNT On December 13 , 1989 while Ithaca College and Cornell University were still in session , the peak hour volumes along State Route 96B , . at the Coddington Road - State Route 96B intersection , and turning movements into and out of Rogan ' s Corner were counted . The complete results of those observations are included in this report . On December 13 , 1989 an instore count was also conducted to determine the purpose of the sale , to check outside counts , and to show the variation of traffic over an entire business day . Since Mr . Rogan felt Saturdays were the heaviest store days , an instore count was also done da January 27 , 1990 to compare to the weekday count . The on Saturday , ed complete results of these two instore counts are also included ® in this report . TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 1 shows the pea k afternoon counts for SR96B and Rogan ' s Corner . About 60 % of Rogan ' s traffic presently enters and exits at the SR 96B driveway and about 40 % enters and exits at the Coddington Road driveway . The peak hour flow along SR96B is approximately 1150 vehicles in two directions against a service volume of 3400 vehicles in two directions for this four lane section of SR96B with turning movements under 6 % of total flow . Therefore SR 96 can accommodate present demand and present flow safely and easily . Likewise , assuming that the peak traffic in and out of the site were to increase by 24 to 500 , 24 to 50 additional entrances and exits when new seating is increased from 16 to 40 spaces for the pizza and sub operation , it is expected that 32 + max 15 ( 30 ° of the increase ) = max 47 total would exit Rogan ' s Corner toward the City of Ithaca safely , as is the present condition with unlimited sight distance to the South . It is expected that most of the increased traffic wanting to exit Rogan ' s toward Ithaca College would use Coddington Road during the peak hour . Conceivably , as many as 52 + max 35 = max 87 vehicles would then wish to turn left toward Danby from Coddington . With the two - way capacity of Coddington Road on the order of 900 to 1100 an hour , a total of 200 cars in both directions in the future is in scale with present utilization and poses no significant increase . The Coddington - SR96 intersection will operate well as a STOP intersection even if the additional maximum 50 exits generated by the Rogan ' s addition ALL chose to exit by way of Coddington Road . The. above maximu -1t1 50 % increaase is overconseervative In that the pizza and sub businesses already exist and tend to peak later in the night . In actuality with a 24 seat increase , the afternoon peak traffic would increase by 24 / 2per car x maximum 2 turnovers per hour = maximum 24 entrances and exits . A close inspection of the peak hour in - store counts shows food to be about 25 % of the store traffic during the present SR96 afternoon peak traffic . The traffic flow over a business day at Rogan ' s is still strong up until midnight and so is quite different than the variation of 24hour flow along state Route 96B . On a normal weekday the food business will peak between 930pm and 1230AM when SR96 travel is minimal . With a maximum of 40 customers in any current half hour and considering a maximum .50 % increase with the proposed building expansion and the quick turnover of the grocery and gasoline services , the proposed site plan provides more than adequate customer and employee parking while maintaining safe internal circulation . The elevation changes from SR96 and Coddington tend to break up the site and eliminate the need for traditional