Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1991-06-12 HUD TOWN OF ITHACA Town of Ithaca Date / 1 Zoning Board of Appeals June 12 , 1991 Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 12 , 1991 PRESENT : Edward Austen , Edward King , Joan Reuning , Robert Hines , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer / Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Assistant Town Planner George Frantz . ABSENT : Pete Scala , OTHERS : Maureen McKenna , Doria Higgins , Attorney William Seldin , Jagat Sharma , Om Gupta , Doreen Schriner , Shirley Valenza , Attorney Judith Rossiter , William Paleen , Albert Wright , Attorney Shirley Egan . Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 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 Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF THE WALDORF SCHOOL OF THE FINGER LAKES , APPELLANT , MAUREEN MCKENNA , APPLICANT , REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME LIMITATION AUTHORIZED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON JUNE 13 , 1990 , 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 . SAID TEMPORARY CLASSROOM HAD ORIGINALLY RECEIVED AUTHORIZATION FOR USE FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON NOVEMBER 30 , 1988 UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . THE CURRENT AUTHORIZATION FOR USE EXPIRES AUGUST 1 , 1991 . Ms . Maureen McKenna , Director of Administration and Development for the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes , spoke to the Board and explained that Inlet Valley Trust owns the building and grounds and is in the process of turning ownership over to the school and that process should be completed by July 1 . Ms . McKenna stated that their request is to continue to use the trailer as a classroom on one side and as a music room on the other . She said that they would like to have a three - year period in which to work toward expanding their facility , at which time they would like not to have the trailer at all . Their enrollment right now is 99 students at two locations ; there are 77 students at this site , with 8 grades in the school . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals June 12 , 1991 In response to Mrs . Reuning ' s question about the longevity of mobile homes , Mr . Frost stated that the Town does fire safety inspections annually . He referred to a letter from Architect Thomas Kline , dated November 28 , 1990 , stating that the mobile home is structurally sound . The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Chairman Austen read from Part III of the SEAF , which was signed by George Frantz on June 12 , 1991 . The entire SEAF is attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes requesting an extension of the time limitation authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 13 , 1990 , 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 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance . A vote on the environmental assessment resulted as follows : Ayes - Reuning , King , Austen , Hines . Nays - None . The Motion was carried unanimously . MOTION By Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an extension of the time limitation for the use of the temporary classroom at the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes until August 31 , 1994 , with the following findings and condition : 1s that there is no impact with the use of this building on any neighboring property . ® Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals June 12 , 1991 2 * that no one appeared in opposition to the request . 3 * that with the extenuating circumstances of the financial situation of the School , it seems appropriate that the Board allow this educational organization to have this extension . 4 * that there be an inspection by a New York State licensed Architect that would occur by October 1992 or sooner as to the fire safety of the mobile home classroom . 5 * that this extension is being granted with the understanding that the School will shortly own the land and the building , and hopefully , will be able to provide additional space within the School building itself at some future date . A vote on the resolution resulted as follows . Ayes - Reuning , Hines , Austen , King . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF OM GUPTA , APPELLANT , REQUESTING MODIFICATION OF AN AUTHORIZATION GRANTED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON MARCH 14 , 1990 , UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE EXTENSION OF A NON - CONFORMING BUILDING / LOT LOCATED AT 940 EAST SHORE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 18 - 5 - 5 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , SAID AUTHORIZATION WAS FOR ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE TO BE CONSTRUCTED 8 . 5 FEET IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION AND 3 FEET IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION FROM AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE . APPELLANT REQUESTS PERMISSION TO EXTEND THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION AN ADDITIONAL 2 FEET 8 INCHES TO THE SOUTH SIDE AND AN ADDITIONAL 12 INCHES TO THE WEST BEYOND THE PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED EXTENSION DISTANCES . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ' MARCH 14 , 1990 APPROVAL CONTAINED A CONDITION RESTRICTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTSIDE WOOD DECK TO 644 SQUARE FEET FOR WHICH APPELLANT IS ALSO REQUESTING MODIFICATION FOR A LARGER DECK . Chairman Austen stated to Mr . Gupta that there is not a full Board tonight in case he would like to have his Appeal postponed until the next meeting . