Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1992-06-24 P!L® TOWN OF ITHACA Date - 1 a 9d 111 . TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk ofildOD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 24 , 1992 THE FOLLOWING APPEALS WERE HEARD BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON JUNE 24 , 1992 : APPEAL OF ROBERT L . KENERSON , APPELLANT , REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON A NON-CONFORMING PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 1465 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 28- 1 - 3 . 3 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID PARCEL IS NON-CONFORMING IN THAT THERE IS ONLY 60 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE AT THE STREET LINE AND 60 FEET OF WIDTH AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK ( 100 FEET AND 150 FEET BEING REQUIRED , RESPECTIVELY ) . A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 21 , OF THE ORDINANCE MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED AS THE PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE TO BE LOCATED 25 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY ' S REAR LOT LINE ( 50-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK BEING REQUIRED ) . APPROVED ENLARGEMENT AND GRANTED VARIANCE . APPEAL OF CHARLES HENDERSON , APPELLANT , REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING LOT LOCATED AT 839 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 25 - 2 - 34 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE EXISTING BUILDING EXTENDS BEYOND THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINE ( 15 -FOOT BUILDING SETBACK BEING REQUIRED ) . THE ENLARGEMENT • CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING WITH THE ADDITION PROPOSED TO BE WITHIN 5 FEET ( + OR - ) OF THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINE . APPROVED . APPEAL OF ELIZABETH SANDERS , APPELLANT , ALEX BLACKMER , AGENT , REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON-CONFORMING PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED ' AT 16 THE BYWAY , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 66 - 1 - 8 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECOND FLOOR LIVING AREA , WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT REMAINING THE SAME . THE PARCEL IS NON-CONFORMING IN THAT IT LACKS THE 150 FOOT REQUIRED DEPTH AND THE EXISTING BUILDING IS LOCATED 20 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY ( 25 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) . APPROVED WITH CONDITION . APPEAL OF MATTHEW WHITTEMORE AND JODIE MEYERS , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ALTER A NON-CONFORMING PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 289 HAYTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 1 - 41 . 8 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . THE PARCEL OF LAND IS NON- CONFORMING IN THAT IT LACKS FRONTAGE ALONG A TOWN HIGHWAY . A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 280-A OF NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW IS ALSO REQUIRED . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE WHICH OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE . • APPROVED ENLARGEMENT AND GRANTED VARIANCE . Town of Ithaca 1 Zoning Board of Appeals fI1ED June 24 , 1992 TOWN OF((�� ITHACA ^f' " O TOWN OF ITHACA Clerki ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 24 , 1992 PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Robert Hines , Pete Scala , Joan Reuning , Edward King , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector Andrew Frost , OTHERS : Elizabeth Sanders , Matthew Whittemore , Barb Bassette , Chuck Henderson , Bob Kenerson , Richard Bensel . Chairman Austen opened the meeting and stated that all posting , publication , and notifications were completed and are in order . The first Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF ROBERT L . IUMERSON , APPELLANT , REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON A NON-CONFORMING PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 1465 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6-28- 1-3 . 3 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID PARCEL IS NON-CONFORMING IN THAT THERE IS ONLY 60 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE AT THE STREET LINE AND • 60 FEET OF WIDTH AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK ( 100 FEET AND 150 FEET BEING REQUIRED , RESPECTIVELY ) . A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V , SECTION 21 , OF THE ORDINANCE MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED AS THE PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE TO BE LOCATED 25 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY ' S REAR IAT LINE ( 50- FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK BEING REQUIRED ) . Mr . Kenerson appeared before the Board and explained that their home is a raised ranch and his request for the addition is to add a bedroom so that they can live on one floor as it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to climb stairs . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the request of Mr . Robert Kenerson to enlarge an existing residential structure on a non- conforming parcel of land located at 1465 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 28- 1 - 3 . 3 , as recommended by Planner Richard A . Eiken on June 12 , 1992 . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : • Ayes - King , Scala , Austen , Hines . Nays - None . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals June 24 , 1992 The Motion carried unanimously . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 ] . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant to the Appellant , Mr . Robert Kenerson , Special Approval to permit the issuance of a building permit for the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling unit on the premises at 1465 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 - 3 . 3 , as set forth in the plans submitted with the application , with the following findings : 1 . That the character of the proposed addition with respect to the width of the lot at the 100- foot setback will not have any adverse impact on the neighborhood . 2 . That no one appeared in opposition to the proposed addition . 