Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZBA Minutes 1992-09-23
FRM TOWN OF ITHACA Deta Q Town of Ithaca dCIe ALaz . , 1 Zoning Board of Appeals September 23 , 1992 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 23 , 1992 PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Robert Hines , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer / Building Inspector Andrew Frost . OTHERS : James A . Ridall , Joan S . Krantz , Ronald H . Krantz , Sandra Rightmyer , Bruce Rightmyer , Marguerite Mills , Thomas Mills , David Sparrow , John Murray , B . C . Andersen , Robert Cotts , Morris Angell , Bonnie J . VanAmburg , Neal Howard , Chairman Austen opened the meeting at 7 : 05 p . m . and announced that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and the same are in order . The first Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF JAMES A . RIDALL , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE %II , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ADD A SECOND DWELLING UNIT WITHIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON A NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY AT 170 SEVEN MILE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 32 -2 - 10 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-- 30 . SAID PROPERTY IS NON-CONFORMING SINCE IT CONTAINS A GARAGE LOCATED G FEET ( + OR - ) FROM THE NORTH SIDE IAT LINE , WHEREAS 15 FEET IS REQUIRED , IN ADDITION ,, APPELLANT SEEKS A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V , SECTION 19 , TO BE PERMITTED TO UTILIZE SAID GARAGE AS A STORAGE BUILDING FOR BURIAL VAULTS , Mr . Ridall appeared before the Board . He explained that in regard to the request to add a second dwelling unit within his single family residence , the intention was to have an apartment in the basement when the house was built . Mr . Frost presented photos for the Board to look at . He also explained about the variance that Mr . Ridall is requesting to utilize the garage as a storage building for burial vaults . 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 . 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 Appeal of James A . Ridall to add a second dwelling unit within a single - family residence , located at 170 Seven Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 32 - 2 - 10 . 1 , as recommended by Planner Richard A . Eiken , on August 25 , 1992 . J • Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals September 23 , 1992 A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Hines , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The . Motion carried unanimously . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . ] MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant permission to the Appellant , Mr . Ridall , for the addition of an apartment to the existing building , located at 170 Seven Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 32 - 2 - 10 . 1 , pursuant to Article XII , Section 54 , of the Zoning Ordinance , with the following finding : 1 . that the request is in compliance with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub- paragraphs a - f of said Ordinance . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Hines , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a use variance to permit the Appellant , Mr . Ridall , to utilize the garage , located at 170 Seven Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 32 - 2 - 10 . 1 , as a storage building for burial vaults , with the following findings and conditions : 1 . that there be a 5 - year limit on the use variance for the commercial storage that is being operated on the premises . 2 , that the use is not detrimental to the community at this time . 3 , that it provides the Appellant additional income , which he has stated is necessary . 4 , that there not be more than 15 vehicle trips to the building per week . • 5o that the use be limited to the building ( barn ) at the north side of the property , as that is the building that is presently being used . Town of Ithaca 3 • Zoning Board of Appeals September 23 , 1992 A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Hines , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . The second Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY, APPELLANT , MORRIS F . ANGELL , APPLICANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 5 . 04- 1 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW TO BE ALLOWED TO SUSPEND A DOUBLE-FACED SIGN FROM THE BUILDING FACADE / CANOPY AT JUDD FALLS WINES AND SPIRITS , EAST HILL PLAZA , JUDD FALLS ROAD AND ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 62- 2- 1 . 121 , BUSINESS DISTRICT C . Mr . Robert Hines excused himself from this Hearing . Mr . Morris Angell appeared before the Board and presented photos showing the sign that is presently there and explained the need for the sign that is being requested . He stated that the sign would be 10 " in height and 6 ' in length and would be lit from the inside . The sign would be placed 8 ' 9 " from the ground . • Chairman Austen read the adopted resolution from the Planning Board , dated September 15 , 1992 , attached hereto as Exhibit #2 . Chairman Austen referred to a letter from John E . Majeroni , Cornell University Real Estate Department , dated September 22 , 1992 . The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit #3 . 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 as recommended by Planner Richard A . Eiken for the Applicant , Morris F . Angell , to be allowed to suspend a double - faced sign from the building facade / canopy at Judd Falls Wines and Spirits , East Hill Plaza , Judd Falls Road and Ellis Hollow Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62 - 2 - 1 . 121 . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . • Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals September 23 , 1992 [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit #4 . ] MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance to the Applicant , Mr . Morris F . Angell , to be allowed to suspend a double - faced sign from the building facade / canopy at Judd Falls Wines and Spirits , East Hill Plaza , with the following findings and conditions : 10 that the applicant has demonstrated that the signage is needed ,for his business . 2 * that the proposal is for the suspension of a sign as indicated , which is 10 " in height and 6 ' long , and which will be suspended on the easterly corridor of the P&C market . 36 that the sign will provide a clearance of at least 8 ' 9 " . 