road setbacks by naturally separating visual and area conflicts between the site and the bordering highways . Attached you will find the State DOT AADT reports for Route 96B at the south City of Ithaca line . AADTs of 7350 , 4050 , 2450 , and 5800 are listed for 1974 , 1980119831and 1985 respectively . These counts are questionably low based on the peak hour and noon volumes observed . The six hours observed would total over 4000 vehicles . Using a peak hour factor of 9 - 10 % of the AADT , the AADT when school is in session should presently be more in the range of 11240 to 12490 . These are more consistent with the numbers tabulated along Route 96B at Prospect St . CONCLUSION The moving of the pizza and sub operations to a separate building will at most increase peak hour traffic by 50 % as the business now operates in existing cramped space and tends to peak later at night than the afternoon 5 - 6 commuter peak . The present traffic condition . operates smoothly and safely with low volumes compared to the adjacent highway capacities and with excellent entrance visibility . Even if the peak hour traffic increased by 50 % and all decided to exit by the Coddington Road driveway to State Route 96B , the Coddington Road intersection and State Route 96B would continue to operate safely and at level of service A , the highest and least congested level considered . Free flowing traffic could be expected to continue as the norm . The nature of Rogan ' s Corner multifaceted business is that a steady flow exists from before noon to midnight but the flow varies much less than the highway flow variations over the same time period . The afternoon peak is coincident with the highway peak but not additive and really appears to service the commuter traffic during those hours . Increased traffic should not be a limiting factor to expansion of this commercial corner . O�- 3 �D C!� 0 ROGRN ' 5 coRNFR cop0 s� 1 � b /= 3 o , o G� /Po C lq/�l 'S C O RV� PFiq ll( HOUR TRA FFA C CO OAVTS DAF 0me) R /3 / 989 �� r* s filar +� { - a _ Arr ` y L pw 10 1p it Ci► ..rrF , k ,} �� .� tea• � _ s is �7•- y '�" .-�s a �. .. ,. - ! - p � •rte ` �. '.ir � � _ � � -•* �°- ." t �" �,, v T ` ''�P gee• • nt ALV Aw .,i .db ' ,• x'` �` � '� x g:0.,, f �R �� r E z 41 w-,ELB '•i '. � �d� .� � ty � w•s #N� �, ,~� �°fit ' ;r,..a r.. _... ,�-. •—.�R,.<„�.,� �-aTTt�� - .- _ • f` + s va lire -. a, „! • � '.. .� Y.T.... Y _./Y:�- :.. - ► * &t _ t t ...�-y.- r. o 4 „ TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY ROGAN ' S CORNER Wednesday , December 13 , 1989 Rogan ' s Driveways Time Coddington Road Route 96B - Aurora East West In Out In Rogan Out Rogan Rogan Rogan From From To To South North South North 700 - 705 3 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 705 - 710 2 5 1 0 1 1 0 0 710 - 715 1 7 0 1 1 0 2 2 715 - 720 3 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 720 - 725 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 725 - 730 2 4 0 1 0 1 0 2 730 - 735 • 4 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 735 - 740 5 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 740 - 745 4 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 745 - 750 2 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 750 - 755 5 3 0 1 1 0 1 3 755 - 800 0 6 1 0 1 1 0 0 800 - 805 No Counts 805 - 810 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 810 - 815 3 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 815 - 820 3 4 1 0 0 1 2 1 820 - 825 3 5 1 0 0 2 0 0 825 - 830 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 830 - 835 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 835 - 840 . 