3 . That the Board adopt the findings of the Planning staff with respect to the environmental impact . 4 . That the requirements of Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub-paragraphs a - f have been met . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance to permit the Appellant , Robert L . Kenerson , to construct additional living space at the premises located at 1465 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 - 3 . 3 , with the following findings : 1 . That the improvements will lie approximately 25 feet northerly from the southerly line of said lot , whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 50- foot rear yard setback . 2 . That the impact on the neighborhood is not significant compared to the benefit to the property . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals June 24 , 1992 • The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF CHARLES HENDERSON , APPELLANT , REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING LOT LOCATED AT 839 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6- 25-2- 34 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE EXISTING BUILDING EXTENDS BEYOND THE NORTH SIDE IAT LINE ( 15-FOOT BUILDING SETBACK BEING REQUIRED ) . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING WITH THE ADDITION PROPOSED TO BE WITHIN 5 FEET ( + OR - ) OF THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINE . Mr . Charles Henderson appeared before the Board and explained the proposed enlargement of the building . He explained the reasons why it was decided to scale back the construction to 16 ' x 30 ' . Mr . Frost commented that the density under the original proposal , which was the 27 - foot x 30- foot addition , had been figured to be , conservatively , about 170 land coverage , with 20% being the limit , so the proposal of 27 feet x 30 feet would still be under the 20% permitted in an R- 15 zone ; the reduction to the smaller addition ( 16 feet x 30 feet ) will further reduce the land coverage . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the request of Charles Henderson to enlarge an existing non- conforming residential building by 16 x 30 feet on a non- conforming parcel of land located at 839 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 25 - 2 - 34 , as recommended by Planner Richard A . Eiken on June 18 , 1992 . Ayes - King , Scala , Austen , Hines . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit #2 . ] Further discussion followed between Mr . Henderson and the Board regarding the proposed construction . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals June 24 , 1992 RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals hereby approves the application , as revised , of the Appellant , Charles Henderson , to extend the existing cottage , located at 839 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 25- 2 - 34 , to the west by an addition which will be 16 feet x 30 feet wide , rather than the 27 feet x 30 feet as originally proposed , said Board recognizing that the north- westerly corner of the proposed addition will apparently be within approximately 6 feet of the northerly lot line , with the following findings : 1 . That the proposed addition will not substantially alter the existing bank to the west . 2 . That it will preserve an additional number of trees on the existing slope to the west . 3 . That the cottage to the north is some 40 feet , plus or minus , away from the property line and is apparently so situated that this addition will not materially impact the visual amenities from the adjoining cottage . 4 . That the proposal complies with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub-paragraphs a - f . 5 . That the proposed use and design will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and shall not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in an amount sufficient to devalue any neighboring property or seriously inconvenience any neighbors . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Scala , Austen , Hines . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF ELIZABETH SANDERS , APPELLANT , ALE% BLACKMER , AGENT , REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON-CONFORMING PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 16 THE BYWAY , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PAR- CEL N0 . 6 -66- 1 -8 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECOND FLOOR LIVING AREA , WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT REMAINING THE SAME . THE PARCEL IS NON-CONFORMING IN THAT IT LACKS THE 150 FOOT REQUIRED DEPTH AND THE EXISTING BUILDING IS LOCATED 20 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY ( 25 FEET BEING RE- QUIRED ) . Ms . Elizabeth Sanders appeared before the Board and explained that they are requesting to extend the master bedroom because they wish to put in a second bathroom and that would take up most of the rather small master bedroom so they would like to extend the master bedroom as far as the chimney over an existing one - story extension . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . • Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment MOTION Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals June 24 , 1992 By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the request of the Appellant , Elizabeth Sanders , for the addition of a new second floor living area , at 16 The Byway , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 1 - 8 , with the existing building footprint remaining the same , as recommended by Planner Richard A . Eiken , on June 12 , 1992 . Ayes - King , Austen , Hines , Scala . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit # 3 . ] MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant permission to the Appellant , Ms . Elizabeth Sanders , under Section 54 of the Zoning Ordinance , to extend an existing dwelling on a non- conforming lot by the addition of a second- story addition to the existing dwelling . The addition is to be approximately 16 feet x 16 feet , a total of 256 square feet , to provide an additional bedroom and bath facility and also permitting the construction of a deck at approximately ground level at the northwest corner of the house ; the deck is to be approximately 12 feet x 13 feet square but irregular- shaped to preserve an existing tree , with the following condition and findings : 1 . That , in the process of construction , the owner will see that the recommendation of Planner Richard Eiken stating that silt fencing should be placed around the top of the embankment adjacent to the proposed deck to prevent potential erosion and sedimentation during construction be followed . 