49 that the liquor sign which is presently there will be removed . • 56 that the landlord ' s letter and commitment will not permit any additional such signs for any other tenant and that that commitment is made in a letter which has proved satisfactory to the Town Planner . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Austen , Scala . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF ERIC FRIEDLAND , APPELLANT , NEAL HOWARD , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN A THREE-FAMILY HOME WITH A SINGLE FAMILY IN EACH OF TWO UNITS AND A SINGLE FAMILY WITH A BOARDER IN THE THIRD UNIT , AT 229 CODDINGTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 54 -7-45 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 . SAID PROPERTY HAS A CURRENT TOWN OF ITHACA CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO PERMIT ONLY THREE FAMILIES OR NO MORE THAN FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS IN THE ENTIRE BUILDING . Mr . Neal Howard explained that Certified Properties took over the property in April . Before that , the old management company rented the lower unit to three unrelated people and he understood from Mr . Frost that the building is legal for three families total , which is two , two , and two and they presently have three , two and one . He stated that they have the correct number of people , which is a total of six , however , one unit has three people , which should only have two and this was done before they took over the management of the property . 1 I Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals September 23 , 1992 Mr . Howard stated that what he would like to do - is honor the tenant ' s lease until May 1 , 1993 and then the unit would be rented correctly . He stated that the landlord has spent a considerable amount of money fixing up the house and it looks nice now . Discussion followed regarding the deficient ceiling height in the basement apartment . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mr . Thomas Mills , 108 Pine View Terrace , spoke to the Board about the old refrigerator that is in the backyard . Mr . Howard stated that that will be taken care of . Cdr . Robert Cotts , 115 Northview Road , asked the Board if the definition of family has changed in the Zoning Ordinance . Town Attorney Barney responded that the Court of Appeals of the State of New York took some action that compelled the Town to redefine family . Mr . Cotts stated that it seems to him that it is the owner ' s responsibility to follow the law and to supervise what the manager is doing . 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 concerning the request of Eric Friedland , Appellant , Neal Howard , Agent , requesting a variance from Article III , Section 4 , of the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a three - family home with a single family in each of two units and single family with a boarder in the third unit , at 229 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54 - 7 - 45 . 1 , as recommended by Planner Richard A . Eiken , on September 15 , 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 # 5 . ] MOTION I By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King : 1 1 Town of Ithaca 6 • Zoning Board of Appeals September 23 , 1992 RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance to the Appellant , Eric Friedland , for the occupancy of the basement apartment at 229 Coddington Road , by three unrelated people , such variance to be conditioned upon the compliance of the Appellant by October 15 , 1992 , with respect to the violations present , as outlined in Mr . Frost ' s letter dated September 1 , 1992 , and that such tenancy in the basement terminate on May 31 , 1993 , with the following findings : 1s that there is a matter of hardship , not to the owner , but to the tenants who would be harmed if required to vacate the premises prior to termination of their lease . 2s that the matter is in compliance with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub- paragraphs a - f of the Zoning Ordinance . 3 . that the variance itself will expire on May 31 , 1993 . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . [ Mr . Frost ' s letter attached hereto as Exhibit #6 . ] The Motion carried unanimously . The last Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF BRUCE G . RIGHTMYER , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO MAINTAIN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING CONTAINING A GARAGE , STORAGE AREA , AND A DWELLING UNIT ON A NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 155 POOLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 32- 1- 1 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( R-30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID PROPERTY IS NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE IT CONTAINS TWO SEPARATE SINGLE-FAMILY BUILDINGS , WHEREAS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A SINGLE PARCEL OF LAND IS PERMITTED . APPELLANT FURTHER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V , SECTION 20 , TO MAINTAIN SAID ACCESSORY BUILDING 16 1 / 2 FEET ( + OR - ) IN HEIGHT , WHEREAS 15 FEET IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED . Mr . Bruce Rightmyer appeared before the Board and explained that he built the garage in question to house boats which he owns . He stated that he did not know that he needed permits to build the garage . Mr . Rightmyer stated that he will withdraw the dwelling unit appeal . Both he and Mr . Frost presented photos of the property and the buildings on the property . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mr . and Mrs . Ronald Krantz spoke to the Board opposing the garage , the way it was built , and the size of it . Town of Ithaca 7 • Zoning Board of Appeals September 23 , 1992 After further discussion , 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 in the matter of Mr . Bruce G . RightmyerIs request to maintain an accessory building containing a garage and a storage area , located at 155 Poole Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 32 - 1 - 1 , in accordance with the Appellant ' s statement to the Board withdrawing his request to maintain a dwelling unit in said accessory building such that it will be used only as a garage and accessory building exceeding the garage height limitation by 1 - 1 / 2 feet , AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the facts as found by Planner Richard A . Eiken in his review of the environmental assessment form , dated September 7 , 1992 . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : • Ayes - King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . Abstention - Hines . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit #7 . ] MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant Special Approval to the Appellant , Mr . Bruce Rightmyer , to maintain an accessory building containing a garage and storage area on a non- conforming property located at 155 Poole Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 32 - 1 - 1 , Agricultural District , with the following findings and conditions : 1n that there is a need for the garage for the storage of Mr . Rightmyer ' s boats . 2e that the property in question is 7 . 9 acres . 3s that the matter is in compliance with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub- paragraphs a - f of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . 4a that the Appellant has withdrawn his request for a dwelling unit and the building will be used solely as a garage and for storage . 5e that there will be no plumbing to the building and the tub that is there now will be removed . Town of Ithaca 8 • Zoning Board of Appeals September 23 , 1992 6 * that the connection of the septic system will be approved by the end of the year by the Tompkins County Health Department . 7 * that there will be proper landscaping done to screen the property from the neighbors and such plantings will be approved by the Town Planning staff . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Scala , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion was carried unanimously . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant the Appellant , Mr . Rightmyer , permission to maintain an accessory building with a height of 16 . 5 feet , with the following finding and condition : 1 , that the proper landscaping be done and approved by Town Planning staff . 2v that the added height is necessary to permit overhead doors to clear roof line . A vote on the Motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Scala , King , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . ADJOURNMENT : Upon Motion , Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 9 : 30 p . m . APPROVED : Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary Edward Austen , Chairman RECEIVED -- & � ' Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 / 90 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review IOWN OF ITHACASHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM >;; I1. DING *WNMISTED 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 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 11 I relevant items) : e 6�G S •-• q l`e i i a e. G t I r 6Vr 4 � ' lis e_ a ., a �� ,� s o r a o '� ( Attach separate sheet( s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) i i 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0- 5 yrs) I L Acres ( 6 - 16 yrs) Acres ( > 10 yrs ) ► � Acres Wow is the Land Zoned Presently ? II rt q a . ' d 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES rn( NO If no , describe conflict briefly I 9 . Will p roposed 'action lead to a request for new ; I 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 EJ Commercial ` 0 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 7 NO a If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : 12 . Does anti aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval ? YES11 NO ® i If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . 1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE cant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : J a � S ►R 1• ci a ! / I Signature : G�-,� / 7L7 / Date : 6 13 — Z— Zo.Me c A . (:;da fI = uo Q A p PA RT 11 - 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 necessa y ) Al' Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES NO If yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF . B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? YES NO Z ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED C4 . The Town 's existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? Explain briefly SEE 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 CI - 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 F NO 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 . F] 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 I Name of Lead Agency Preparer 's Signature If different from Responsible Officer) Tivar N . Austen , Chairman Title of Resp sible •f icer in ead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer 4If Date :MA F Sin ure of Res o sible Officer in Lead Agency • PART II - Environmental Assessment James A . Ridall Special Approval Request for: 1 ) Proposed Additional Unit in an Existing House on a Non - conforming Lot, and 2 ) Proposal to Continue Use of Garage for Commercial Storage . 170 Seven Mile Drive , Residence District R - 30 Zoning Board of Appeals , August 25 ; 1992 A . Action is Unlisted Be Action will not receive coordinated review C Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising from the following : C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels, existing traffic patterns , solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? None anticipated . The proposal involves conversion of an existing one - family residence to a two- family residence on a non - conforming lot ( barn does not meet side yard setback requirement ) , and continuance of use of a garage for temporary storage of burial vaults ( 20 or so vaults at one time ) . The addition of another dwelling unit will not result in any new construction , and will not create a significant increase in • solid waste production or a reduction in air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , or noise levels . The use of the garage for storage of burial vaults has been in existence for a number of years, and involves the generation of approximately several truck trips per week . The use of the garage for commercial storage will also not involve any new construction or increase in intensityof use therefore no significant impacts to the above areas are anticipated . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? None anticipated . The residence and garage are both existing , therefore no new structures will be created . The area surrounding the site is characterized by agricultural uses , woodlands, and scattered residences, and the closest residence to the property is at least 500 feet away . All storage of burial vaults is inside of the garage , therefore no visual impacts are anticipated . Although there will be no significant impacts to the community or neighborhood character in the near future , potential exists for the commercial storage of burial vaults to impact the area as it becomes more densely populated . The additional dwelling unit in the residence will have no significant impacts to the community or neighborhood character. No adverse impacts to agricultural, archeological, historic, or natural resources have Obeen identified . C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? • Paul Ridall Special Approval Request August 25, 1992 None anticipated , due to the fact that no new exterior construction is proposed . 