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 840 - 845 4 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 845 - 850 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 850 - 855 3 9 0 0 0 3 0 0 855 - 900 6 6 0 0 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour31 52 6 3 4 13 8 5 ® TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY ROGAN ' S CORNER Wednesday , December 13 , 1989 Rogan ' s Driveways Time Coddington Road Route 96B - Aurora East West In Out In Rogan Out Rogan Rogan Rogan From From To To South North South North 1100 - 1105 13 7 0 1 2 0 1 2 1105 - 1110 7 5 0 2 3 2 0 2 1110 - 1115 4 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1115 - 1120 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1120 - 1125 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1125 - 1130 4 10 0 0 0 2 0 1 1130- 1135 4 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1135 - 1140 2 4 0 1 1 2 1 1 1140 - 1145 7 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 1145 - 1150 1 3 2 1 3 4 2 5 1150 - 1155 8 6 2 1 1 0 1 1 1155 - 1200 10 6 3 4 2 3 0 1 1200 - 1205 4 4 6 2 1 3 1 1 1205 - 1210 5 4 2 3 1 1 2 4 1210 - 1215 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1215 - 1220 7 2 3 3 3 1 0 1 ® 1220 - 1225 4 2 2 2 1 5 1 0 1225 - 1230 4 3 1 4 0 2 0 6 1230 - 1235 1 5 1 0 2 0 1 1 1235 - 1240 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 1240 - 1245 5 4 0 1 2 0 2 1 1245 - 1250 2 7 1 2 1 3 1 2 1250 - 1255 3 10 2 1 2 1 0 1 1255 - 100 7 7 2 3 2 2 0 1 Peak Hour 52 45 25 25 16 20 10 25 • TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY ROGAN ' S CORNER Wednesday , December 13 , 1989 Rogan ' s Driveways Time Coddington Road Route 96B - Aurora East West In Out In Rogan Out Rogan Rogan Rogan From From To To South North South North 400 - 405 9 7 6 1 0 1 1 2 405 - 410 7 3 3 1 1 4 1 4 410 - 415 3 6 2 2 2 2 0 3 415 - 420 4 5 5 1 2 3 1 4 420 - 425 3 3 . 4 3 1 1 0 5 425 - 430 2 6 3 3 1 1 1 3 430 - 435 3 7 3 1 1 1 1 3 435 - 440 9 6 0 1 0 1 1 1 440 - 445 2 4 1 0 2 3 0 2 445 - 450 4 7 1 2 3 4 0 1 450 - 455 5 4 4 3 0 2 2 2 455 - 500 12 4 3 3 1 2 0 2 500 - 505 6 6 3 4 0 2 2 1 505 - 510 4 8 3 2 3 4 3 4 510 - 515 5 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 515 - 520 9 8 2 3 4 4 5 2 520 - 525 1 2 4 7 2 1 2 5 525 - 530 1 3 10 2 2 3 1 2 530 - 535 0 7 2 2 1 1 0 6 535 - 540 4 1 0 7 1 5 1 3 540 - 545 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 545 - 550 2 0 1 4 1 3 2 1 550 - 555 0 2 1 0 3 3 1 2 555 - 600 1 2 0 4 3 4 1 0 Peak Hour 65 67 38 38 26 34 20 32 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY ROGAN ' S CORNER Wednesday , December 13 , 1989 Coddington Rd . & SR 96B Time Route 96B - Aurora Coddington North North South South West West to to to to to to Codd . City Codd Danby Danby City 700 - 705 6 23 2 21 4 6 705 - 710 2 24 1 9 2 3 710 - 715 1 26 10 7 3 3 715 - 720 3 18 4 19 5 1 720 - 725 2 15 8 23 2 0 725 - 730 7 32 3 22 1 2 730 - 735 3 29 0 13 1 0 735 - 740 2 35 5 24 2 2 740 - 745 0 26 2 23 1 0 745 - 750 0 35 3 31 9 1 750 - 755 5 52 2 44 1 4 755 - 800 1 52 1 78 5 3 800 - 805 2 19 1 32 1 2 805 - 810 1 37 7 21 3 0 810 - 815 7 29 2 39 0 1 815 - 820 2 28 1 24 3 .1 820 - 825 1 36 1 37 2 2 825 - 830 2 36 0 45 3 2 830 - 835 0 38 2 43 2 2 835 - 840 2 38 1 25 5 3 840 - 845 2 41 5 49 1 1 845 - 850 3 21 2 51 1 3 850 - 855 0 20 5 35 10 0 855 - 900 2 47 1 37 6 0 Peak Hour28 427 25 488 37 24 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY ROGAN ' S CORNER Wednesday , December 13 , 1989 Coddington Rd . & SR 96B Time Route 96B - Aurora Coddington North Nc, wth South South West West to to to to to to Codd City Codd