2 . That the proposal is in conformity with the provisions of Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub-paragraphs a- f of the Zoning Ordinance in all respects . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Scala , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . The final Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF MATTHEW WHITTEMORE AND JODIE MEYERS , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ALTER A NON-CONFORMING PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 289 HAYTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6-24- 1-41 . 8 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . THE PARCEL OF LAND IS NON-CONFORMING IN THAT IT LACKS FRONTAGE ALONG A TOWN HIGHWAY . A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals June 24 , 1992 • OF SECTION 280-A OF NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW IS ALSO REQUIRED . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE WHICH OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE . Mr . Hines stated that he has done some legal work involving this property and the Appellant . He said that he has no biased feelings one way or the other but he would like this disclosure on the record . Mr . Matthew Whittemore appeared before the Board and explained the proposed construction . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Hines , seconded by Mr . King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the request of Matthew Whittemore and Jodie Meyers , Appellants , to alter a non- conforming parcel of land located at 289 Hayts road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 1 - 41 . 8 , as • recommended by Planner Richard A . Eiken , on June 17 , 1992 . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Hines , Austen , Scala . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit #4 . ] MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that , with respect to the property located at 289 Hayts Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 1 -41 . 8 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant permission to the Appellants , Matthew Whittemore and Jodie Meyers , to construct a pole barn substantially in the area indicated on the drawings submitted with the application , such pole barn being a two- car garage situated on the south side of the Appellants ' existing driveway and at least 20 feet east of the right- of -way which runs from Hayts Road to said property , with the following findings : 1 . That the proposal meets all the criteria of Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub- paragraphs a - f of the Zoning Ordinance . 2 . That the rural character of the neighborhood and the fact that there are no other buildings close by which would be impacted adversely in any event , makes this proposal innocuous . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals June 24 , 1992 3 . That the only reason that the property is non-conforming is the fact that it is situated not on a public road but off a driveway which extends northerly from a public road . 4 . That the variance , as described in Section 280- a , Subsection 3 , of the Town Law , is incorporated into the approval being granted herein . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Scala , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . Upon Motion , the meeting was adjourned . Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary Approved : Edward Austen , Chairman � Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 /90 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART I - Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) 1 . Applicant /Sponsor : l - I 2 . Project V k -e YC i� .0'u .-e K S o ti IT e-4 - e;�G� c�—f 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : Tax Parcel Number : 4 . is Proposed Action : NEW EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : L L -f ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) L� Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres 010 yrs) Acres 7 . How is the Land Zoned Presently ? 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES NO F'71 If no , describe conflict briefly 52 r/2'1 F L/ 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road ? YES NO Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? Residential Commercial F Industrial Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space 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 F] NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : 12 . Does anu aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval ? YES NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE �pplicant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : 70 e fl, (� � i� --e rL Q .CJ Signature : Date : fa �>d �� S � PA RT I I — E NY I RO N M E NTA L ASS ESS M E NT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ; Use attachments as necessary ) Z cam° A . Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES F'j 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 N ( 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) 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 Cl - C5 ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED . C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED D . Is there , or is there likely to br , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES F�j NO If yes ," explain briefly E . Comments of staff � , CAC E , 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 , IC{, 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 ,ZYGr.,41,q . Name of Lead Agency Preparer 's Signature If different from Responsible Officer) ar N . Austen , Chairman Title of Resp nsibl Ricer i Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer i nature of Resoonsibie Officer in Lead A enc Date : 'Yt� L/ PART II - Environmental Assessment Robert Kenerson Proposed Addition to Existing Non - Conforming Building 1465 Mecklenburg Road, Residence District R - 30 Zoning Board of Appeals : Special Approval Request June 12 , 1992 A . Action is Unlisted Be Action will not receive coordinated review C Could action result in anv adverse effects on , to or arising from the following : C1 . Existina air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels existing traffic patterns , solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion drainaae or flooding problems ? None anticipated . The proposal is to expand an existing , non - conforming building by 1 ,000+ / - square feet by adding a two - story addition . The applicant would like to add to his residence to provide for an additional bedroom, office and storage area. Presently the lot does not conform to the requirements of the Town Zoning Ordinance ( required rear yard ) and pursuant to Article XII , Sec . 