The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 1992-11-18. ;• TOWN OF ITHACA t��)�M�;fe1= �3:�:�iZ��i:`i'.i5ia�� NOVEMBER 18, 1992 Ti� FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE HEARD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1992 BY TI-� BOARD: �� OF ITHACA ,� APPEAL OF STEVEN M. HESIAP, APPELLANT, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO CONSTRUCT A 24 X 36 FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING ON A NON—CONFORMING PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 175 WOOLF LANE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0. 23-1— 16.2, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. THE PARCEL IS NON—CONFORMING BECAUSE OF A LOT WIDTH AT TF� STREET LINE OF 43 FEET, WHEREAS 60 FEET IS REQUIRED. GRANTED. APPEAL OF HOSPICARE OF TOI�KINS COUNTY, APPELLANTS, PETER NEWELL, R.A., AGENT, REQUESTING SPECIAL APPROVAL FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE V, SECTION 18, OF TI-IE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SIX—BEDROOM CONVALESCENT HOME 44.1-1-2 Ti�fftOUGH THROUGH —20, 1]..8 POND SITE ON EAST ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0. 44.1-1-1, PARCELS —6, PORTIONS OF 44.1-1-7 THROUGH —15 AND PARCELS 44.1-1-16 (+ or —) ACRES TOTAL, LOCATED ON THE WESTERN HALF OF THE CHASE KING ROAD,.RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. THE CONVALESCENT HOME IS A PERMITTED USE BUT ONLY UPON SPECIAL APPROVAL. GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS. APPEAL OF PATRICIA BENNETT—PERRY, APPELLANT, JAI�S GARDNER JR., AGENT, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM TI-IE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF ', THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO EXTEND A NON—CONFORMING PROPERTY/USE LOCATED AT 1115 DANBY ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0. 43-2-13, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. SAID PROPERTY/USE IS NON—CONFORMTNG BECAUSE OF TWO SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE PARCEL WF�REAS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS ALLOWED, AND FURTHER, ONE OF SAID RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IS OCCUPIED BY FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS W�REAS ONLY THREE UNRELATED PERSONS ARE PERMITTED. TI-� APPELLANT IS REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN SUCH OCCUPANCY FROM FOUR TO FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS. • GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS UNTIL 5/31/93. APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY, APPEI,LANT, BONNIE J. A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VII, ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION PARKING SPACES LOCATED AT TI-IE EAST HILL PLAZA TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0. C. SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES , JUDD VANAP'BURG, AGENT, REQUESTTNG SECTION 38, OF TF� TOWN OF IN TI-IE NUNBER OF AUTOMOBILE FALLS AND ELLIS HOLLOW ROADS, 62-2-1.121, —1.122 AND 62-2-12, BUSINESS DISTRICT 611 PARKING SPACES, WHILE 556 SPACES ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE, WITH A REDUCTION OF 503 SPACES PROPOSED. THIS APPEAL IS PROMPTED BY PROPOSED CHANGES TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND TO PROVIDE FOR LANDSCAPE IMPROVEt�NTS AT THE PLAZA. ADJOURNED TO 12/9/92. C� � U \ J APPEAL OF ROBERT FLIJI�RFELT, APPELLANT, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII SECTION 54 OF TI-IE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO SHORE DRIVE, SAID EXTEN. WITH A NEW A 2-FOOT (+ REQUIRED). 2' OR EXTEND A NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY/BUILDING IACATED AT 1020 EAST TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0. 19-2-18, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. N INVOLVES THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A 1'7" X 5'2" FIREPLACE CHIMNEY X 8' CHII�IEY. THE EXISTING CHIMNEY IS NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE OF -) SETBACK FROM TI-� SOUTH SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE (15-FOOT SETBACK GRANTED. FI�D Toww oF iTHacA 0 • � Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals November 18, 1992 TOidN OF ITHACA ZONIl�TG BOARD OF APPFAT S NOVII�ER 18, 1992 Fl� TOWN OF ITHACA . � , � ,� � ►. . � ► .�ff.� � PRESENT: Chairman Edward Austen, Edward King, Robert Hines, Pete Scala, Zoning Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector Andrew Frost, Town Attorney John Barney. OTHERS: Steven M. Heslop, Patricia Bennett-Perry, Harry Ellsworth, Ron Krantz, Gerald E. Nye, Judy Malloy, Peter Newell, Jim Gardner, Robert R. Flumerfelt, Bonnie VanAmburg, B.C. Andersen. Chairman Austen opened the meeting and stated that all posting, publication and notifications were in order. The first order of business on the agenda was to interview two persons who had applied to fill the currently vacant position on the Board. Sitting with the Board for the interviews were Cathy Valentino and Frank Liguori. Chairman Edward Austen explained the ground rules for the interview process and Mr. Robert Hines chaired the interview sessions. The two gentlemen who were interviewed and whose names will be sent on to the Town Board for consideration are Ronald Krantz and Harry Ellsworth. The first Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following: APPEAL OF STEVEN M. I�SIAP, APPELLANT, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM TE� ZONIlJG BOARD OF APPEAIS UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF TI� TOWN OF ITHACA ZONIlIG ORDIHdANCE, T� CONSTRUCT A 24 % 36 FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING ON A NON- CONEORt�LING PARCEL OF LAND IACATED AT 175 WOOLF LANE, TOWN OF ITHACA TA% PARCQ, N0. 23-1-16.2, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. T[� PARCEL IS NON-CONFORt��NG BECAQSE OF A LOT WIDTH AT TF� STREET LINE OF 43 FEET, WHEREAS 60 FEET IS REQUIRED. Mr. Heslop spoke to the Board regarding the proposed construction of the accessory building. 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. Pete Scala: � Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals November 18, 1992 2 � RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the request of Appellant, Steven M. Heslop, to construct a 24 x 36 foot accessory building on a non-conforming parcel of land located at 175 Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23-1-16.2. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: Ayes - Hines, King, 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 to the Appellant, Mr. Heslop, the requested approval under Article XII, Section 54, of the Ordinance for the construction of a shed on a non-conforming lot, located at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23-1-16.2, the storage shed being located in the rear yard 70 feet from the rear yard lot line and appearing that the only non-conformity of the lot is the fact � that the lot width at the street line is 43 feet, with the following findings: 1. That the lot itself is very large. 2. That the proposal will not affect the health, safety or the general welfare of the community. 3. That the construction will be in harmony with the general purpose of the Ordinance . 4. That the location and design of this structure will be consistent with the character of the area. 5. That the proposal meets all the requirements of Section 77, Paragraph 7, Sub-paragraph a- f of the Ordinance. 6. That this Board, has on a prior occasion, within the past two years, examined this lot and the surrounding neighborhood and the inequities required for the Special Approval for the construction of the house and granted that approval and no change in the neighborhood has been shown since that time. � • � Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals November 18, 1992 A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: Ayes - King, Hines, Scala, Austen. Nays - None. The Motion carried unanimously. The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following: 3 APPEAL OE HOSPICARE OF TOMPICIlIS COtJN'1'Y, APPELLANTS, PETER NEWELL, R.A. , AGENT, REQUESTING SPECIAL APPROVAL FROM TI� ZONING BOARD OF APPEAIS UNDER ARTICLE V, SECTION 18, OF TI-IE T06dN OF ITHACA ZONIlIG ORDINANCE, TO CONSTRUCT A SI%-BEDROOM CONVALESCENT HOME ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TA% PARCEI, NO. 44.1-1-1, PARCELi 44.1-1-2 TE�OUGH -6, PORTIONS OF 44.1-1-7 THItOUGH -15 AND PARCELS 44.1-1-16 THItOUGH -20, 11. 