Danby Danby City 1100 - 1105 8 32 4 18 3 9 1105 - 1110 2 31 0 19 1 0 1110 - 1115 1 22 3 26 0 1 1115 - 1120 0 33 3 17 2 1 1120 - 1125 1 13 1 15 0 0 1125 - 1130 4 28 3 18 3 1 1130 - 1135 3 20 0 32 3 6 1135 - 1140 4 23 2 16 1 1 1140 - 1145 5 26 4 41 1 2 1145 - 1150 4 24 0 38 2 1 1150 - 1155 3 28 0 35 5 0 1155 - 1200 8 47 9 35 5 7 1200 - 1205 3 53 3 32 2 2 1205 - 1210 3 36 4 31 1 5 1210 - 1215 2 38 4 30 0 1 1215 - 1220 2 38 2 21 1 0 1220 - 1225 3 28 6 15 0 1 1225 - 1230 2 21 3 30 3 1 1230 - 1235 1 24 1 18 2 1 1235 - 1240 2 18 0 18 2 2 1240 - 1245 1 24 2 46 6 0 1245 - 1250 2 31 5 36 4 2 1250 - 1255 1 27 4 43 9 3 1255 - 100 6 35 2 29 3 4 Peak Hour 34 385 43 349 37 25 • TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY ROGAN ' S CORNER Wednesday , December 13 , 1989 Coddington Rd . & SR 96B Time Route 96B - Aurora Coddington North North South South West West to to to to to to Codd City Codd Danby Danby City 400 - 405 1 44 2 24 5 14 405 - 410 2 55 2 27 5 1 410 - 415 2 49 0 36 5 5 415 - 420 1 33 2 46 1 4 420 - 425 0 55 2 29 1 0 425 - 430 2 43 0 32 4 4 430 - 435 3 33 1 37 8 3 435 - 440 2 61 3 29 7 9 440 - 445 4 44 1 34 2 2 445 - 450 2 54 1 40 6 2 450 - 455 5 58 2 25 2 1 455 - 500 2 54 1 40 6 2 500 - 505 8 67 2 29 7 2 505 - 510 2 63 2 36 4 3 510 - 515 3 97 0 38 6 4 515 - 520 3 53 2 33 4 1 520 - 525 0 58 0 43 5 3 525 - 530 2 55 1 25 1 1 530 - 535 0 40 2 38 2 6 535 - 540 0 39 7 37 1 2 540 - 545 2 17 0 20 0 0 545 - 550 3 50 1 45 1 2 550 - 555 1 38 1 29 0 0 555 - 600 0 41 3 23 3 0 Peak Hour 33 704 21 409 52 36 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY ROGAN ' S CORNER December 13 , 1989 In - Stare Count Time Purpose of Trip Gas Food Grocery 900 - 930A 3 4 5 930 - 1000 1 0 9 1000 - 1030 3 0 8 1030 - 1100 4 2 9 1100 - 1130 1 2 5 1130 - 1200P 1 8 14 12001230 5 9 13 1230 - 100 4 10 4 100 - 130 4 15 11 130 - 200 3 8 6 200 - 230 8 6 9 230 - 300 5 5 13 300 - 330 4 14 19 330 - 400 8 9 13 400 - 430 7 1 13 430 - 500 9 2 9 500 - 530 . 12 8 20 530 - 600 2 8 17 600 - 630 4 5 7 630 - 700 3 12 28 700 - 730 4 8 3 730 - 800 2 4 13 800 - 830 3 3 15 830 - 900 5 3 15 900 - 930 8 2 18 930 - 1000 5 23 3 1000 - 1030 2 8 5 1030 - 1100 2 9 2 1100 - 1130 8 13 .1 1130 - 1200 4 18 5 1200 1230A 11 14 0 1230 - 100 2 3 0 100 - 130 7 1 2 130 - 200 1 2 0 Daily Tot 151 231 311 Grand Total 693 Peak. Hours 300 - 400 500 - 600 67 Customers Total ® TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY ROGAN ' S CORNER Saturday , January 27 , 1990 In - Store Count Time Purpose of Trip Gas Food Grocery 800 - 830 3 0 830 - 900 2 0 5 900 - 930A 2 0 6 930 - 1000 4 1 4 1000 - 1030 8 0 7 1030 - 1100 3 0 5 1100 - 1130 6 1 13 1130 - 1200 2 2 5 1200 - 1230 9 13 20 1230 - 100 5 10 16 100 - 130 6 2 10 130 - 200 2 6 10 200 - 230 3 5 16 230 - 300 7 9 23 300 - 330 3 16 22 330 - 400 2 0 10 400 - 430 5 8 16 430 - 500 5 8 16 ® 500 - 530 3 10 16 530 - 600 2 .11 16 600 - 630 1 10 26 630 - 700 1 16 23 700 - 730 3 4 25 730 - 800 7 .7 30 800 - 830 3 4 31 830 - 900 4 4 30 900 - 930 4 3 19 930 - 1000 2 8 15 1000 - 1030 2 6 24 1030 - 1100 3 12 33 1100 - 1130 4 5 18 1130 - 1200 3 12 17 1200 - 1230 1 8 15 1230 - 100 2 10 15 100 - 130 1 13 3 130 - 200 0 5 2 Daily Tot 126 229 562 Grand Total 917 Peak Hours 730 - 830 Total Customers 82 1000 - 1100 Total Customers 80 • �II;�''•`sef:k!y; +moi?. . ; . '' .r . � E: i - I I. . . a.. . r a. r F • ?.,,Z 'rr-• Moll I y �� tn C) EiGO \O H � � LuX 0C Ors mrTcoo « tD. [DONTtpmrnna * w am a ors NT r U) Mm0 + r m CD MM a � nCV) aa + M a . o N O tY MID to M a in to M ,D tD W M M w to n tD:_ n M I } M1r nr M1 M1M1 n n ••- r Ann "n M1M1 nn O. O 0' 0 0 00 0 00000 .0 .0 00 00 ' F- HON OO N 0L N wmomoww 0R w I (A, 0 M1 M CD N M f` n T om ^ m .N -O m : N n W ' � W a (%4 ID NN N 0co . N . TT -T TN r M I z cr DDrr IV Ln mann r nM1rtotD .Om On co .N G r nM1 nn nnrnn n f% .00 tr CID .n • M1 M1 U . 