54 , the applicant is required to obtain special approval by the Board of Appeals for expansion of a non - conforming building , which will be partially located within the required side yard . The proposed expansion of the existing residence will not result in air pollution , reduction in surface or groundwater quality or quantity , increased noise levels , or increased solid waste production or disposal . There may be minor impacts from a change of drainage patterns following construction or erosion during construction , but these can be mitigated using standard drainage and erosion control measures . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural, archeological, historicr or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? None anticipated . The proposed addition will be in character with the surrounding area, which is characterized by rural residential and agricultural uses ( see attached aerial photo ) . There are no residences within 400 + feet of the existing residence , therefore no impacts to the neighborhood character are anticipated . No adverse impacts to agricultural, archeological, historic , natural or cultural resources have been identified . C3 . Vegetation or fauna fish shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats or threatened or endangered species ? None anticipated . Proposed project is located in an agricultural area with minimal tree cover, therefore no impacts to the above areas are 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 . Although the proposed addition of 1 , 000 square feet will increase the area of a non - conforming building ( does not meet the minimum rear yard EAF Part II ( cont . ) Robert Kenerson : Special Approval Request Board of Appeals , June 12 , 1992 requirement of 50 feet ) , and the location of the proposed addition will also be partially within the required side yard , the applicant is petitioning the Zoning Board of Appeals for the necessary variance / approval for this condition . The nearest house to the proposed addition will be at least 400 feet away , and the addition will be located 25 feet from the side yard , therefore no significant impacts are anticipated . C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? None anticipated . C5 . Long term, short term, cumulative , or other. effects not identified in Cl - CS ? 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 ? impacts No controversy relayed to potential adverse environmental p acts is anticipated , PART III - Staff Recommendation , Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action , the proposed scale of it, the character of the existing neighborhood , and the information above , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : Richard A . Eiken , Planner Review Date : June 12 , 1992 Y 7T7�] Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 /90 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART I - Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) 1 . Applicant /Sponsor : ' I 2 . Project Name � � ar� es �. Ncr,� � e v�svv, 3 . Precise Location (StreetAddressand Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : 0 3 � .�\kC •n v4tck V*�) V J�*X 4 Tax Parcel Number : Z. S' - Z 3 4 . Is Proposed Action : ❑ NEW a EXPANSION 1:1 MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : T w ok A Ck, ;w% +Q ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres 010 yrs) Acres 7 . How is the Land Zoned Presently ? 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 1:1 NO EE]' Public Water ? YES NO Ej]' Public Sewer ? YES E] NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? residential F] Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space 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 F1 NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : 12 . Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES F NO E] If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE- BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE pplic ant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : C � ox ods � &era c" . Signature : Date : E40 0 #a zew Sp« PART 11 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ; Use attachments as necessary )/4P/y2k- A . Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES [:] NO Z if yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF , S . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 6 ? YES El NO M ( 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) 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 e SEE ATTACHED C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED Cs . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly SFE 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 SFE ATTACHED C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACK C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - C5 ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly SFE ATTACHED D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO ® If yes , explain briefly E . Comments of staff CAC Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART I I - 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 . F1Check 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 . I� 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 �Z Name of Lead Agency Preparer "s Signature If different from Responsible Officer) Ed N . Austen , Chairman e $t Title of Responsible Oftjcer in Le d Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer A ,a A oO _(Z I ;,2AP. `S'iqnatuYe of Res onsible Officer in Lead A enc Date : . PART II - Environmental Assessment Charles P . Henderson Proposed Expansion of Non - Conforming Building M Taughannock Blvd . , Residence District R - 15 Zoning Board of Appeals : Special Approval Request June 18 , 1992 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 : CL Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? None anticipated . The proposal is to construct a 27 ' x 30 ' second - story addition to the =crest side of an existing , non - conforming residence . Presently the residence does not conform 'Co the requirements of the Town Zoning Ordinance for required side yard setback , and the proposed addition would also be within the required side yard , therefore , pursuant to Section 54 of the Zoning Ordinance , the applicant is petitioning the Board of Appeals for the required special approval . The lot is characterized by moderate to steep slopes , and due to the fact that a portion of the hill behind the house will be disturbed during construction , erosion control measures such as silt fencing should be utilized at the sides of the existing residence to mitigate potential effects to Cayuga Lake . The proposed addition will not result in air pollution , reduction in surface or groundwater quality or quantity , increased noise levels, or increased solid waste production or disposal. C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural, archeological, historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? The addition will be generally in character with the surrounding area, which is characterized by lakefront cottages on small, non - conforming lots . There may , however, be impacts to the property to the north , due to the fact that the proposed addition will be only five feet away from the property line , and will extend approximately 30 feet along this line . The adjacent residence to the north is less than 40 feet away from the property line . Although there is existing vegetation , including several large pine trees , along the property line which would screen the proposed addition from the adjacent residence , some visual effects would be likely . No significant adverse impacts to agricultural, archeological, historic , natural or cultural resources have been identified . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant • habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? No significant impacts anticipated . The area of proposed construction will be 0 0 4a . EAF Part II ( cont. ) Henderson : Special Approval Request Board of Appeals , June 18 , 1992 relatively small and no significant habitats , threatened or endangered species are known on the site . Several large trees ( maples ) which are located in the area of the proposed addition will need to be removed , therefore , it is anticipated that there will be minor impacts to vegetation . C4 . A community ' s existing plans or goals as officialiv adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? None anticipated . The proposed construction of an addition to a residence which does not meet the required side yard setback ( 15 feet ) conflicts with the Town Zoning Ordinance , Section 14 . The existing residence is in fact located over the adjacent property line . The nearest house to the proposed addition will be approximately 35 - 40 feet away , and although there may be minor impacts due to the close proximity of the addition to the adjacent property , it is recommended that, as a condition of approval, vegetative screening be maintained along the northern property line to reduce potential impacts . Currently under the Residence District R - 15 requirements , residences and accessory buildings may occupy a maximum of 20 percent of the lot area . The current proposal would be in compliance with this requirement, with approximately 17 percent development coverage . 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 ? The proposal involving a 27 ' x 30 ' addition to an existing cottage will nearly double the size of the cottage , which will, in effect, continue a trend that has possible future implications for the intensity of development along Cayuga Lake . There are many non - conforming lots and buildings along the western side of Cayuga Lake , and approving the proposed addition to a substantially non - conforming building may result in potential cumulative effects should other home - owners along the lake decide to expand non - conforming buildings in a similar fashion . 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 ? • There may be controversy related to the potential visual effects from construction of an addition so close to an adjacent property line , however, a vegetative buffer would likely reduce these impacts to a level of non - significance . o o �� l PART III - Staff Recommendation , Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action , the existing character of the area, and the information above , it has been determined that although minor impacts may occur, no significant impacts are anticipated , therefore a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed . Although the area along the western shore of Cayuga Lake is characterized by a number of cottages located on lots that do not conform to the Zoning Ordinance , the proposed addition to an existing cottage would nearly double the size of the building and would be located only five feet from the adjacent property line . While the expansion of one such non - conforming building may only result in minor impacts , the cumulative effects of such expansions may irreversibly alter the character of the western shore . Planning Staff therefore respectfully recommends that the Board of Appeals give consideration to the potential cumulative effects from such applications , and whether this apparent trend is one that should continue in this area. Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : Richard A . Eiken , Planner Review Date : June 18 , 1992 0 0 C Town Assigned Project ID Number FT1 I �Jll Rev . 10 /90 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART I - Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) 1 . Applicant /Sponsor : 2 . Project Name : 3 . Precise Location (Street Ad ess and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or Prov ' a map) : l `,Ac ly way =+'G gt c q /V'/ Tax Parcel Number : Lpra - 6 6 i < 4 . Is Proposed Action : 2NEW EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) SL Jt �' C 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) lEiT l<.Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres 010 yrs) Acres How is the Land Zoned Presently ? +Z 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES E] NO [Z If no , describe conflict briefly 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road ? YES11 NO ® Public Water ? YES NO ® Public Sewer ? YES NO FV7 1:1 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? ' Residential Commercial Industrial rl Agriculture 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 F] NO r�Zl If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : 12 . Does anV aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE �licant /Sponsor ame (Print or Type) : R1Cl �Vykc r%f Vt 'tom ��:? a �c�h Sit rS I i Signature : Date : l; �Z June 1 , 1992 Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board , We are purchasing the house at 16 The Byway , Forest Home and hope to move in in August . Between the time of closing ( July 7 ) and occupancy we would like to make two modest , but , to us , significant modifications to the house . As we learned from the present owners and our recent inspection of the house , the 25 year - old roof over the present one - story extension on the west side has been badly damaged by condensation and leakage and will have to be replaced , along with large portions of the sheathing and a number of rafters . At the time we have this done and , since the roof has to be reworked anyway , we would like to extend the present master bedroom about 16 feet ( to the present chimney ) in order to put in a second bathroom ( immediately adjacent to the existing one on the second floor ) . Without the extension , it would not be possible to have this second bath since it would have to occupy the space that is now the master bedroom . This addition will be constructed in the same style as the remainder of the house and will be concealed by a tall evergreen . As a result , the expansion will not alter the character of the residence and will only be partially visible from the street . We would also like to build a small deck at the back of the house , adjoining the screen porch . In addition to esthetic considerations , this deck would allow us an exit to the back yard . At present , the screen porch has no door to the outside ; while there is one front and one front side door , there is no exit to the back yard . By providing such an exit , the deck would furnish an additional fire escape from the first floor in a part of the house that now lacks easy access to the outside . The • deck would be invisible to neighbors and would occupy a steep hill which is unusable as a yard . It would be constructed inside the tall fir tree at the edge of the screen porch and use a delicate and unobtrusive design . Nestled in the corner between the one story extension and the screen porch , it would be no closer to the gorge than the existing porch . We very much hope that you will permit us to make these modest improvements to the house , which will improve security , as well as greatly enhance our comfort and enjoyment of the house and its lovely setting . Sincerely , Elizabetyh� Sanders Bensel Richard F . Bensel C 01007 c .e.n 5; - S,oeccae�AProi PART II — ENYIRONMENTA L ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ; Use attachments as necessary ) Zt� 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 . S . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? . YES NO [0 ( 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) 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 ATTTACHED 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 Cl - C5 ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO If yes , explain briefly E . Comments of staff ® , CAC Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART I I I — DETERMI NATION OF S1 GNI FICA NCE ( 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 12czrl4. Name of Lead Agency Preparer 's Signature If different from Responsible Officer) Edw . Austen , Chairman Title of Resp nsible (icer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date : Signature of Responsible 0 ficer in Lead Agency O 0 3 PART II - Environmental Assessment - Application to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Approval of a proposed deck and second - story addition to a residence on a non - conforming lot located at 16 The Byway ; Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 66 - 1 - 8 ; Elizabeth Sanders Bensel and Richard F . Bensel , Owners / Applicants . 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 will involve the construction of a 12 ' x 13 ' wooden deck to the rear and a 16 ' x 16 ' addition at the second story level of an existing residence . Although there is a stream ( Fall Creek ) located less than 40 feet from the rear of the residence , there is a steep bank behind the residence , and the deck structure and addition will not impede • the flow of water or alter existing drainage . Disturbance of soil for the placement of the support beams is expected to be .minimal , however silt fencing should be placed around the top of the embankment adjacent to the proposed deck to prevent potential erosion and sedimentation during construction . C2 . Aesthetic agricultural . archeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character ? None anticipated . The proposed deck would be located at the rear of the property , and the proposed addition will not extend higher than the existing roof line , so visual impacts are expected to be minimal . The deck would not alter the structural integrity of the house , nor would it substantially alter the appearance from the front . There are no known specific agricultural , archeological , or other natural or cultural resources that would be affected by the proposed action . 