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 . Two- family dwellings are allowed by right in the R - 30 District, but as a result of the garage being located too close to the side yard line , Special Approval from the Board of Appeals is required . The use of the garage for storage of burial vaults is a commercial use , and is therefore not allowed in a residential zone . Given the low intensity of the use ( storage ) and the fact that there are no neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the site at the present time , no significant impacts are anticipated . The applicant has petitioned the Zoning Board of Appeals for the necessary approvals for both of these conditions . 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 Cl - 051? 1 - C5? No significant impacts anticipated . There may , however, be minor impacts from the commercial storage use to the neighborhood as it becomes more populated , and it is recommended that the Board of Appeals consider allowing the use on a temporary basis ( for example 5 to 10 years ) , at which time the use and its impacts could be reevaluated . C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? No significant impacts anticipated . There will be a minor increase in energy use with the addition of a second dwelling unit in the existing residence . 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 . O 2 *v\ \ • 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 area, and the information above , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed . Aside from our recommendation for a negative determination , planning staff recommends that the Board of Appeals consider granting the Special Approval for the commercial storage use on a temporary basis, to be renewed in five or ten years . This will allow the Town to review the use and its effects as the area becomes more densely populated . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: Richard A . Eiken, Planner Review Date : August 25 , 1992 • I O 3 • ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Proposed Sign Judd Falls Wines and spirits East Hill Plaza , Judd Falls and Ellis Hollow Roads Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Sign Review Board ( Planning Board ) September 15 , 1992 MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by Stephen Smith : WHEREAS : 1 . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals has received an application for a hanging identification sign at Judd Falls Wines and Spirits in the East Hill Plaza shopping Center , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 121 , located at Judd Falls and Ellis Hollow Roads , Business District " C " , and 2 . The Board of Appeals , pursuant to the Town ' s Sign Law , has referred the application for said sign to the Sign Review Board ( Planning Board ) for its review and recommendations , and 3 . The Sign Review Board has reviewed the application for the proposed sign , a photograph . of the store , a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I , and comments from the Planning staff dated September 10 , 1992 , and 4 . The Sign Review Board shares the concerns raised by the Planning Department with regard to possible effects to the character of the newly- renovated . Plaza facade and the potential precedent - setting nature of such a sign in the location proposed , but Cornell has indicated there will be no other such signs permitted in the Shopping Plaza , NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED : That the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board hereby recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the sign as originally proposed , conditioned on the applicant providing a letter satisfactory to the Town Planner to the effect that the landlord ( Cornell University ) will not permit any other tenants in the Shopping Center to have a hanging sign similar to that proposed by the applicant and further conditioned on the existing sign on the east facade of the P & C store being removed . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Langhans , Baker , Smith . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . 9 / 18 / 92 O *C7 C KNELL U N I V E R S I T Y Finance Division Real Estate Department Mail: Box DH - Real Estate Cornell Business & Technology Park Ithaca, NY 14853-2801 20 Thornwood Drive, Suite 103 Telephone: 607 254-4660 Ithaca, New York 14850 Facsimile: 607 255-9010 September 22 , 1992 2 2 IM TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING, ZONING, FNGINEERING Floyd Foreman Town of Ithaca 126 E . Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Floyd: As a condition of Planning Board approval , this letter is to indicate Cornell University's approval of the sign for which Judd Falls Wines & Spirits is seeking a variance . We also wish to state that this request is not a trend . There have been no requests from other tenants for similar signs and at this time do not foresee the need for any additional marquee or canopy signs . We understand that the Planning Board was very concerned about additional signs of this type . Please be assured that except for an extraordinary need , Cornell would not support the request of other tenants for signs of this nature . We do understand Mr . Angell's need and support his efforts . We appreciate very much the cooperative attitude and fair consideration that you have given to all of our projects at the Plaza. They will make a difference and make shopping more convenient for the all of the residents of the Town . I am especially grateful for your personal support. Very truly yours , 5 John E . Majeroni JEM/ss cc: J. Murray , Sibley Real Estate M . Angell , Judd Falls Wines & Spirits O '• - G ,: v . 10 / 90 — I I Town Assigned Project ID Number Tovn of Ithaca Environmental Revicv 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 : Judd Falls Wines & Spirits Judd Falls Wines & Spirits -_ 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map ) : Judd Falls and Ellis Hollow Roads Tax Parcel Number : 62 . 2 - 1 . 