00 00 00000' O 0000000 00- _ 00 FM- f- NO In Ln 00to00 !n OOmmo Om (D- N ' ICOM to ti) O m m a M If) m M ^ T m n T 0 N m-us W .N D W -.a arn . Cl ^ Ninnrm N - TT rrr a M. W ¢ . 1� 0 rrto 0000 • m 00corrmM00N r0" OT } M1 co M1 n CO CO a0 m CO. M1 m m M1 f` M1 m w m m m 40D ' CD -m' i 00 00 00000 O 000000000 . 0•.0" . 00 11- F- NO 00 n0LOO 0 N 00tn00u) cva- o .m . aO . I W0 , MM am Nn Oma a OTOOa -m . coMID . Mtn , n •O r W a Ma NT Nr! 'anln N NT ^ T .•• T I a I 1 tr 0 M Cl) N M M M Mr) ^ ^ rs M M M M N a 'M a s •T-fn a M M z } W M1 m oo m Co W W m aD m Q) m CD m m m W �GD .aD COaD pw . m O 00 00 00000 00000000000000000 0t• F !n0 O1n ONNON In OO OOmina0aONeNO .a .. Nin Dura Mao M0 0aa a WrO 00aDN- inMM10NtDNm . aa) WC M0 NN Ma N01n minT TT T N r N CAa HN 00 00 200000 000 Co000o0000. 000 < 00 a V1 0 Q a 'O a N w m N m *• IM W N N fl0 , GD OD M to SD n m N l8 tD O n CCS CO' JWO UN "O d TT YTNrIDM 0 M1ar H r N 3 : .T. ,. W t' a Z J Ic . . Z ' 02 a N a O N O N us to M a sr z .z m _ J 0 m ' }IML W } w } 0 z } J W W } Z Z J z m F J H J 2 = H 0 Z ' C oa } u) tuo OOZ W 7 . L) Q U m U > IZ•I 0 J z O r^ Z O } J U U O Z DEC O mJ UY } Yi u6.4 MU J Ua0 � H4 ZfUNJ UZ ' m # - O ' f- Ow > < < HF- rr .Z . qct M1 0 - z Jm yrsao a >- FJ0. . J .+ O . = '.m zW miu a u au 000: v) 0a ' 1 0j u Lliz M N tD av, MC N M Goo ► oz ' mpO < zC40 c4 L) . mrZ . 0 Lnz O N � f acoZtf)LU N �/r� Zr4N Z (DOY Z M1U ZtDW at 0) 44aNerve ZTTtna1- Mr .Rw a- co a W )- Or Om M0. 0 > ^ a f` aZ Zr U rr CA w Z w O = Vl 0 7 J O M a' In Ix . - r T r pr a O ^ . W 0 � h- t.7 !-• - C: 0 0 a' K M- 'H . 0 H H Z O 0 fX C H U ' F Z IX M M H wM .W . 0 JJ .�. . N WUC Wa' u .l- Wr• Uw �' . Wa & WN WU ..UAZ . < NW 'U, UUaU0 WOC ' m tY I & Q� sZOr � OkoN OMm 0 (D. Wev m00OMbM OID InDn0M 0M •- tDrn NNTpr T • 0r u � ^ 0inN IV 4w O OONr) Darr 0iDN ' 0aaa . a � W W r u Ott nN ^ O ID ^ M cn !n 00 wAt0T 0L) NN NOD MPm TN O V MNOTN Nf` 0 Jz _ 00 000 00 000rnOM aNv p LU T T N N r T r T T T T T T T 00 00 Ob0N C4 ZWY IAN Ln u) ED CD ED WM 0000000 OO O LO MMM CDco momommm OO? Q) QM) U = Z wW tom LDw � nn nnnnnNT mrn co 0) mmm mm mmmmmmm mm m WZ n0 � N f07Q � co tDtom nm NTmMNNNtoNco Z ►J+ O nn Lr) CD `a M1OM Orn T Mm M1 to M1m 00 ^ ON o0 T O N In O a N l0 In (D M N N O V7 m a In OO 0.0T O 000 00 �- NNMMMatTa ^ .- W f a r T T " T r ^. N T N N a . 00 00 � o0 0 000 000000000000 00 Go W W � m m( ai3 mmO n) mO m 0 ED LD iDtDtD (D m0) nnnnM1nnM1n mmmmmmmmm nr mm � rffl �sl \ — It 4 IF 40 4P ell. pp 511 A40 1 r � • ' � }' : e i s ii t • n, 1tk OF13 00s ' , r r : r itk RIF r lFl c r L ' p 7z O 1p' J r ed 09 ri ri1 -3 l • • 2 = 1 -�- �� rot • ON ry a� r . N j: ; r •.�a. • N • ai ; SrCi • _ '• 4 e 14 IL N it ai • i 2 9++ + • { r yy C r V � II� • ' LW - {� Q u • E. J • r .' r a SII • ' a V i i 1 A 3 Z Isti a i .. rl; . . Va V I s, , .. Li ,�.: t� pp it Id ,lFFFFFF , l Je+ Ithaca, New York 14850 I HACA 607-274-3225 Physical Plant September 14 , 11' 40 Andy Frost Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca 126 E . Seneca Str- eet: Ithaca , r�l . y . RE : Rogan ' s Corner Dear Ni r- . rrnst. I am lr, r- i ting :) n behalf of Jim ar, d Ju _ ie Rogan and the expan _� ion of their business , Rogan ' s Corner . I have worked at Ithaca College for over eight years and frequent Rogan ' s Co :- ner on .a daily basis . In the years that I have been a patron of the store I have come to appreciates the service that Jim and Julie provide to the college community and the residents of south hi- ll . They run a very clean , safe and responsible operation that provides benefits and meets the needs of a great number of people . Without a doubt the , ' ' proof is in the pudding " as most any time you go in the store they are always busy . They treat their customers well and I feel they are the kind of people that have the best interest of the community at heart . 