8(+ or -) ACRES TOTAL, IACATED ON TI� WESTERN HAI�F OF Tf� CHASE POND SITE ON EAST ICIldG ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. Tf� CONVALESCENT HOME IS A PERMITTED USE BUT ONLY UPON SPECIAL APPROVAL. Mr. Peter Newell and Ms. Judy Malloy, President of the Board of Directors for Hospicare, spoke to the Board regarding the proposed construction and Ms. Malloy gave background information on the program. Mr. Newell referred to a sketch that he had posted on the bulletin board for the Board to review. Mr. Frost presented photographs of the property in question. Chairman Austen opened the public hearing. Mr. Harry Ellsworth addressed the Board regarding the care that Hospicare provides. Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr.. Robert Hines, seconded by Mr. Pete Scala: RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the request of Hospicare of Tompkins County to construct a six-bedroom convalescent home on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44.1-1-1, Parcels 44.1-1-2 through -6, portions of 44.1-1-7 through -15 and Parcels 44-1.1.16 through -20, 11.8 (+ or -) acres total, located on the western half of the Chase Pond site on East King Road, as recommended by Planner Richard A. Eiken on November 12, 1992. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals November 18, 1992 • Ayes - Hines, Scala, Austen, King. Nays - None. The Motion carried unanimously. 0 [The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit #2.] Chairman Austen referred to the Planning Board minutes of November 3, 1992 regarding preliminary site plan approval for the project. [The Planning Board minutes are attached hereto as Exhibit #3.] Chairman Austen read a letter from Maxine and Donald King, 1 LaGrand Court, in support of the proposed Hospicare project. [The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit #4.] Chairman Austen closed the public hearing. MOTION By Mr. Robert Hines, seconded by Mr. Edward King: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant to the Appellant, Hospicare of Tompkins County, Special Approval for the construc- tion of the structure with the following finding and conditions: •1. That such approval is conditioned by those conditions expressly set forth , in the Planning Board's resolution, captioned 1A through G, as shown in their meeting of November 3, 1992. 2. That the project is in conformance with Section 77, Paragraph 7, Sub- paragraphs a through f of the Ordinance. 3. That the project is also conditioned upon obtaining the final site plan approval by the Planning Board. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: Ayes - Hines, King, Scala, Austen. Nays - None. The Motion carried unanimously. The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following: APPEAL OF PATRICIA BENNE�°P-PERRY, APP�.7.Ar7'�', JAt�S GARDNER JR. , AGENT, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM Ti� ZONIlIG BOARD OF APPEAIS UNDER ARTICLE %II, SECTION 54, OF TF� TOWN OF ITHACA ZOATING ORDINANCE, TO E%TEND A NON- CONFOR�QNG PROPERTYNSE IACATED AT 1115 DANBY ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TA% PARCEL NO. 43-2-13, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. SAID PROPERTY/USE IS AtON- CONFORI�iG BECAUSE OE TWO SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL BiTII�DINGS ON A SINGLE PARCEL � WFIEREAS ONLY OAiE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS ALIAWED, AND EURTf�R, ONE OF SAID RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IS OCCUPIED BY FOUR UNRELATED PERSOAiS WI�REAS ONLY THREE UNRELATED PERSONS ARE PEi2MITTID. Ti� APP�.T.A1a't' IS REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN SUCH QCCUPANCY FROM FOUR TO FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS. • � � Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals November 18, 1992 � Ms. Patricia Bennett-Perry appeared before the Board and explained the history of the property. Mr. Frost presented photographs of the property in question. M r. F ro st referred to a memo that he had written to Ms. Bennett-Perry, dated November 18, 1992 regarding the property. [The memo is attached hereto as Exhibit #5.] Ms. Bennett-Perry explained that she is only asking for a limited time variance. She would like to rent the property to five unrelated persons until May of 1995. She stated that presently she is planning to use the property as a home for the Spring, Fall and Summer months and hopefully live elsewhere for the Winter. Ms. Bennett-Perry further explained that renting it to five persons would allow her, not only to continue to own the property, but also to maintain it in a manner in which she could then take it over and live in it. In answer to Chairman Aus�en's question, Ms. Bennett-Perry stated that there are currently two people in the small building and five in the larqe building. 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 Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the request of Patricia Bennett-Perry, requesting authorization to extend a non- conforming property/use located at 1115 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-2-13, as recommended by Planner Richard A. Eiken on November 10, 1992. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: Ayes - King, Scala, Hines, Austen. Nays - None. The Motion carried unanimously. [The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit #5.] Discussion ensued regarding the number of persons residing on the property and that the Board does not usually allow for such a length of time as five years in a resolution for a non-conforming property. Mr. King stated that as part of the recommendations from the Planning staff as to the Environmental Impact Statement, it was recommended that the parking area in the rear would be extended to provide seven parkinq spaces, rather than the mere five that are presently there. He asked Ms. Bennett-Perry if she were familiar with that recommendation. Ms. Bennett-Perry stated that she had not heard reference of it until Chairman Austen read it from the Environmental Impact Statement. • Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals November 18, 1992 MOTION By Mr. Edward King, Seconded by Edward Austen: � RESOLVID, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant the Appellant, Patricia Bennett-Perry, the requested extension of a non- conforming use to permit the continued use of this property through May 1995 with no more than five people occupying the main house on the premises and no more than two unrelated people occupying the rear building, with the following findings and conditions: 1. That the Appellant extend the parking area to the east by adding two more graveled parking spaces and sufficient room for a turn-around, as shown on the sketch submitted with the Short Environmental Assesment Form by the Town Planning Staff. 2. That the Appellant provide a recordable covenant to the effect that at the end of this period, namely June 1, 1995, the property will then be brought into conformity with the current Zoning Ordinance as to occupancy, namely that there shall be no more than two unrelated people occupying the front house and no more than two occupying the rear building, assuming that the Orclinance continues to read that way at that time. 3. That the Appellant pay the expense of recording that deed with the County • Clerk to assure any future purchaser of the property that it must be brought to current zoning requirements . � 4. That otllerwise the property meets the criteria of Section 77, Paragraph 7, Sub-paragraphs a- f of the Ordinance. 5. That the covenant be recorded within 30 days after the adoption of the foregoing resolution. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: Ayes - King, Nay - Hines. Abstention - Austen. Scala. No action taken on the motion. Mr. King proposed substantially the same motion except that the permission to continue the present occupancy would expire at the end of May 1993 and that the condition for recordable covenant be not required, and the Appellant would not be required to reduce the occupancy of the building beyond whatever rights she has at the present time but that the parking area would be increased to the seven spaces within 60 days but would not need to use yravel. At the end of May 1993, there shall only be 4 unrelated persons in the front house and two unrelated persons in the rear building. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: Ayes - King, Scala, Hines, Austen. Nay - None. , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals November 18, 1992 • The Motion carried unanimously. The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following: 7 APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVIItSITY, APPELLANT, BONriIE J. VANAt�BURG, AGENT, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM Tf� REQUIREI�N'PS OF ARTICLE VII, SECTION 38, OF TI� TOWN OF ITHACA ZONIldG ORDINANCE, TO AT�,OW FOR A RIDUCTION IN TE� NUMBER OF AUTaMOBILE PARIQNG SPACES LOCATED AT TEIE EAST i�,L PLAZA, JUDD FALLS AND ELLIS HOLIAT� ROADS, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0. 