121 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 ) : I Installation of an additional shop sign , " Wine & Liquor " , to be attached to the red band i panel soffit at East Hill Plaza . There are no alterations of the project foreseen , and the project entails no modification of the present land use , commercial activity ; I of the facility . ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) i 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) N/A Acres ( 6 - 10 yrs) Nj'A Acres ( > 10 yrs ) NiA ` Acres 7 . How is the Land toned Presently ? Business District #C j Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES � a' c NO If no , describe conflict briefly : Ithaca Sign Law ,- Local Law No . 6 , 19801 allows shop to display a single wall sign . Installation of a second wall sign requires Sp ;-Inial permission . _ I 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : r • - 1 Public Road ? YESEl NO a Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES E] NOx�� 10 . WtAt is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? LJ Residential ® Commercial E] IndustrialAgriculture f�l Park /Forest /Open Space 0Other Please describe : Shopping Center 1 1 . Cloes proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental aaen vj (Federal , State , Local) ? YES F] NO If yes , list agency name and permit / approval / funding : 12 . Does anq aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or appro••ral ? YESES ElNO x:)� If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit / approval will require inodificati : 1 . . i I I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE 7• 0 THE BEST OF MY KNOWLED .3 _ I Applicant / Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : /&y1Z9 pie 7 15(�Y!24 / — 1 Signai,ure Date M . Angell : Special Approval for Sign PARS' 11 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ; Use attachments as necessary ) A . P?oes proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES NO ® If yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF . B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? dftYES NO ❑X ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) C1 . Existing air quality , surface orgroundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly None anticipated . Proposal involves a hanging business identification sign . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly None anticipated . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly None anticipated . 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 None anticipated . C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly None antipipated . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - C5 ? Explain briefly None anticipAted . However , minor effects are possible if other stores are allowed to place similar signs at East Hill Plaza . (87 , Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly There may be . minor visual impacts from a single sign which does not entirely conform t the character of other business identification signs at East Hill Plaza . D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO r If yes , explain briefly E . Comments of staff ® , CAC Other attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ( To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above , determine whether it is substantial , large , important or otherwise significant . Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (ie . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude . If necessary , add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . ❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . Then proceed directly to the full EAF and /or prepare a positive declaration . ® Check this box if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination . Town -of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Name of Lead Agency Preparer 's Signature If different from Responsible Officer) . Austen Chairman T ' of Responsible 0 ' r in Led Agency Signatur of Contributing Preparer Aj Date : '0, �c i na ure of Responsible Officer in lead Agency ## 46 L�Lel Rev . 10 /90 L� Town Assigned Project ID Number • LIT 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 ) f4ls licant /Sponsor : 2 . Project Name : Ir R- IE cise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : 2,219 &Z>� INCrmti 'ich'o - AcAcus Flzol" Pu Itz EN r� �tNcc" o � 1;7 ncr� C-C Parcel Number ; oposed Action : El NEW El EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose , present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : t 1 1 c�. o p Q '3 (-I i + 0. �t'11t-.n.�,l ko'u S e (.l c. � I I CJ S 't U 6t10� K C Qua 4 Ce( , ( t „ )\ -Q � . Go �eFcc I ( Attach separate sheet( s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs ) Acres ( 6- 10 yrs ) Acres ( > 10 yrs ) Acres 7 . w is the Land Zoned In ? 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictio s ? YES NO ® If no , describe conflict briefly : v t 1, S—A �xD� IQS - / L� t/� I7 f 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road ? YES F] NOE:gIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Public Water ? YES E] NO. Public Sewer ? YES NO Cr 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? RLXltesidential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space Other Please describe : 1 1 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approY,a ] , 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 anq 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 . �wnJ OT TT1-(7<104 I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type ) : (` r' R 1 ( , (� L/ ( � V � I Signature : ie�Qy, , X17D n C I �' l ate : PART 11 - ENV 1RON MENTAL ASSESS ME NT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ; Use attachments as necessary ) A : Does pYoposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES NO f7/1 If yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF , B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? YES NO ® ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) 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 ATTACH 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 Cl - CS ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTA= C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly : SEE ATrA= 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 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 havebeen identified and adequately addressed . FCheck this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . Then proceed directly to the full EAF and /or prepare a positive declaration . Check this box if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Name of Lead Agency Preparers Signature If different from Responsible Officer) "ame N . Austen , Chairman tle of