1 do support the construction of their new building as I firmly believe that: their- is a demand for it . I also know that Jim and Julie have done their homework and would be providing a business that will more Effectively meet people ' s needs . There is very little in the way of business or) the south hill. and their expansion would be a good start to making the south hill a more serviceable area for its residents . Sincerely , Richard Couture Superintendent , Custodial Services To : September 10 , 1990 Planning Board of the Town o Ithaca 126 E . Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Board of Zoning Appeals 126 E . Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 RE : ROCAN ! S CORNER To Whom it may concern , As the former owner of Southside Fuel Company and the owner of the property located next to the current site of Rogan ' s Pizza and Subs I would . like to forward some comments to youI concerning the proposed construction of a new building for Rogan ' s . First , let me say that I am totally in favor of such an under - taking . Icy observations over the many years of assocation with Mr . and Mrs : Rogan leads me to believe that a new building to house an on premises Pizza and Sandwich shop would be very beneficial to the area . There are currently a number of businesses in the area that would benefit from this style of restaurant , not to mention . the proximity to both Ithaca. College and Cornell . I would also like to inject at this point that Jim and Julie Rogan have been model business people in the management of not only their personnel but also in keeping the appearance of the property clean and neat at all times . Again , I am in support of this proposed addition and if there is any further assistance I can be in helping your board come to a favorable decision please feel free to contact me at any time . Regards , Harofd A . Fish , Jr . EXHIBIT A The Applicant suggests that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/ or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP in that : On May 16 , 1984 , the applicant received unanimous approval from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals to construct and use a one - story building on the subject premises for the consumption of " food goods such as pizza , sandwiches , ice cream and/ or the delivery of same . " At the time the variance was granted , the Board took Notice that the new business would replace an unsightly series of shacks that had previously occupied the premises in question . On June 24 , 1987 , the applicant sought approval from the . Zoning Board of Appeals for a second and separate building to be used as a " laundromat " and a " pizza and sub delivery service " with on premises consumption of the same all at the same address of 825 Danby Road . During the course of the Hearing , information presented to the Board from members of the Planning Department expressly noted that there was " an unusual circumstance here of a fair amount of student population with certain needs " and that -. it would be unrealistic to provide a meaningful service withdut the granting of the appeal . As a result , the Board again unanimously granted the appeal and in