62-2-1.121, -1.122 AND 62- 2-12, BUSIlaESS DISTRICT C. SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES 611 PARKING SPACES, WHII� 556 SPP►CES ARE CURRII�'1'LY AVAILABLE, I�TITH A REDUCTION OF 503 SPACES PROPOSID. THIS APPEAL IS PROMPTED BY PROPOSID CHANGES TO �ROVE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AA1D TO PROVIDE FOR LANDSCAPE Il�ROVII�iTS AT Ti� PLAZA. Mr. John E. Majeroni appeared before the Board and explained the proposed project. He attached a large sketch of the proposed landscaping to the bulletin board for the Board to review and he explained the reasons for the proposed landscaping. He stated that mainly it will improve traffic circulation. Mr. Hines asked Mr. Majeroni if he would like to have the Travers Report of May 28, 1992 attached to the record of the meeting. Mr. Majeroni replied yes. [The report is attached hereto as Exhibit #7.] Mr. Majeroni stated that what they are requesting tonight is for the Board • to consider this project in any future discussions on variances or land uses or zoning, that the project be considered as though it still had the present 556 spaces. Extensive discussion followed regarding this subject. Chairman Austen opened the public hearing. No one appeared to address the Board. Chairman Austen closed the public hearing. MOTION By Mr. Robert Hines, seconded by Mr. Pete Scala: RESOLVID, that the foregoing matter be adjourned until the Board of Appeals meeting of December 9, 1992, with the consent of the Appellant. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: Ayes - Hines, Scala, Austen, King. Nays - None. The Motion carried unanimously. The final Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following: O APPEAL OF ROBERT FLUMEFtFELT, APPELLANT, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM Tf� ZOidING BOARD OF APPEAIS UNDER ARTIG'LE %II, SECTION 54, OF TE� TOWN OF ITHACA ZONIIJG ORDIAiANCE, TO E%TIIdD A ATON-CONFORI�TG PROPERTY/BUII�DING IACATED AT 1020 EAST SHORE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 19-2-18, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. SAID E%TEIdSION INVOLVES Tf� RECONSTRUCTIOId OF A 1'7" % 5'2" EIREPLACE CF@�INEY WITH A NE6�T 2' % 8' CHIl�TEY. TE� E%ISTIN6 CHIl�IIJESi IS NON- CONFORMLNG BECAUSE OF A 2-FOOT (+ OR -) SETBACK FROM TI-� SOUTH SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE (15-FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED). � C� Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals November 18, 1992 : Mr. Flumerfelt appeared before the Board and explained the construction of the proposed chimney. Mr. Frost presented photographs of the house and the chimney as it is today. 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 Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the request of Robert Flumerfelt to extend a non-conforming property/building located at 1020 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-18, as recommended by Planner Richard A. Eiken. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: Ayes - Hines, King, Austen, Scala. Nays - None. The Motion carried unanimously. [The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit #8.J Chairman Austen read into the minutes letters from Richard W. Slocum, 1018 E. Shore Drive, dated 11/9/92 and from Tom Newton, 1016 East Shore Drive, dated 11/16/92. Both letters are in favor of Mr. Flumerfelt's project. [The letters are.attached hereto as Exhibits #9 and #10.] MOTION By Mr. Robert Hines, seconded by Mr. Pete Scala: RESOLVID, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant to Mr. Robert Flumerfelt, Special Approval for the construction of the chimney which places his residence and appurtance closer to the lot line than the existing structure, with the following findings: 1. That the same findings apply as were found in the environmental impact statement. 2. That the premises are similar in character to those of the neighbors. They are all narrow lots and improvements are architecturally beneficial for the neighborhood and to the property itself. 3. That it appears this is the only way it can be feasibly done. A vote on the 1�Iotion resulted as follows: Ayes - Hines, Scala, King, Austen. Nays - None. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals November 18, 1992 � The Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNI�NT Upon Motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. APPROVED: Austen; Chairman � � .� C��'Z�I'LcR.�• ��(•Lc.otr,l./ Connie J. Holcomb Recording Secretary �-. ` � Town Assigned Pro ject ID Number � 1 / Tovn of lthaca Envi ronmental Revier.+ SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSPIENT FORP'1 For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in tAe Tovn of Ithaca, Tompkins County ONLY PART 1- Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) • �+pplicant/Sponsor• ' c�l�� ) �i �S / � 2. Project Name: �� > N �.0 3. Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map): � 7_S �vv� L F�� i ax Parcel Numher: 4. Is Praposed Action : s Descr�c P NE`:� � EXPANSION � MODIFICATION/ALTERATiON Rev. 10� �• � e ro�ect 9riet�y �Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and oiher relevant items): �� (.tl�� fl�!% � JIo��C �aG��v/J4%z IO�iCs l�cr,.�/1% Q�Gy,,,�i!�`, �(�-l-��yv `-�^0. %� r `/, (�� / / �-�'e ( 5 f��SrA�e-ci'�(!� • >Gt�E� (S -{v �� 6�.� �� jHl ��K ,(c,��r � (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amaunt of Land Affected: Initially (0-5 yrs) Acres How is `he Land Zoned Presently ? ` j! � 8. Will pr000sed action comply with existtng zonin , ot YES � NO � If no, describe conflict briefly : (6-10 yrs) Acres (>10 yrs) Acras er ex�simg iand use restrictions? � 9 Will F��r�� d�t,on ieaa to a request for new : Pub19c Road? YES � NO � Pubiic Water? YES � NO � �..� -: _ - Public Sewer ? YES � �� p�esent tana use in the vicinity of the proposed project?, � Industrial �Agriculture � Park/Forest/Open Space . �OtherResidential Please describe : 1 1. Does pr„r„�� a�j,an invoive a permit, aoproval, or funding, now or uitimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local)? YES � NO � If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: ��l,�Vv 0 �' ��c C a, ��c � �Q� ll�j �-e� �t r � / �� NO � Commerc;al 12. Does an� aspect of the proposed action have a currentlV valid Dermit or aoDroval? YES � NO � If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether that permit/approval will require modification. � �.cn� irr ItiAl licant/Sponsor Name Signature: THE IHFORMATION PROYIDED ABOYE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOYLEDGE 'r}' �t or Type): �(�I1��t,I�I �` ��SLd� f , � Date (o I ! � !G �- f � a=-� � �'. ,��p : ��°-'P�/'P�'�-P 2�'.�s E PAR�' II - ENYIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by theTown ot 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 � 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 u NO U(If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another invalved agency, if any.) Could proposed action result in any adverse eftects associated with the following :(Answers may be handwritten, if legible) Ct . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainaqe or flooding problems? Explain briefly : None anticipated. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or eultural resources ? Communiiy or neighborhood character? Explain briefly ; None anticipated. Dmpor.,� � ;/�;.� ,..riij � �s,s,�..! �.,�,� nu.��,aayd��e� C3. Vegetation or tauna, 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 otficially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly : None anticipated. L�� ,,.o� j..�,,.z �:,�✓ s�f.>..�.� �,„l�a.�.- P�a�,��z..�;�� ..,i/ �ca��l �f CS. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly : None anticipated. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1- CS? Explain briefly : None anticip�.ted. Other impacts (includinq changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly : None anticipated. D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES � NO � If yes, explain brietly : E. Comments of staff �, CAC �, Other � attached. (Check applicable boxes) PART ill — 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 (� magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supportinq 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 potentiaily 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 W ILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination. name ot Lead Aqency •d N. Austen. Chairman 8� Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency ature of Responsible Officer in Lead Aqency . «_cy,�..