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 . Although Fall Creek serves as an important aquatic wildlife habitat , the deck would involve only a minor disturbance of soil , and would • not alter existing drainage patterns or impact wildlife habitats . EAF Part II ( cont . ) Sanders / Bensel : Special Approval Request Board of Appeals , June 12 , 1992 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 . The proposed action is located on a non - conforming lot ( lot dimensions do not meet zoning requirements ) , therefore , the addition of a deck and additional living space on the second floor will require a special approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals . No other conflicts with existing plans or goals will result from this proposal . 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 . 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 is anticipated . PART III Based upon review of the materials submitted for the proposed action , the fact that impacts from construction will be negligible , and the consistency of the proposed architecture with the character of the neighborhood , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : Richard A . Eiken , Planner Review Date : June 12 , 1992 • 2 =*3 Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev , 10 /90 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 : 3 . Precise Location (Street Address 'and Road Intersec ' ns , prominent landm s , etc . or provide map aV9 \A0.- s� ACX Tax Parcel Number : a Ll_ — q f, 4 . Is Proposed Action : NEW EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : SQ�e, a & ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs)a��32 Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres 010 yrs) Acres 7 . How is the Land Zoned Presently ? 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 ? YES11 NO IM Public Water ? YES NO ® Public Sewer ? YES [:] NO M 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? Residential E] Commercial Industrial E] Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space Other Please describe : 1 1 . 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 : 12 . Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currentltl valid permit or approval ? YES NOP If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will requiremodification . I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOVLEDGE Applicant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : A, � 25 Signature : Date : O O1 � PART II - ENYIRONMENTA L ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ; Use 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 tR 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 JZ ( 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) 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 CS . 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 C1 - CS ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO Z If yes , explain briefly E . Comments of staff �, CAC Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART II I — 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 . //J ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ,4, (f� �/4L. 07 d r- Name of Lead Agency Preparer 's SignatureIf different from Responsible Officer) Edward N . Austen , Chairman N i ffle of Responsible�fficeriq Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date : C" Si nature of es onsible Officer in Lead Aqenc14 a O PART II - Environmental Assessment Whittemore / 14eyers Proposed Garage on Non - Conforming Lot 294 Hayts Road , Agriculture District Zoning Board of Appeals : Special Approval Request June 17 , 1992 A . Action is Unlisted B . Action will not receive coordinated review C Could action result in anv adverse affects on , to or arising from the following : C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , e xistina traffic patterns solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion , drainage or floodina problems ? None anticipated . The proposal is to construct a 24 ' x 32 ' two - car garage ( pole barn type ) on a non - conforming lot . Presently the lot does not conform to the requirements of the Town Zoning Ordinance ( street frontage ) and Town Law , Section 280 - a for lack of frontage on a public road , therefore the applicant is required to obtain special approval by the Board of Appeals for construction of a building on a non - conforming lot . • The proposed two- car garage will not result in air pollution , reduction in surface or groundwater quality or quantity , increased noise levels , or increased solid waste production or disposal. The lot is fairly level, so no impacts from a change of drainage patterns following construction or erosion during construction are anticipated . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural, archeological, historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? None anticipated . The proposed pole barn - type garage will be in character with the surrounding area, which is characterized by rural residential and agricultural uses ( see attached aerial photo ) . There are no residences within 150 + feet of the existing residence , therefore no impacts to the neighborhood character are anticipated . No adverse impacts to agricultural, archeological, historic , natural or cultural resources have been identified . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? None anticipated . Proposed project is located in an agricultural area with minimal tree cover, therefore no impacts to the above areas are 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 . The proposed garage will be constructed on a lot which does not • have street frontage , which conflicts with the Town Zoning Ordinance and Town Law , Section 280 - a . The nearest house to the proposed garage will be at least 150 feet away , ° ° J4 �A EAF Part II ( cont. ) Whittemore / Meyers : Special Approval Request Board of Appeals , June 17 , 1992 and the garage will be located about 25 feet from the front yard line . Although no significant impacts are anticipated from the proposed location of the garage , it appears that the garage could be easily accomodated elsewhere on the site , should the Board feel that the garage would be too close to the front yard line . 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 . 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 is anticipated . PART III - Staff Recommendation , Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action , the proposed scale of it, the character of the existing neighborhood , and the information above , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : Richard A . Eiken , Planner Review Date : June 17 , 1992 •