Responsible ficer in ead Agency Signatu a of Contributing Preparer of Responsible Officer in Lead A enc Date : PART II - Environmental Assessment. Eric Friedland Proposed Use of Apartment for Three@ Tenants 229 Coddington Road , Residence District R - 30 Use Variance Request, Zoning Board of Appeals September 15 , 1992 A . Action is Unlisted Be Action will not receive coordinated review C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising from the following : C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? None anticipated . The proposal involves the temporary continuation of use of an apartment for three tenants instead of two , which is the maximum allowed by the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance ( definition of " family " pertaining to number of unrelated persons ) . According to the applicant, the tenants of the apartment have a lease which extends until May 31 , 1993 and therefore , it is proposed that the non - conforming use be allowed to continue until this date . After May 31 , 1993 , the unit will be rented to no more than two unrelated persons . The proposal will not result in any new construction , and will not create a significant increase in traffic or solid waste production , or a reduction in air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , or noise levels . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural, archeological, historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? None anticipated . The building is already existing , therefore no new structures will be created . The area surrounding the site is characterized by low to medium density residential uses , a college campus , and open space . The use of the one unit for three persons instead of two will not be evident from the outside of the building, therefore there will be no impacts to the community or neighborhood character. Presently six persons inhabit the house in three separate units . No adverse impacts to agricultural, archeological, historic , or natural resources have been identified . C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? None anticipated , due to the fact that no new exterior construction is proposed . 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 ? No significant impacts anticipated . As noted above , there are three unrelated persons presently living in an apartment unit, which exceeds the number permitted by the • Eric Friedland Use Variance Request September 15 , 1992 Town ' s Zoning Ordinance . The applicant has petitioned the Zoning Board of Appeals for the necessary use variance for this condition . Due to the fact that the applicant has agreed to limit the number of persons to two after the expiration of the current tenants ' lease ( May 31 , 1993 ) , the existing conflict with Town goals would be temporary . 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 Cl - 05 ? The proposed continuation of use of an apartment for three unrelated persons will only be on a temporary basis until the current tenants ' lease expires , therefore no significant impacts are anticipated . C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? • No significant impacts 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 area, the information above , and provided that the use of the apartment for more than two unrelated persons is discontinued after May 31 , 1993 , 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 /24E, Review Date : September 15 , 1992 O 2 �1y OF ITl. TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N .Y. 14850 . - TOWN 4850 . ,TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 HIGHWAY 273- 1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273- 1747 PLANNING 273- 1747 ZONING 273- 1783 September 1 , 1992 Mr . Neil Howard Certified Properties P . O . Box 392 427 North Cayuga Street .Ithaca , New York 14850 RE : 229 Coddinaton Road - Eric Friedland Dear Mr . Howard : This letter serves as a follow up to our recent discussions with regard to the occupancy and recent renovations performed at the three - family home located at 229 Coddington Road , On August 11 , 1992 we met at the property so I could perform a final inspection of the work performed under Town of Ithaca building permit # 4318 . The work specifically involved the renovations of a • basement apartment . The following items were noted during my inspection and are violations of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code ( the Code ) . The violations . must be corrected prior to the occupancy of the apartment . 1 ) The hallway ceiling height accessing the two bedrooms on the building ' s east side measures 6 feet 4 1 / 2 . inches . Section 711 . 2 ( b ) of the Code requires a hallway height of 7 feet . Since the hallway floor has been built up , the floor can be lowered to accommodate the required height . 2 ) The window in the northeast bedroom does not open to the required 18 inches clear opening required under Section 714 . 1 for emergency egress . The window must be adjusted . 3 ) The 3 / 4 hour fire separation wall between the furnace room and the apartment ' s kitchen is not properly constructed . A layer of 5 / 8 inch fire rated sheetrock ( taped and spackled ) . must be installed on the furnace room wall where there is currently a void ( in the area of the furnace ' s plenum ) . Though the space is tight , there is room to perform the installation . 4 ) The building permit application contained plans which showed the elimination of the apartment ' s existing entrance hallway ( a non - habitable space with an existing ceiling height of 6 feet 4 inches ) and replaced it with a storage area . During my final inspection it appears this storage area is intended to . be used as a dining room . Section 711 . 1 of the Code requires all habitable spaces ( such as dining rooms ) to have a ceiling height of 7 feet 6 inches . This space cannot be used as habitable space and must be maintained as a storage area . *0 Mr . Neil Howard September 1 , 1992 • Page Two Additionally , a room in the apartment ' s northwest side was also proposed to be a storage room , as it had been previously used . The room has a ceiling height of approximately 6 feet 2 inches , is essentially below grade and lacks the required measurements for areas of natural light and ventilation for habitable space . It appears the room is intended to be used as a bedroom or habitable space . This room cannot be used as a bedroom , as such a use would violate Code Section 711 . 1 ( ceiling height ) , Section 712 . 1 ( light and ventilation ) , and Section 1242 . 1 ( regulating location of rooms with respect to grade ) . 