�. r� r� - reparer's Signature Date : �n onsible Officer) Signature of Contributing Preparer � � .i, ' ��— Town Assigned Project ID Number � Tovn of Ithaca Environmental Reviev SHORT ENVIRONP1ENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Tor�n of Ithaca, Tompkins County ONLY PART 1- Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) t. Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: Peter P�?e�r��ell,ArchitPct H�s�icare ��i '�'��in�ki.ns C� 3. Preeise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map): Chase ?�nd, Fast Kins7 Road. (see attached� Tax Parcel Number: ��. 1-1_-1--37 4. Is Proposed Action: � NEW � EXPANSION � MODIFICATION/ALTERATION � Rev.10/90 5. Describe Project Briefly (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and othPr � relevant items): A six bedr��m convalescent hor�e.5,5��0 sc.ft. �vith future 2,0�0 sq.ft. additinn.Two acres developed--nine andthree quarters acres undeveloped. ; SEE ATIACHED (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of Land Affected: Initially (0-5 yrs) ? Acres 7. How is the Land Zoned Presently ? ,� � n-3o (6-10 yrs) n Aeres �>10 yrs) �1�? Acres 8. Will proposed action comply with existinq zoninq or other existing land use restrictions? YES a NO � if no, describe contlict brietly : � \ 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road ? YES � NO �X Public Water? YES � NO � Public Sewer ? YES � NO � 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity ot the proposeE project? � Industrial �Agriculture � Park/Forest/Open Space Please describe : U Residential � Other Commercial 1 1. Does proposed action involve a �ermit, a�eroval, or fundinq, now or ultimately trom any other qovernmental aqency (Federal, State, Local)? YES � NO � If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/tunding: (�nly Town of Ithaca) 1 2. Does an� asDect of the proposed action have a currentlU valid Dermit or aDDroval? YES U NO � It 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 KNOYLEDGE licant/Sponsor N Signature: (Print or Type): Peter T+e�vell, Architect . `•�' t � � • Date: .1�-28-�?2 I � , PART 11 - ENYIROliME1iTAL ASSESSHEHT (To be complet�d 3 v� ' y V � Hospicare: Special Approval th�Town ot Ithaca; Us• �ttachments as n�cessary) A. Does proposeC action exceeC any Type I ThrQshold 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 coord�nated review as provided tor unlisted �ctions in 6 NYCRR, P�rt 617.6? , YES � NO �( �f no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any .) Could proposed action result in any adverse eftects associated with the tollowing: (Answers may be handwritten, it le9ible) C 1. Existing air quality , surface or groundwater qu�lity , noise levels, �xistinq tratfic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential tor erosion, drainage or ilooding problems? Explain briefly : 91 ' �*17�� C2. Aesthetic, agriculturat, archaeologic�l, historic, or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : SEE 9TT9C�-iFD C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural areas, wetlands, or threatened o� endanqered species? Explain briefly : � ' � � �J.1�1�, 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 9TTAC'rID CS. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly : S� 4TTAC'FiID �. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1- C5? Explain brietly : �1 ' 1.7� C7. Other impacts (including chanqes in use of either quantity or type ot energy)? Explain briefly : SEE ATTAC'F�D D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES � NO � It yes, explain briefly : E. Comments of staff �, CAC �, Other � attached. (Check applicable boxes) PART I11 — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of ithaca) Instructions : For each adverse ettect identified abave, determine whether it is substantial, larqe, important or otherwise significant. Each effect shouTd be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (ie. urban or rUral); (b) probability ot occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (fj magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufticient detail to show that ail relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. ❑ Check this box if you have identitTed one or more potentiaily large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the fuli 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, LL`4 that the proposed action W ILL NOT resuit in any signiticant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary, the reasons supportin9 this determination. ZON ING BOARD OF . APPEAL.S %� c.�....,� �i •�� , A(a.� �..� Name of Lead Agency Preparer's Signature If different from Responsible Officer) Ed�vard � N. Austen , Chairman Name $� Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Si9nature of Contributing Preparer e or rces Date : icer in �ead Avenc ` , • � r ' • � PAR�' II - Environmental Assessment Hospicare o€ Tompkins County Proposed Hospice Facility East King Rd., Residence District R-3Q Zoning Board of Appe�s: Special A�proval Request November 12, 1992 A. Action is Unlisted B. Action will not receive coordinated review C. Could action result in an adverse e€fects on to or azisin front the followin : C1. Existinq air qual'ttv, surface or qroundwater aualitv or quantitv, noise levels, existinq traffic patterns, solid waste production ar disposal potential for ero�ion draina e or floodin roblems? None anticipated. The proposal is to construct a six-bed, 5,500+/- s.f. hospice with associated parking, office space and landscaping on an 11.8+/- acre site, oi which 9.8 acres will be left as open space. The building will be one to two stories in height and will be designed to look like a residential structure, The proposed hospice will not create any noticeable increase in the levelin traffic on • E. King Rd. nor will it result in air pollution, reduction in surface or groundwater quality or quantity, increased noise levels, increased solid waste production or disposal, or potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems. C2. Apsthetic, aaricultural, archeoloctical, historic or other natural or cultural resources, or communitv or neiqhborhood character? None anticipated. The proposed bu.i.lding will be residential in design and will be compatible wiih the neighborhood character. The parking area is proposed to be screened with a berm and land�caping so that it is unobtrusive to motorists along King Road and to residents in the area. No impacts to agrzcu�iural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources have been iden�ified. C3. Ve etation or fauna fish shellfish or wildlife s ecies si nificant habitats or threatened or endan ered s ecies'? None anticipated. The prQposed hospice will help to protect wildlife habitat as a result of nearly 10 acres being set aside as permanent open entire site ha� be�n previously disturbed, therefore no significant habi�ats exist on the site. and wildlife space. The species or C4. A communitv's existinct plans or gvals as officiallv. adopted or a chanqe in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? � Non� anticipated. The zoning classification of the site was changed by the Town Board on Octnber 5, 1992 from Nfultiple Residence io Residence Disirict R-34, which allows the proposed upon Special Approval by the Board of Appeals. The use is � • • EAF Part II (cont.) Hospicare of Tompkins Co. Board of Appeals, November 12, 1992 consistent with the goals of the Town and will serve a valuable public need. The Planning Board, on November 3, 1992, unanimously passed a resolution recommending that the Board of Appeals give favorable consideration to approving the Special Approval Request. C5. Growth, subseauent development, or related activities likelv to be induced bv the proposed action? None anticipated. C6. Lonq term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1- C5? None anticipated. C7. Other impacts (includinct chanaes in use of either civantitv or tv e of ener � None anticipated. D. Is there, or is there likelv to be, controversv related to potential adverse environmental imnacts? None anticipated. PART III - Staff Recommendation Determination of Siqnificance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action scale of it, the character of the existing neighborhood, the public n facility, and the information above, a Negative Determination of Significance is recommended for the action as proposed. Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: Richard A. Eiken, Planner Review Date: November 12, 1992 ,the proposed eed for such a Environmental � � , �Hosp-icare of Tompkins County �East K�.ng Road, across from Chase Preiiminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board, November 3, 1992 � �J i • ADOPTED RES�LUTION: Farm Lane SEQR Hospicar� of Tompkins County East Ki.ng Road across from Chase Proposed Hospice Faci�.ity Praliminary Si�e Plan Approva� Planning Board, November 3, 1992 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, WHER�AS: seconded by James Baker: -1- Farm Lane � 1. This action is the Consa.deration of Prelimi.nary Szte Plan Apgroval for the proposed construction of a six-bed, 5,Q00+/- square foot hospice facility wi.th associated of£ice space, off-street par3czng and landscaping on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44.1-�.-1, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 44.1-Z-2 through 44.Z-1-6, portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 44.1-�-7 through 44.1-1-15, and Town of Tthaca Tax ParceZs No. 44.1-1-16 through 44.J.-1-20, 11.8+/- acres to�al, located on the westexn half of the Chase Pond site on East King Road across from Chase Farm Lane, Residence District R-30, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Pub3.ic Hearing held on l�ovember 3, 1992, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part � prepared by the applicant, Part II and recommendaiion prepa�ed by the '�own planning staff, a letter from the Tompkins County Departmen� of Planning dated September 28, 1992, and a preliminary si�e plan er�titled "Hospicare of Tompkins County", dated October 27, 1992, prepared by Peter Newe�.�., Architect, and 4. The Tompkins County Departman� of Planning has been notified of the proposed development, pursuan� to Sectians 239-1 and m of General Municipal Law, and 5. The Tov�n planning staff has recommended a Negative Determination of EnvironmentaJ. Significan.ce for the site plan, as proposed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That �he Town of �thaca Flanning Board hereby makes a Negati.ve Detarmination of Environmental Sign�ficance in accordance with the New York s�ate Environmental Quality Review Act for the site plan as proposed and, thereiore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. • r� U U ,�Hosgicare of Tompkins County East King Road, across from Chase Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board, November 3, 1992 Farm Lane Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Smith, Finch, Cornell, Lesser. Nay - None. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: *�� Hospicare of Tompkins County East King Road across from Chase Proposed Hospice Facility Prelim�inary Site Plan Approval Planning Board, November 3, 1992 MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS: -2- Farm Lane 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a six-bed, 5,000+/- square foot hospice facilty with associated office space, off-street parking and landscaping on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44.1-1-1, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 44.1-1-2 through 44.1-1-6, portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 44.1-1-7 through 44.1-1-15, and Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 44.1-1-16 through 44.1-1-20, 11.8+/- acres total, located on the western half of the Chase Pond site on East King Road across from Chase Farm Lane, Residence District R-30, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on November 3, 1992, made a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on November 3, 1992, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, Part II and recommendation prepared by the Town planning staff, and a preliminary site plan entitled "Hospicare of Tompkins County", dated October 27, 1992, prepared by Peter Newell, Architect, and 4. The subject parcel is part of the pending "Chase Pond Subdivision", for which the Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on October 6, 1992, granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval, and 5. The Tompkins County Department of Planning, in a letter dated November 3, 1992, has indicated that the project as proposed will have no significant deleterious impacts on intercommunity, County or State interests, and ,� �osgicare of Tompkins County East King Road, across from Chase Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board, November 3, 1992 C� • � -3- Farm Lane 6. The Town has requested that all of the site not to be disturbed for construction of the hospice and parking be maintained as permanent "green space", and 7. The site plan shows a"building footprint" of 5,500+/- square feet which is in fact a proposed "envelope" of 7,000+/- square feet within which the 5,500+/- square-foot building will be sited, and 8. The proposed use requires a Special Approval from the Board of Appeals following approval of a preliminary site plan by the Planning Board, as specified by Article V, Section 18(4) of the Town Zoning Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of the proposed hospice facility with associated office space, off-street parking and landscaping on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44.1-1-1, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 44.1-1-2 through 44.1-1-6, portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 44.1-1-7 through 44.1-1-15, and Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 44.1-1-16 through 44.1-1-20, as shown on a site plan entitled "Hospicare of Tompkins County", dated October 27, 1992, prepared by Peter Newell, Architect, subject to the following conditions: a. The use of herbicides and pesticides will be kept to the utmost minimum consistent with good horticultural, scientific, and environmental practice. b. Submission of a deed restriction for parcel to remain as open space where activity may occur, in a form to be Attorney, and delineation of said left as open space on a revised site site plan approval. the portion of the no future construction approved by the Town portion of parcel to be plan, prior to final c. Submission to and approval by the Town Planner of a landscaping and lighting plan for the proposed hospice prior to final site plan approval. All lights in the parking area, if proposed, should be low to the ground and remain unobtrusive to adjacent residential properties. d. Submission to and approval by the Town Engineer of a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan prior to final site plan approval, said plan to be implemented during construction of the proposed hospice facility. 1 •' � � • CJ •Hosgicare of Tompkins County East King Road, across from Chase Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board, November 3, 1992 2. -4- Farm Lane e. Submission to and approval by the Town Engineer of a maintenance plan for the pond structure prior to final site plan approval. f. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board, prior to final site plan approval, of proposed architectural renderings showing, at a minimum, elevations, roof lines, exterior appearance, and other architectural features of the proposed hospice facility. g. Revision of the site plan to show the specific location of the proposed hospice facility. That the Planning Board hereby recommends that Appeals give favorable consideration to granting Approval for the proposed use as described above. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Smith, Finch, Nay - None. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. HOSPICAR/PBMTG 11/4/92 • `•,• • Cornell, footprint and the Board of the special Lesser. .� , URGENT! ! Q ��b� � s�� z �ee TOWh! OF ITkACA �LANNING ZONfNG Et�G1NE N SEPTEMBER 1, 1992, HOSPICARE WILL GO BEFORE THE P OF THE T4WN SEEKING Z�QNING APPROVAL FOR THE CHASE POND HOSPIGE. IT lS VERY IMPORTANi THAT RESIDENTS OF CHASE FARM SHOW THEIR SUPPORT FOi� THE PRC�JECT, TO EXPEDITE THE APPROVAL PROCESS. PLEASE CALL, WRITE OR PLAN TO ATTEND THE MEETING!; � TUESDAY SEPTEMBER �, 1992 AT 7:30 P.M. ITHACA TOWN PLANNI�JG BOAR� �THACA T4WN HALL 126 E. SEN�CA ST. ITHACA, NEW YORK � 4850 273 —172� !F YOU HAVE ANY QUESTI�NS REGARDING TH�S URGEIVT MATTER PLEASE CONTAGT JACK L�TTLE, 3 GHASE LAf�E 272--4444 OF� 273-0207. • � �U Z�'��I�'1 .� � G�i►C�Z ; �� Pu�G�-� �� GoiSh �v �{- v � �� ,.��s�� - �� - g� � �� . � ��,as�1 r�ks�;� � �� .� �, �� ,��... � �-�' � �3-� rr�� v �� „��.-�-� ��.,� s�� r � (�'Q� 'v�" lS /� G�� n u �se.� J �� ,t � �� P �i� cG� c�� 1'L� �� .z -''� �,-`� ��- ,r�,�c,..��' � � �.q,�-� `�`v i 5 � f�i.c'� .��- s ; ca.�►,v� �� ' �c / �� .� � � �` a� �- �,� u � �" �.� � (� � �- �� tb� �� "''� �� c �,�, su c� �., S/��e' Q,�� - �`'�'s . "�� .�c.� S't fLCG��" ' �y�►�S� �U � SDGc.a-Q� G�%�1`�� '`�'�` _ �—. �'� � s v � �`�' -�-,,� r.