so doing expressly noted : ( 1 ) That there was a " substantial need for this kind of proposed business use in this area " ; ( 2 ) That the particular lot was " ideally and almost uniquely appropriate to the proposed use in an area close to the College and to housing units which would benefit by it " ; ( 3 ) That the location of the buildings " would seem to impose little , if any , hardship on either of the neighbors " if ^ the proposed buildings were permitted to be located so close to •d the respective lot lines ; . ,c i ( 4 . ) That there, was an " unnecessary hardship to the applicant because of the uses permitted in Business ' A ' Districts " ; and as a result found that ( 5 ) " The proposed construction and the use of the northeasterly building , as shown on the site plan for the pizza operation and laundromat " would be approved subject to certain �40conditions that have since been fully complied with by the Applicant . ji - 3. . a • �•il ' n Ji . ,• 1 � The need to service both the College , student , faculty and administrative personnel , and in addition thereto , the surrounding neighborhood has progressively increased over the years to the point where it has become necessary to provide a more specialized facility to . fulfill the needs of the community at large . In that regard , it is suggested that the same elements that caused the Board to make a finding of " unnecessary hardship " on June 24 , 1987 , exist today and that the concerns regarding the Applicant ' s ability to provide such services both at the present time and for the future remain the same as well . The proposed facility will be reasonably adapted for the use in question and will be totally consistent with the character of the neighborhood . Expert evidence and testimony will be offered at the time of both Hearings which will aptly demonstrate that such use will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or : to the " traffic load upon public streets " as required by our ordinance . Without a new facility , the applicant will not be able to continue to service the needs of the community in a competent , adequate or productive way . Rogan ' s Corner - - New Building - 1 - 825 Danby Road Site Plan Approval Planning Board , March 5 , 1991 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Rogan ' s Corner - - New Building 825 Danby Road Site Plan Approval Planning Board , March 5 , 1991 MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a 2 , 048 + sq . ft . building with basement , to be located at Rogan ' s Corner , 825 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 40 - 4 - 2 , Business District " A " . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review . The Zoning Board of Appeals has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review for any variances which this action may be contingent upon . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on March 5 , 1991 , has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form , an environmental assessment prepared by the Town Planning Department , a site plan. entitled " Proposed New Building at Rogan ' s Corner , Rte . 9 :6B & Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca - Scheme 2A " , by Robert A . Boehlecke Jr . , Architect , dated July 16 , 1990 , and revised September 18 , 1990 , December 18 , 1990 , and March 4 , 1991 , and other application materials for this submission . 4 . The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for this action as proposed . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Langhans , Smith , Hoffmann , Aronson . Nay - None . • CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . . l D Y _ Rogan ' s Corner - - New Building - 2 - 825 Danby Road Site Plan Approval Planning Board , March 5 , 1991 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Rogan ' s Corner - - New Building 825 Danby Road Site Plan Approval Planning Board , March 5 , 1991 MOTION by Mr . Stephen Smith , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a 2 , 048 ± sq . ft . building with basement , to be located at Rogan ' s Corner , 825 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 40 . 4 - 2 , Business District " A " . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in environmental review , has , on March 5 , 1991 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearings on February 19 , 1991 and March 5 , 1991 , has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form , an environmental assessment prepared by the Town Planning Department , a site plan entitled " Proposed New Building at Rogan ' s Corner , Rte . 96B : & Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca - Scheme . 2A " , by Robert A . Boehlecke Jr . , Architect , dated . July 16 , 1990 , and revised September 18 , 1990 , . December 18 , 1990 , and March 4 , 1991 , and other application materials for this submission . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Site Plan Approval for the proposed new building at Rogan ' s Corner , as proposed on the site plan entitled " Proposed New Building at Rogan ' s Corner , Rte . 96B & Coddington Road , .Town of . Ithaca - Scheme 2A11 , by Robert A . Boehlecke Jr . , : Architect , dated July 16 , 1990 , and revised September 18 , 1990 , December 18 , 1990 , and March 4 , 1 .991 , contingent upon approval of all required variances by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals including a variance for three parking spaces in the front yard and imodification of the previous variance to permit .44 seats in the pizza and sub shop , and the following additional conditions : 1 , that any use of the basement area for any activity other than storage as proposed by the applicant be subject to site plan approval ; � Rogan ' s Corner - - New Building - 3 - 825 Danby Road Site Plan Approval Planning Board , March 5 , 1991 2 . the approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department of the final landscape plan , and 3o the approval by the Town Planner and Chairperson of the Planning Board of the final revised site plan as submitted to the meeting this evening ( March 5 , 1991 ) . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Langhans , Smith , Hoffmann , Aronson . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Nancy M . Puller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . March 8 , 1991 . • 0�49 1 . r R ® State Environmental Quality Review : PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED NEW BUILDING FOR ROGAN ' S CORNER Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Planning Board Location : 825 Danby Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 40 - 4 - 2 Staff Recommendation : Based on review . . of the project as proposed , including completion of Part II of the Long Environmental Assessment Form ( attached ) , a negative declaration of environmental significance is recommended for the above - referenced project . Given the scale and design of the proposed project , the proposed uses and activities associated with it , and its location , no significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from this project are anticipated . Date : February 12 , 1991 Reviewer : George R . Frantz Acting Town Planner GRF / nf attachment bio