5 ) The outside stairway by the apartment ' s front door lacks the required 30 inch high handrail ( where 3 or more stair risers exist ) . 6 ) Approvals for the electrical and plumbing work performed have not been received from the Town ' s electrical and plumbing inspectors . Finally , as you know , the entire building is limited in occupancy to three families ( without any borders ) in the entire building . The current proposed occupancy is to have. one family consisting of a single • individual on the top floor , a single family consisting of two unrelated persons on the main floor , and a family ( two unrelated persons ) with a border in the basement apartment . The presence of a border in the basement apartment is a violation of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Not only is this a violation , but it appears the border is intending to utilize the basement ' s storage room as a bedroom ( see item # 4 above ) . In conclusion , please be advised that any use of the basement apartment without a Certificate of Occupancy being issued ( in conjunc - tion with building permit # 4318 ) is prohibited . A satisfactory rein - spection will need to be performed , along with the plumbing and electri - cal system approvals , before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy is considered . I have also received an application from you for an appearance before the Town ' s Zoning Board of Appeals to resolve the occupancy violation noted above . I have tentatively scheduled your appearance for the September 23 , 1992 Board meeting . Should you have any questions , please don ' t hesitate to call me . Sincerely , Andrew Frost Building Inspector / OZoning Enforcement Officer AF / dlw cc : Eric Friedland Shirley Raffensperger Town Attorney John Barney Ifo • 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 . licant /Sponsor : 2 . Project Name : f v" Ga Ls. 3 . Precise Location ( Streei Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : ;5 5" ?oo Lc Tax Parcel Number : 4 . Is Proposed Action : IN NEW EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items ) : 3u.ay � A � $ LV /r ti ? 0Sl6C. & mese patin ,raT cue eh1r� ( 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 w 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 : � LWL. POP Vhm 1N11 �1 CAH i, /6 J � OeZL'r " AN ONS ZCS10 &%** Car 0 /./ O/VCT �Aecic 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 ❑ 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 anti 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 KNOVLEDGE A& ant / Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : j LE Signature : Date : � z sgZ PART 11 - ENYI RONMENTA L ASSESSMENT To be completed as ary ) ( p eted by the Town of Ithaca llse attachments as necessar A . 'Does' proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES NO alf 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 0 NO ©( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) 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 ATTA= 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 ATTACK 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 ATTACHI~ID 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 there , ❑ If yes , explain briefly E . Comments of staff CAC ❑ , Other ❑ attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART III — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ( To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above , determine whether it is substantial , large , important or otherwise significant . Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (ie . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude . If necessary , add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . ' ❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . Then proceed directly to the full EAF and /or prepare a positive declaration . ❑ Check this box if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination . 7�ONING HOARD OF APPEALSAiZ4�104 so 4/czo� Name of Lead Agency Preparer 's Signature If different from Responsible Officer) Edward N . Austen , Chairman We & tle ofResponsible 0 icer in Lead Agency Signature of ContributingPreparer Date :of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency �' o OPART II - Environmental Assessment Bruce Rightmyer Proposed Second Residence on One Lot; Proposed Accessory Building Which Exceeds Maximum Allowed Height 155 Poole Road , Agriculture District Zoning Board of Appeals : Special Approval and Variance Requests September 17 , 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 : C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or guantitV , 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 34 ' x 72 ' garage with an apartment unit on a lot which already has two single - family residences . The garage would also be 1615 " in height, which exceeds the Town ' s maximum allowed height for an accessory building by 1 . 5 feet. Apparently this garage has already been substantially constructed , and now the applicant is applying for a variance for height of the building and special approval for the proposed use . The proposed garage / residence will not result in significant 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? Some impacts anticipated . The proposed use of the detached garage as a residence ( thereby resulting in three residences on one lot ) may result in impacts to the character of the surrounding area, which is characterized by rural residential and agricultural uses ( see attached aerial photo ) . 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 ? None anticipated . Proposed project is located in an agricultural area with no known significant habitats or endangered species , therefore no impacts to the above areas are anticipated . O 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 ? O EAF Part II ( cont. ) Rightmyer : Special Approval and Variance Request Zoning Board of Appeals , September 17 , 1992 Significant impacts possible . The proposal, which involves construction of a third residence ( in the garage ) on one lot is in direct conflict with the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance , which permits no more than one residence on a lot. The two single family residences existing on the lot are considered non -conforming and are allowed to remain on the lot. The Ordinance permits a second unit accessory to a principal residence , provided that it is located within the principal structure , which the proposed garage is clearly not. The owner has applied for the necessary special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the new garage / residence ; however, approval of a third residence on one lot has the potential to set a dangerous precedent with regard to the permissible level of development on a given lot, especially in the Agriculture District. The height of the garage / residence , which exceeds the maximum allowed for an accessory structure ( 16 . 