� e�'rt `"�1�, U �� c.,�v�. c� � %� S��`� �c� � �� 1 �� - o n � ��a, n� �y�v � � � � TOWN 4F ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 � T0: MEMORANDUM Zoning Bcard ot Appeals 1°Sembers � DATE: November 13, 1992 FROIi: Andrew S. Frost, Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Offic r� �� ' RE: Fatrir_ia Bennett-Perry; November 18, 1992 �onin�x Bcard Hearing The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you ;�iith some basic information regarciing r_he attacheci appeal. The application tor author- i�ation from I�Is. Bennett-Perry, requests to maintain a single family home at 1i15 Danby Road by a total of 5 unrelatecl peoplP. . The property, accord residential buildings on has t�•�o unrelated people unrelated people. It caas occupancy violation that ing to Tompkins County Assessment, has had two it since 1941. Currently one of the buildings oCru�ying it and the second building has five via a complaint trom a neiahbor, alleging an my office got involveci :��ith this property. The I�roperty, by virtue oi its t�ao residential buildings existing prior to Town Zoning (��ihereas only one residential building on a property is allo�aed), is non-conforminy. Additionally, appellant has provided evidence via copies ot leases, that at the time of the Town's adoption of its most recent Zoning Ordinance �efinition of a family (November 19891, that they maintained the building in question with a total of four unrelatea people. �ur Toc�n Attorney has determined that because of this, the �roperty is legally non-conforming for four unrelated persons. The November 1989 Ordinance change was prompted by the Oyster Bay court case involving a"non-traditional" family. cc: dlh Shirley Ratiensperger � •a. , . ' � � V.J Town Assigned Pro ject ID Number Tovn of ithacs Fnvironmen#a� Reviev SHORT ENY i RONMENT,4L ASS�SSMENT FORf"1 Far UHLISTED ACTiONS Located in the To�+n of Ithaea, Tomp&ins Co�nty ONLY PART I— Projec� l�formation (To be comp]eted by App]icant or Project Sponsor} 1. App]icant/Sponsor• 2. Project Name: � r _ 3. Precise Location (Street Addre� and d Intersections, ,prominent 1 ndmarks, etc, or ravide map): ii�5 /�lxi1/,.,/`t� /�a� � C � ,Ct�us � 5 c�C�J �orn �;rn ��i' S S'�Y''E? / Tax Parce� Number: 4, fs Proposed Action � NEW � EXPANSiON � MODIFICATION/ALTERATION Rev.10/90 5. Describe Project Brieiiy (Include pro�ect purpose, present land vse, current and fut�re construction pians, and oth?r relevant items) : (Attach separate sheeE(s) if necessary to adeqvatety describe the proposed project.) '. Amo�nt of Land Affected: Initially (0-5 yrs) Acres C6-10 yrs) Acres (>f 0 yrs) Acres 7. Haw is the Land Zoned Presently ? 8. Wil] proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing ]and use restrictions? YES � NO � ff �o, describe conflici brief�y : . \ � 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: , Public Road ? YES � �!0 ❑ Public Water? YES � NQ ❑ Public Sewer ? YES � NQ � 3 0. What is the present la�d vse in the vtcinity of the propased pro ject? � Residential � Cammerciai Q Indus#riat �Agricuiture' � Park/�orest/Qpen Space � Other Please describe: 1 1. Does proposed action involve a perrnit, an�rovai, ar fundi�g, now or ultimateiy from any other qovernmental agency (Federal, State, Lacal)? YES � f�0 � If yes, �ist agency �ame and permit/approval/fundi�g: 12. Does an4 aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permzt or approval? YES � NO � If �es, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether that permit/a�proval wi�l require modification. t CER7IFY THA7 THE IHFORMATION PRDVIDE� ABO'VE IS TRUE i0 7F�E BEST QF MY KNOYLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or iype): Signature: � �� Date: /�� /7_ 1SP,rr/lz�f- f�/n, - �(se ,��.,ir_n �/�• ��'p�'.fs , PAPi 11 - ENYIRQNMElJ7�IL ASSESSMfMT (Ta b� completed by th�Town o! Ithaca; Use �tEac�ments as n�cessary) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshoid in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.� 2 ar Town Environmcnt�t LocaZ �aw? YES � � NO �� If yes, coordinate the review procrss and use the Full EAF. B. Wiil proposed action rec�ive coordinated rrview as provided for unlisted �ctions in 6 NYCRR, Part 6� 7.6? YES u NO �(If no, a negativ� declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any.) Could proposed action resu�t in any adverse eftects associated with the foilowing: (Answers may be handwritten, it ]egible) C1 . Existing air quality, surtace or groundwaier quaiity, noise leve�s, existing traffic pat#erns, solid waste production and disposal, patential tor erosion, drainage or t�ooding problems? Expl�in brietly : SEE ATTACI-IED C2. Aesthetic, agricult�ral, archaeologic�l, historic, or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : S�E �1TTACHED C3. Vegetatio� or fau�a, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, siqnificant habitats, unique natural areas, wetlands, or threatened or endangered spacies? Exp3ain briefTy : SEE ATTACfiID C4, The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopfed, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other naturai resources? Exp3ain briefly : SF�E ATTACHID C5. Growth, subsequent devetopment, or related activi#ies likely io be induced by the �roposed action? Explain briefly : SEE ATTAC�iID C6. Long term, st�ort term, cumuiative, or other effects not identified in C1- C5? Explain briefi� : 'JI ' : �l�l�l�� Ci. Qther impacts (including changes in use of either quantity o� type of energy}? Exp�ain briefly : � 91 + !'.�� D. is there, or is there likely to be, cantroversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES � 1V0 � If yes, explain brie�ly : E. Comments o£staff �, CAC u, Other u attached. (Check app�icable boxes) PaRT I!I — DETE�2M1!lATIOb OF SlGHIFtCANCE ('�o be complete� by tl�e Town of {thaca} Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above, de#ermine whether it is substantial, jarge, important or otherwise signiticant. Each effect shauld be assessed in connection with its (a) settinq (ie. wban ar rura�); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) trreversibility; (e? geographic scope; and (� maqnitude. If necessary, add attachments or refere�ce suppor#ing materials. �nsure that expiana#ions contain sufficient deiatl to show thaf all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. ❑ Check this box if you have identifted one or more potential]y large or signiticant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to ihe full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. �Checlt this box if you have determined, based on the �nformation and analysis above and any supportirtg dacumentation, tfia# the proposed ac4ion WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary, the reasons supportinq thTs determination. ZONIiVG BOARD OF APPEAIS ��r• ��` /�/ �n�r Narn� of lead Ageney Preparer"s Signature If different from Responsible Officer) Ed�vard N. Austen , Chairman Name 8c 7itle of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer o�stble Officer in Lead Adenc Date : � , • • • PART II - Envi.ronmental Assessmeni Patricia Bennett-Perry Proposed Use of Residence for Five Unrelated Tenants 1115 Danby Road, Residence Dis�rict R-15 5pecial Approval, Zoning Soard o# Appeals November 1Q, 1992 A. Action is Unlisted B. Action will not reCeive coorc�inated review C. Could action result in anv adverse effects on, to or arisinc� from ihe followinq� C�. Exisii.nq air aualitv, surface or qroundwater qualitv or auantitv, noise levels, �xistinct traffic p�tterns solid waste production or disposal �otential for erosion, drainaae or floodinq problems? None anticipated. The proposal i.nvolves �he temporary continuation of use of a rssidence for five unrelated tenants instead of three, which i.s the maximum allowed by the Town's Zoning Ordinance (definition of "family" pertaining to number of unrelated p�rsons). The property is already non-conforming due to the existence of two residences on the lot. Thrse persons are permitted per r�sicience by right, therefore the request will only increase the total number of residents by one, fro�n six to seven. According to the applicantf �he costs of owning and maintaini�g the property are such that it is infeasible for her to rent to less than five tenants, and she proposes that the non-conforming use be allowed to continue until Niay af 1995, when she plans to retire. Afte� May, 1995, the residence will not be rented to any tenants. `Phe propasal will not resuit in any new constructian, and will not create a significant increase solid waste production, traffic, or noise levels, and wi11 not resuit in a reduction in air quality, or surface or groundwater quality or quaniity. A parking a�ea exists behind the residence, however it is insufficient for the requested number of tenants {five spaces provided, seven required). It is recommended ihat the parking area be extended 16+/- feet toward the rear of the lat which