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals June 12 , 1991 Attorney William Seldin spoke to the Board , representing Mr . Om Gupta . He referred to four drawings of the property and asked that they be made a part of the record . ( At the end of the case , the drawings were given to Mr . Frost ) , Attorney Seldin also presented photographs of the property in question . He asked that the photos be made part of the record . ( At the end of the case , he retained the photos ) . Attorney Seldin explained Mr . Gupta ' s position since the last time they were before the Board in March 1990 . He has married and now has two step - children , therefore , he has a need for another bedroom and a second bathroom . Attorney Seldin presented two letters in support of the proposed project from Janet Jonson , dated June 10 , 1991 and from Cora Sepos , dated June 12 , 1991 . The two letters are attached hereto as Exhibits # 3 and # 4 . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . ® Attorney Judith Rossiter , representing Ms . Shirley Valenza , spoke to the Board . She referred to the fire hazard by reducing the space between the homes of Ms . Valenza and Mr . Gupta . Attorney Rossiter stated that in regard to the issue of the boundary lines between the two properties , that particular boundary line was recently the subject of litigation after the Board ' s hearing in March 1990 . Mr . Gupta sued Ms . Valenza for an alleged encroachment on the property . Attorney Rossiter stated that she represented Ms . Valenza in that matter and she has , for the Board ' s consideration , an order that was signed by Judge Rose on April 8 , 1991 , in which he clearly established the boundary line in favor of Ms . Valenza . Attorney Rossiter further stated that the applicant has not shown any unnecessary hardship in this case . Attorney Rossiter said that when Mr . Gupta purchased this property she is sure he was well aware of the limitations placed on it because of its nature of being a non - conforming use . She would suggest that because at the time he was very ably represented by Attorney Barney . Attorney Rossiter stated that last year this Board authorized Mr . Gupta to build a deck that was about 630 square feet . She said that unless her math is off , the dimensions that Attorney Seldin mentioned , 28 1 / 2 ' x 23 ' would result in a square footage of about 655 . 5 square feet . • Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals June 12 , 1991 Ms . Doria Higgins , 2 Hillcrest Drive , read the following statement into the record regarding the matter before the Board . " I ' m an acquaintance of Shirley Valenza ' s but I am not here as an acquaintance of hers but as someone who believes in the democratic process and what the United States Constitution calls justice for all and what New York State Town Laws section on variances call substantial justice . In my opinion , both the democratic process and substantial justice were disregarded by you last year when you granted Om Gupta , Mrs . Valenza ' s contiguous neighbor , a zoning variance so he could enlarge to within 12 feet of her house , to obstruct her view to the north . It seems to me not only substantial justice but common sense in considering whether or not to variance that you consider not only the rights of the applicant but also the rights of those who will be affected by such variance . It is my understanding that according to your own records you did ® not consider at all the effect which granting such a variance to Mr . Gupta would have upon Mrs . Valenza . Furthermore , Mr . Gupta was aware of the zoning regulations before he bought the house . This morning I talked again to Diane Griffith , the former owner of Mr . Gupta ' s house . She told me that Mr . Gupta bought the house against the advice of his lawyer , John Barney . And she was told that one of the reasons Mr . Barney advised Mr . Gupta not to buy the house was just exactly because he would be running into difficulties with zoning regulations . Mrs . Griffith told me that , in fact , she was persuaded to reduce the purchase price of her house for that reason . Now I read what I have just read to you to Mrs . Griffith this afternoon after speaking with her this morning and she agreed to the accurracy of my quotes of her . So if Mr . Gupta is now claiming hardship or practical difficulty as a reason for you to continue to grant him even more variances , you should keep in mind that these are self - imposed hardships and self - imposed practical difficulties and self - imposed against the advice of his own lawyer . According to case histories in New York State Town Law , a self - created hardship does not constitute reason for granting a variance . I wish Mr . Gupta and his wife and the two children well but not at • the expense of other people ' s welfare . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals June 12 , 1991 Mrs . Valenza ' s welfare has already been harmed by variances you granted Mr . Gupta last year . Please do not continue to disregard her welfare to , to disregard justice for all by granting Mr . Gupta further variances which would further diminish the financial value of her house and further diminish her pleasure and comfort and privacy in living there . I wanted to say , in reading these case histories , it pointed out that when a non - conforming structure is destroyed , there is no reason why , legally there is no argument that ' it should then be rebuilt and a fact that there was a house there is no reason for an extension to be granted at all . The other thing I wanted to say , maybe I should just have said this to Om privately , but maybe the house is just too small for a family of 4 . There is a very speedy road that they can ' t cross without endangering themselves , there are no kids in the neighborhood to play with . Maybe no matter how many variances you grant , this is not the house for a family of 4 . Thank you very much . " ® Town Attorney Barney made a statement for the record that at the time of Mr . Gupta ' s purchase of this property , he did represent him but his firm is not representing Mr . Gupta at this time . Discussion followed between Mr . King and Mr . Hines as to why the Board is having to listen to all this discussion when there does not seem to be anything new since the Board ' s decision on this matter in March 1990 . Ms . Doreen Schriner , 940A East Shore Drive , spoke to the Board in favor of Mr . Gupta ' s proposed project . Attorney Seldin stated the reasons why the Board should grant Mr . Gupta ' s request . He stated that before we require Mr . Gupta to move someplace , if the question is what happened between 1990 and today , he ' s here to suggest that what happened is that Mr . Gupta seized on the plans , and attempted to develop plans around what this Board had granted . That he came to a conclusion , and this applies to him or anyone else who follows , there is no reason why this structure can ' t accommodate a family . Attorney Seldin asked , are we to say then , that because of the present state of affairs , that this is going to be for one individual , unmarried person , from now til time immemorial ? He asked if he was unreasonable to suggest that the present structure cannot accommodate a family ? Is it unreasonable to suggest that having looked at the parameters and ® what was granted , that to want an additional two feet so he can change a hallway into decent living space , really adversely impacts ® Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals June 12 , 1991 on Shirley Valenza and the quality of her life and her living experience opposed to what Mr . Gupta is concerned with here and what the Board had in mind . After further discussion , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals deny and hereby does deny the request of Mr . Om Gupta for modification of an authorization granted by the Board on March 14 , 1990 for the extension of a non - conforming building / lot located at 940 East Shore Drive , with the following findings : 1e that the variance that was granted last year on the basis of evidence received by the Board at that time is in place , and , if anything , there has been a diminution of ® space by reason of Judge Rose ' s decision which not only gives the Valenza property the line defined by that order but also gives an easement for egress and ingress to make repairs . 29 that the appellant has failed to show any circumstances which have occurred with respect to the property since the date of the action by this Board of a new or unusual nature , which either were not known or could not have been known to him at the time that he made his prior application . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows . Ayes - Hines , Reuning , Austen , King . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . • • Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals June 12 , 1991 The next Appeal heard by the Board was the following . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM MAY 23 , JUNE 13 , AND JULY 11 , 1990 ) OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANT , ALBERT L . WRIGHT , ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES , AGENT , REQUESTING MODIFICATION OF THE SPECIAL APPROVAL GRANTED FOR MAPLEWOOD RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON APRIL 19 , 1989 , TO PERMIT THE RETENTION OF AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON THE SITE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED , AND , TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE LAUNDRY / COMMON BUILDING AND ONE PAVILION WHEREAS TWO NEW LAUNDRY / COMMON BUILDINGS WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED . THE REQUEST IS MADE UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . MAPLEWOOD RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY IS LOCATED BETWEEN MAPLE AVENUE AND MITCHELL STREET ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 63 - 2 - 1 , - 2 , - 31 - 14 , AND - 10 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 . Mr . William Paleen , Director of the Department of Residence Life at Cornell University , spoke to the Board regarding the need to retain the warehouse building at the Maplewood Residential Community . He stated that the building in question has been well utilized in the past year for a variety of purposes . Those ® purposes for the most part have been complementary to the positive experience that the residents have had this year . It has been used as a support facility in terms of services to those residents , both directly and indirectly . Mr . Paleen stated that they have not developed the building to the extent that its potential certainly offers in terms of being as much a place where students living there could use it in terms of actual personal storage . He said that there is clearly a need and it is something that , in discussion with representative groups of residents , they confirm is something they would value and support . Mr . Paleen said that the issue , when raised , particularly with the student staff who have lived in the project , and with some of the leadership of the resident group , informal as it is , have responded affirmatively in terms of the University ' s request . He said that he cannot represent that that is something that has been surveyed ; they have not . However , he believes it has been a non - issue for people . It simply has not provoked any question but when the University has raised it , knowing that they had this issue to resolve , they have gotten consistent , positive responses to the proposed uses and appreciation for the uses that it presently serves . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals June 12 , 1991 Mr . Paleen reminded that Board that the building is about 7 , 500 square feet and in excellent condition . It provides dry , safe space for a variety of service purposes . He stated that at this time about one - third of the building is being used for staging storage . He explained that that is to be able to place items that the department needs to store in a staging way in anticipation of taking quantities of material away to be repaired , upholstered , etc . Mr . Paleen explained that the building could be used for bicycle storage by the students during the winter months . Graduate students would also be able to store their stuff there while they are away from the University on a short - term basis . Mr . Paleen , in closing , stated to the Board that there are four things to be focused on in terms of the implications of that building not continuing to be there . Most importantly is the loss of direct and in some ways , indirect service to the residents . Secondly , is the loss of service to the department . The University does use the facility and uses it effectively but the in and out traffic has been well under one trip a week for that purpose . Mr . Paleen stated that thirdly is the issue of environmental impact . To remove that facility which is serviceable , which has real purposes that it can be adapted to serve that community , and if it is demolished and removed , we will have a very substantial impact in terms of putting that material in a landfill . In addition , the building is a significant asset . The building is worth $ 300 , 000 . If the building were to be demolished and removed , the estimated cost would be $ 50 , 000 . Mr . Paleen further stated that if the University did not continue to have the benefit of that facility , the residents again would have an adverse impact because the University would , by necessity , have to use some of Building # 1 , the Community Center , for service support and that would diminish the recreational space that building affords , which this year has become very intensely used and very effectively used in support of the very fine kind of community support that has taken place there . Mr . Paleen presented a blown - up photo of the building and the area to the Board . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Paleen if there were any notices posted at the Maplewood Community about this meeting . Mr . Paleen responded , no , there were not . ® Assistant Town Planner George Frantz reiterated to the Board essentially the concerns that he brought up last year . He stated that last year when Cornell presented the site plan for Maplewood ® Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals June 12 , 1991 Apartments to the Town Planners , a number of things made it extremely attractive , one of those things being the elimination of the semi - industrial uses in that area . He said that the quonset but sits on the largest piece of contiguous flat open space in the project . Mr . Frantz stated that it is true that 52 % of the project is open space in that it is not covered by buildings or parking lots or other types of pavement . However , much of the site has very steep slopes on it , a portion of it is wooded , and very little of it is flat and useable land for recreational use by the residents . Mr . Frantz presented an aerial photo of the area , which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 5 . Mr . Frantz also expressed concern about vehicles being parked at the site of the building . He stated that it is a very dangerous obstruction to drivers coming from the north . Mr . Paleen , in response to Mr . Frantz ' concern , stated that as far as the traffic and the notion of that as a thoroughfare , it is a parking area and intentionally in the site plan , there are two decided changes in the texture and the elevation to convey that it is not a throughway . Mr . King , on the matter of no notices being posted for the residents , stated that this is not a small item . He feels that the community immediately affected by this are the residents of Maplewood . He stated that there have been three public hearings on this matter and even though the hearings have been published in the Ithaca Journal , he thinks that the residents of Maplewood should have been notified of the hearings . Discussion followed regarding the residents being notified and who should be responsible for the notification . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn this matter until July 24 , 1991 , with the understanding that the applicant will prepare and present to Mr . Frost a proposed notice on 8 1 / 2 " x 11 " paper , which will clearly state what the proposal is and how it has changed from the original hearing . Such notice shall be posted and maintained on both bulletin boards in the community building is by the University and they will deliver a copy of the notice to each unit in the Maplewood Community at least 10 days before the scheduled hearing so the residents are aware that Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals June 12 , 1991 there will be a public hearing and that the Board invites their views on the subject , and further RESOLVED , that the University shall , at the meeting on July 24 , present the photographs that they have presented to the Board at tonight ' s meeting . After discussion , a vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Hines , Austen , Reuning . Nays - None . The Motion to adjourn the matter carried unanimously . Adjournment Upon motion , the meeting adjourned at 9 : 15 p . m . Connie J . Fi0lcomb ® Recording Secretary AP Edward Austen , Chairman -iC=) r 1 �- . _J _ K � I r�JEH o. F=� CI - 1 I TQC T �l X28 w' . MAIN ST . P . OBOX '1084 (DRYphN NY "13053 ( 60 -7 ) 8aa - 9 '7G0 November 28 , 1990 Mr , Andrew Frost Code Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Re : Temporary Trailer at Waldorf School Dear Mr . Frost . I have investigated the structural condition of the temporary classroom trailer at the request of Maureen McKenna of the Wal - dorf School . The trailer appears to be in sound structural condition . The floors and walls show no signs of structural -stress or failure : The trailer has been in place for approximately two years and there - is no evidence of uneven foundation settling . The struc - ture seems adequate for the current use . Please call if you have any questions . Very truly yours , dpksl Thomas J . Kline Architect CC * Maureen McKenna , Waldorf School 1 . Rev . 10 / 90 Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART 1 — Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) 1 . Applicant / Sponsor : 2 . Project Name : MDcJ) ff&J G . I 'A c v--OkWk I \N kLIDOZF7 �� L o. . 4 kx, . Pa LA 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map ) : 85 F(\) E NMI L [ 1721vE- � i� f PICA , t3 l I 4�B5-1) Tax Parcel Numb ?r : 4 . Is Proposed Action : NEW EXP ANS ION MOD IF IC AT ION / ALTER AT ION 041-E Yv ) CJ 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose , present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items ) : Q V�jT E r7 >JS l DIJ D C OCG U PkA.YL� PE7 eM 17 �r itM PD TE 2 ov�t6 tNlk LL. PcPP2U( ED UDv . ( �T " UCS F4 kjca uST 31 , 19 9 p E) 'r :TN DtD 10 J00 E Y2 L)( ccvc� � sT 31 19 9 I w ITS 1�7� 1S1L71 �S • M.D(31LE WI I 1 `D 12. ' K / 1,L P2oV l5l bIJS �c� E J�Eel�) MET-. E'�QvEhT G�LUi�ftNC � '[11 D1 1-< kt 1L``�T 31 ( Attach separate sheet ( s ) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project . ) i mss �6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0- 5 yrs) 1 Acre (6 - 10 yrs ) Acres 010 yrs ) Acres 7 . How is the Land Zoned Presently ? ►2 - 30 ! 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES NO If no , describe conflict briefly 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road ? YES NO Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES E] NO a 10 . What is�the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? glesidential Commercial 7 Industrial 7 Agriculture F Park / Forest /Open Space E] Other Please describe : 11 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : STS lJ • — T�Et'� �7T o f '112�dJr�Po r "1i aJ — PEAL c4 PA<uL_ yc> NC, E 03IE-) 3 - 43 � � PL--12M> -r - 3z316' 12 . Does anq aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES [a NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . AS A F3D�l C I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOVLEDGE Applicant / Sponsor Name ( Print or Type ) : NW0 Mc,L- EA) QA Signature : #a, Date : ^' " � 4- 1 99 ! U PART 11 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be oom leted by the Town of Ithaca • Use attachments as necessary ) A . Does proposed act n exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES NO 0 If yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF , B . Will proposed actio receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? YES E] NO ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) C . Could proposed action result in an adverse effects ects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible ) Cl . 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 ATTACHED C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C 1 - C5 ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED ® C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly : SED ATTACHED D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? i ES F1 NO If yes , explain briefly : E . Comments of staff 21 CAC Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART I I I - DETERMI NATION OF SIGNI FICANCE ( 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 . FCheck 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 HOARD OF APPEALS Name of Lead Agency ard Austen , Chairman Preparer 's Si§nature If different from Responsible Officer) v . Na itle of Resp Bible icer i Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer i nature of Res on ible fficer in Le d A enc Date : PART II - Environmental Assessment - Extension of Approval to Site Temporary Mobile Classroom , Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes . A . Action is unlisted . B . 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 . The proposed action is the extension of an approval - granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow placement of a temporary mobile classroom unit at the Waldorf School location . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or ® other natural or cultural resources , . or community or neighborhood character ? None anticipated . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? None anticipated . 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 ? None anticipated . C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? None anticipated . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified . in C1 - 05 ? • None anticipated . i ® 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 ? None anticipated . PART III A .negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the proposed action due to its location , size , and temporary nature . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Asst . Town Planner Review Date : June 12 , 1 .991 �J L_ F 4r: , 9e� l� l6tv-,�, 01 J;a�� ,CeL,� 93 17n4l"e, 17146t �• ,� '{i�•dt:li.DY' � '^l: ` X71�_lJ �•'T•' 'C! tA /T �� "� ; ILI low > > i 14 ,�•1a p :i n OF IT �4SE 9I3 L E %R � a I • ' j �'• l 1 Kul/.3/T � .=G,v�.+✓G /3p�.,'' ' 6F ��'/'Ef�LS G�i2�9/ �• = Soo ' ... _ � � �S yr t.