5 ' proposed vs . 15 ' allowed ) , will not have a significant impact upon Town goals , plans or the intensity of use of the land or other natural resources . 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 - C 5 ? Possible long term effects from the precedent- setting nature of approving three residences on one lot. C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of eitherquantity or type of energy ) ? None anticipated . D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? Some controversy related to conflicts with Town goals is likely . O OPART 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 , the precedent- setting nature of the third residence on one lot and the information above , Planning Staff cannot recommend that a negative determination of environmental significance be adopted for the project as proposed . If the Board of Appeals chooses to proceed with the application , Planning Staff recommends thata positive determination of environmental significance be adopted based on significant conflicts with Town goals and plans , as outlined above . Planning Staff recommends that the Board of Appeals give consideration to the following alternatives to the requested special approval, either of which would be satisfactory from a planning perspective : 1 . Allow the owner to keep the garage / residence as proposed , provided he subdivides his property to create a new lot for the additional residence , as well as a separate lot for each of the existing residences . As shown on the attached sketch , this could be done relatively easily , with only three variances being required ( all lot line variances, as opposed to the use variance ) . Lots 1 and 2 would require side yard variances , and Lot 3 would require a variance for less than the required lot depth ( 170 ' provided , 200 ' feet required ) . Each of these variances would be minor in nature and would have less of an impact than the current variances being sought. A height variance for the garage / residence would also be required . It should be noted that if separate lots are created , each lot should have an individual well for water supply and a septic system for on - site sewage disposal. 2 . Allow the structure to remain , but require the apartment to be converted into storage or other space such as a workshop . This would result in only two pre - existing , non - conforming residences on one lot and would allow the owner to use the garage for storage of boats, as originally proposed . As with the above alternative , a height variance would still be required . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: Richard A . Eiken , Planner Review Date : September 17 , 1992 O . � , � r r( ..cc.. r. t ,t ;• Town,. of, Ithaca IZoning O j. 8'oaid •'. • of Appeals- h Notice Of. Public {T Hearings;;, Wednesday,' y: Set". 23„1992; 7Q.m; 41, y' 91 iectionrof the Chairman, of the Zoning Board oflA ' 11 ,&cls; -NOTICE` IS`a'HEREeY• i GIVEN' that Public Hearings;. will be`aKeI4by,. thei'Z&ng . Boar d'a Appeals•of tfiTown �bR� lthacot ori. Wednesday, SeptemUir 23;, 1992 in Town Hall ". 126, East Sen`eci%Sheet; fFIET , R8oa�,Y,REAR�enr rice, WEST;=side nidthdca;SzN:Y:; �EOMMEN�ING�"AT�7.00 ,P.M:;��on',tfie folio frig mat•; fors :�A�,PEAlrof� �amesi�A��Ridall; +„appellcnt;, xequestingg au. ` thorization,i.frorn th'eZonina �ouFd of App"eals'underWrti- cle; Xll;�?Sectionj154' ' Tovo'n*ibf Ithocar Zonin" O�dt. a . ,. 9', . , .. . ., w . . jiance,l::,to ? add. second ldwelling' unit,within, a, ssngI , , family residen6II ted on"a � nonconformingslproper s' at Ithaca Tax Parcel No." 32.1 .1 1.;170 Seven`- Mile Drive, Town ' Agricultural ' District :.(R-3d t`<pfilthoca • Tax Parcel : Nb. ; Regulationd Apply) ;, Said ',�32-2.10? la; resicl ihce' disirict r R 30Soidi'property is rion;' property' is, • nonconforming conforrnmg since"_ ?itcontains ybbec_ause it contains two sap r#> + arate single-family buildings ' agarage ;located 6. feeth . Ejfiorr�the= No'rths side,lotkline; It bu ldingw areas oon lay one lee p.arcel �of � Cvhereas I' feet u;required? f l g d A ellont: ii''addition appall - ,seeks"d furthers permitteI . pp rr -a . + irequests a variance'. tvanance#from Article V, Sec•_ from Article V,; Sectlan 20, to hon . l9„ to be permitted 14 r maintainsaid�raccessory utilize said ” aragge a`s; a star• •�• t •fdgebuildingggfor,burialvaultsi �. 6utiding 1611"/2 feet.A in I APPEAL of Cornell;Univetsity fiei§hi, whereas •15. feet is the t ' appellant;. Morns F " Angell; maximum height permitted.' I, ? apphcdnh, requesting'"o vari• SaidZoning Board of Ap once from . Sechon 5.04,1 ofpealswill at ;bid hme, A7:OC ® Iy. p m , ;and said place, heal f , tfie Town of; Ithaca Sign law 'all pparsons msupport of such , toabe allowed to , suspend a 1maMers orobjechons' thereto. doublegfaced signj�fro"pm , the personsu, may ;jfappeartby ,buildinJ"udd fallsfWlnos/aridbS,nts`,`ul ?+ Y I %:. Andrew�S Fros' East HiII: Plaza' Judd+ Falls, �'.1 ? -Buildin Ins actor/ }R`oad a d- EIIis Hol low'• Road ' r'' A" g P Town�of '.Ithacal twztcParcef i^g` Enfo} ant Offices �ntt * tt� „ 273 17„47 No,r6221 121 ,rFBusine�s Se lambert^ 18„? 1992 District sC ifii':rl' rS��` ��r7 P � or � , . tc:.y •v; f,APPEAI of Enc Freidland, ap f fir;` f pellantlNeal Howard; ent re"questingg1i avariarice_r,trorri. Anc�le:illl;tSection;,4 ,oP the Town�'of.;Itfidc6�Zoning Ordj? 'Hari"ce;�;to�•. ke`?'pe�mitted�„to� rmainyajn,a tfirse�family;fiomel with a single family m each rod: wfwgql3 unit's+ and,; d singgl'e + _fdmily Guth a boarder m;the ifii"d unit, at 229"�oddin'gpy,ton fi` I oad''Town of itI1OEa;TO%;fa(: xti. tela �loi : _ 45:_1`; Rask d'e'nce ,Disirict R 9 Said prop arty has 6` cur�ent : Town ' of Ithacq Cei1 ficat, "of.� Occu; V "c'pan tb 'permit' l only three t Ines or no mo reIthon.'fiyd unrelated persons; in:. the . en- t lire fiuilding is �rAPPEAL ' Bruce : G'i , Right- iN, r . .,e, e , myer,t.apPellant; :', requesting 'authorizations frame: thevZon- .3 e=» ,.,. A mg Boa rd;of'Appeali under 3^`Article XII; Section 54 of, the c.��' ' Town oF ,lth'gcg' Zonings O ! � .,•to`maintdin an acces- s'ory' .: 6vildinnining; ;a aro a, sto"rage; dretaa;+'atld d II'' dwelfirig" u`nit • on""d{'noncom fo"r"m rigs oproperty,: locatedot 7i X55= Poole'1 Radt'a Towii.l'of ,t ^, . Lf.,: