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
•