would enable two additionai parking spaces to be crea�ed (see attached sketch). If the parking area is extended as recommended, there will be suf#icient space for each of the cars to reverse into the turnaround sgace at the end of the dri�eway, thus avoiding the li�elihood af cars backing out on�o Danby Road. C2. Aesthetic, aqricultural, archeoloaical historic or other natural or cultural resources or communitv or neiqhborhood character? None anticipated. '�he residence is already existing, therefore no ne'w structures will be created. The area surrounding the site is characterized by low to medium density residential uses, several small retail stores, and open space. The parking area is located behind �he residence so there will be no significant visual impacts to the neighborhood. No adverse impacts to agricultural, azcheological, historic, or natural resources have been identified. � �� 1� • • Patricia Bennett-Perry Special Approval Request Board of Appeals, November 10, 1992 C3. Ve�etation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, sicrnificant habitats, or threat�ned or endanqered species? None anticipated, due ta the fact that no new exterior construction is proposed. C4. A community'� existina plans or aoals as officiallv adopted, ,or a charsae in use or intensitv of use of ].and or ,other natural resources? No significant impacts anticipated. As noted above, there are five unrelated persons presently living in one of the two residences on the lot, which exceeds the nutnber permitted by the Town's Zoning Oz-dinance. The applicant has petitioned the Zoning Board of Appeals for the ne�essary special approval for this condiiion. The applicant has agreed to discontinue the renta� use of the residence in Niay of 1995, therefore any conflict wiih Toian goals would be iemporary. Due to the fact that six persans would be permitted on the site (three per r�sidence� and the curreni proposal is ior five in one residence and two in the other, Planning Staff recomr[iends thai no more than ttao renters be perrn.itted in the second residence as a condition of any speciaJ. approval. The site is sufficiently screened on �he sides from adjacent properties, and parking � is provided behind the residence, therefore no visual impacts are anticipated. C5. Growth sr�bse t�ent develo ment or related activities likel to be induced bv the proposed action? • None anticipated, C6. Lonq term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1- C5? — .. ., The proposed continuation. of use of a residence for five unrelated persons is proposed to be on a tecnporary basis (until May, 1995), tnerefore no significant long term impacts are anticipated. There may be short term impacts from the additianal tenants due to a possible shortage of parking on the property, unless the parking ar�a is extendeci as recommended. No cumulative effects have been identified. C7. Other impacts (including chanaes in use of either c�uantitv or tvpe of enercry)? •, ..... None anticipat�d. D. Is__there, or is there likelv to be, controversv related to potential adverse environznental imtaacts? No controversy related to poteniial adverse environmentai impacts is anticipated. � • � U C PART III - Staff Recommendation, Determination of Siqnificance 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 residence for more than three unrelated persons is discontinued in May of 1995, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed. Planning Staff further recommends that any special approval be conditioned upon the following: 1. That the second residence be limited to no more than two occupants, due to the requested increase in total persons allowed on the site (seven, as opposed to six allowed as of right), and 2. That the applicant be required to accommodate two additional parking size. extend the gravel parking area to spaces of approximately 8'x 19' each in Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: Richard A. Eiken, Planner Review Date: November 10, 1992 3 �P • • � U TRAVERS ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING May 28, 1992 950 CLIFTON AVENUE • CLIFTON Cornell University Real Estate Department Cornell Business & Technology Park 20 Thornwood Drive, Suite 103 Ithaca, NY 14850 Attention: Gentlemen: Mr. John E. Majeroni NEW JERSEY 07013-2 7 9 0 201-365-0510 Re: Project 392-097-01 IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW East Hill Plaza Ithaca, New York As requested, we have reviewed the subject plan and submit this letter report of our findings and recommendations. The letter report summarizes our evaluation of the Landscape Improdements Plan of February 13, 1992, prepared by others. The evaluation included trip generation, traffic access, internal circulation and parking. our findings and recommendations are described herein. Introduction and Backqround The Cornell University Real Estate Department is in the process of studying improvements to the East Hill Plaza parking area. Although no plaza additions are anticipated at this time, the University desires that the parking lot improvements satisfy the potential 13,780 gross square feet of leasable area (gla) expansion identified in the DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DGEIS) and proposed development of the out-parcel. \� , � -� 1 , � Cornell University Page 2 East Hill Plaza can be classified as a neighborhood shopping center with several different land uses. Its building area is 112,000 gross square feet (gsf) of which 4,314 gsf is common area. The remaining 107,686 gross square feet of leasable area (gla) is allocated as: retail, 62,553; office 38,709; and restaurant 6,424 gla. The restaurant tenants include: What's Your Beef with 4,000 gla and 153.seats, Ling Ling's with 1,200 gla and 24 seats and Little Caesar's with 1,224 gla and 0 seats (carry-out). The Plaza's land uses have distinctly different weekday and weekend trip generation and parking demand characteristics. Trip Generation The examination of retail, office and restaurant land uses � in the context of trip generation indicates that the worst case traffic scenario is the weekday PM peak hour. The weekday was selected because office land uses generate very little traffic on Saturdays. The PM peak hour was selected due to the fact that retail land uses typically generate very little traffic during the morning rush hour because the stores do not open before 9:00 a.m. � The potential trip generation of retail, office and restaurant uses in context of out-parcel development suggests that a high-turnover (sit-down) restaurant will have the greatest impact on internal site traffic because its weekday evening peak hour traffic would coincide with the Plaza's peak hour traffic. The amount of traffic currently generated by the Plaza and the additional traffic that could be generated if the proposed 13,780 gla of retail and high-turnover (sit-down) restaurant were built are estimated in the following table: . �'1''� � • • C Cornell University Page 3 WEERDAY ESTIMATED TRIP GENER.ATION AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Description Size (gla) Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Existinct Retail Office Restaurant Subtotal Expansion Retail Restaurant TOTAL *120 Seats, 62,553 1.9 38,709 2.3 6,424 107,686 13,780 * 121,466 80 40 120 6.4 80 10 90 2.3 - - - 16.3 160 50 210 1.9* 20 180 10 30 6.4 _ - 16.3 60 240 approximately 8,000 gla. 200 200 10 80 60 50 270 330 45 45 70 60 385 435 90 110 .�� 90 130 The traffic generated by the anticipated e�ansion program represents a modest traffic increase which can easily be handled by the existing street system and two driveways. Access and Circulation The Plaza has two access driveways. One located on Judd Falls Road approximately 420 feet north of the intersection of Ellis Hollow Road. The other driveway is located on Ellis Hollow Road approximately 520 feet east of Pine Tree Road. The planned improvements will provide for two outbound lanes at both access driveways. The proposed driveway lane configurations consist of one right turn lane and one left turn lane. The two-lane driveway exits are beneficial because separation of left turn and right turn vehicle movements improve the flow of traffic exiting the Plaza. Judd Falls Road Drivewav design illustrated on the create traffic congestion for vehicles exiting from - The Judd Falls Road Driveway Landscape Improvement Plan would due to inadequate storage length the west circulation isle. • \ � 1 , • • �❑ Cornell University Recommendation: The Judd Falls Road driveway should be designed to allow for adequate vehicle storage. Storage at the driveway should be of sufficient length to keep vehicles exiting from the west internal circulation road from blocking the path of entering vehicles. Alternative designs to accomplish this are: 1) Make the west internal circula- tion road one-way southbound and extend the island with a painted gore or 2) reconfigure the internal road into a one- way angled parking isle as illustrated in Figure l. This configuration results in a net increase of 10 parking. spaces. Figure 1 also illustrates the use of a painted gore and has a tapered island to provide for exiting lanes that parallel the north curb of the Plaza. Recommendation: The stop signs located on the circulation road at the P&C crosswalk are problematic and should be removed. They do not meet the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) criteria for STOP sign warrants. The signs are more than likely unenforceable and represent a liability to the University, Town and P&C. Ellis Hollow Drivewav - The Landscaping Improvement Plan shows the 46-foot Ellis Hollow driveway with three, 12-foot traffic lanes and a 10-foot island. The 12-foot inbound lane at the Ellis Hollow driveway is to narrow to accommo- date single unit trucks making left or right hand turns into the Plaza driveway. Recommendation: The driveway should either be widened or the traffic lanes and island widths reconfigured to provide for a 15-foot inbound lane. In addition, the inbound and outbound curb radii should be a minimum of 30-foot prefera- bly 35-foot to accommodate single unit truck turns. Figure 2 illustrates one alternative driveway configuration. Recommendation: The driveway lane transition should be less abrupt. A length of 60-foot is preferred rather than 40-foot. The painted island would do a better job of channelizing vehicles turning left turn into the out-parcel if designed as shown in Figure 2. The intersection of the Ellis Hollow driveway and internal circulation road is problematic in the context of traffic flow. The reverse curve geometry of the circulation road arid uncontrolled driveway and parking isles access create a large area for vehicle conflicts. � �- ,Z � �. .� ' 1' �c o' • o �"-� • .� � ` ' 8 _ . . . �� • �- � �.'�- ` � • � v 0 � � r r ';, � � SToP 51Gh1 �i �� ; , y P�G Figure 1 Judd �alls Driveway East Hill P9aza Ithaca, f�ew York ; � p � - - •- - May, 1992 0 50' 100' Travers Associates Consultonts , �J CJ � � �� y°� c � ° �v � STo P S �� Ilis Hoilow Drivevvay East-Hiil:-�laza Ithaca New Y k ° °�� ' or Figure 2 0 50' 100� May, �992 Trovers Associates Consultonts � L ,o � Figure 3 �❑ Perimeter Road �ntersection East Hili Plaza ithaca� New York , ; � 0 50' 100' May, 1992 Travers Assouates Consultonts • • � Cornell University Page 5 Recommendation: Reconfigure the intersection to remove the potential for parking isle conflicts and locate a stop sign on the driveway. Figure 3 illustrates the improvements to the Ellis Hollow driveway and circulation road intersection. The improvements offer two traffic flow benefits: 1) better traffic control of the intersection and 2) traffic circula- tion is restricted to the circulation road instead of the parking isles. The recommended improvements result in a net loss of the 19 spaces. Parkincx Supply and Demand The existing parking space supply at the Plaza as reported by others is 556 spaces. Implementation of the Landscape Improvement Plan would result in 518 spaces. Our observa- tions and observations by others indicate that the lot is usually about two-thirds filled. In this context, the landscaped isles shown on the plan adequately restrict cross isle vehicle circulation. Our access and circulation recommendations would result in a net decrease of nine (? spaces making the total 509 spaces. ��}�e� - 5�� d-�-t�aQ. �.-t-+�� .\ The peak parking demand of the Plaza's individual land uses occur during different days of the week and at different hours during the day*. The examination of retail, office and restaurant land uses in the context of parking indicates that the weekday peak parking demand is the most critical because the demand for parking of each land use is coincident. The peak demand for parking and recommended parking space supply of various land uses has been measured by several institutions including the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Urban Land Institute and Eno Foundation. A comparison of their weekday parking demand and supply ratio indicates that 3.87 and 4.06 spaces per 1,000 gla should be provided for retail and 2.81 and 3.12 spaces per gsf should be provided respectively*''. '`Urban Land Institute, SHARED PARKING, 1984. '`*Travers analysis of ULI, ITE and Eno Parking Rates. 0 0 �� I+ J • • LJ Cornell University Page 6 The Institute's recommendations are compared with the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance in the following table: EAST HILL PLAZA WEEKDAY PEAK PARKING ANALYSIS Institute Recommendations Zoning Code Demand Supply Supply Description Size Rate Spaces Rate Spaces Rate Spaces ExistinQ Retail Office Restaurant* Subtotal Expansion Retail Restaurant TOTAL 62,553 38,709 5,200 13,780 **** 3.87 242 4.06 2.81 109 3.12 ** 59 ** 410 3.87 53 463 4.06 254 121 59 434 56 490 5.0 5.0 *** 313 194 35 542 5.0 69 611 *Total restaurant seats 177, excludes Little Caesars (take-out). **One space for every three seats. ***One space for every five seats. ****Out-parcel to provide its own parking. Each land use's peak parking demand occurs during different hours of the day. This concept is illustrated in the attached shared parking analysis. The analysis reports that the amount of parking required at the Plaza is 456 spaces. Conclusion The street system surrounding the East Hill Plaza Plaza's access driveways and internal circulation adequate capacity to accommodate the potential 13, expansion identified in the DGEIS and development out-parcel as described herein. • 1 �,� and the roads have 780 gla of the • Cornell University The landscape improvements parking supply from 556 sp supply falls short of ineet Ordinance parking requirem potential expansion of 13, increase to 10$ spaces. T however exceed the parking Eno Foundation, especially the Plaza's land uses are Page 7 � �� under stud will reduce the��; aces to spaces. The :5�6�9'-space ing the Tow of Ithaca Zoning ents by �3��paces . With the 700 gla�3 the shortfall would he �space parking supply does recommended by the ULI, ITE and if the shared parking aspects of considered. We believe that the benefits of the landscape and access and circulation improvements outweigh the parking shortage and that a variance is justified. If you have any questions please contact us. Very truly yours, • TRAVERS ASSOCIATES A Professional Corporation ��,�� a David A. Stroud Senior Engineer I DAS:sp Attach. VIA FAX \� J concerning this letter report, (New York) �� rt>�. .. �i.�.2� c7�.(' L.n--- i1 " _. / � , �;�..L'Z%'✓�-- ,�c �/��.L��) C�' •.,:�� % � � �� ,, / G� ��,�� .�) � %,c..�� C�� ' � ' r J �,;—�--- J .\ r �;3 ;, ;�-L' %!� ��`� c��. ; �e��,�. , �._ �:�� ,' �;�Lf�jli-- � ` , �' Page 1• • PROJECT: EAST HILL PLAZA LOCATION: ITFIR�'A, NE�I Y�tK . .. •. . 7�.�� ; �.��1, PROJECT #:19�-097-01 DATE : 05/28/92 PFfASE: EXPAI�IOPI DESI@I h�PfTH: DECEMBEft � HOTEL 1 OFFICE RETAIL �-- - �RESTAURANT CIt�EMA RESIDENTIF�. RESIDENTIAL i.Af�ID US� ; R�MS REST/LOIAVGE C01+�. � CBD t�l-CBD (TGSF)¢ (T(lA)�� (R�ii (T0.A)� (SEAT) � (TC�LA)� (SEAT? (➢.U.l (D.U.) u,a�y i � �,o,l PEF�( PARIiING RATE Neekday (unadjustedJ Saiurday iunadjusted) � � �• '� ti ��,1� 38.709 3.1P 0.50 AUTO hfOD� �LIT (X) 100.00 AUTO OCCI�ANCY 1.2D CAPTIVE PI(T ('�C) n/a lf�VT}�Y VAR . � t . DO � SATtktbAY ADJUSTI'�NTS AUTO PSOD� SPLIT (X) 1Q0.00 AUTO �CL�RNCY 1.ZD CAPTIVE t�(T (X) o/a hfDt{Tt�.Y VAR . � 1. 00 ffFECTIVE P�tKING RATE 76.33� 4.060 5.000 100.00 1.60 0.00 1.� 100.Q0 1.80 0.00 1.00 0 80.00 1.40 n1a 0.85 80.00 1.40 n/a 0.65 0 0 5.200 20.00 0.50 11.34 24.00 0.50 �D.00 100.00 P.00 50.00 _ 1.00 100.00 100.Q0 Z.QO P.00 50.00 O.OQ 1.00 1,00 Neekday 3.1� 4.06 0.85 1D.00 Saturday 0.50 5.00 0.65 10.00 } Thousand Grass Square Feet (TGSF) �+ Thousand Gross Leasable Area (TGLA) �� See SHARm PARKING, Ur6an Land Institute, pg. 86 100.D0 2.00 0.00 0.90 1Q0.00 2.� n/a 0.90 0.50 10.21 0.54 18.00 0 0,25 0.30 1DO.D0 2.00 0.00 0,50 10Q.00 2.Q0 Q.00 0.50 0.13 0.15 n 1.00 1.D0 n/a n/a n/a 1.� n/a n/a n/a 1.� 1.Q0 1. DO 0 1.00 1.00 n/a n/a n/a 1.00 n/a n/a n/a 1.00 1.00 1.00 , • � ', • Town AssigneG Pro ject ID Number Town of Ithaca Envi ronmental Reviev � SHORT ENYIRONMENTAL ASSESSP'1ENT FORM t � For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Tovn of Ithaca, Tompkins County ONLY PART I— Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) Ap nt/Sponsor• 2. Project Name: / O�cr� � ��u`J'lC��C �T �i� �4�'C �rl� G�'l•iylr7e �^ Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provid map): ' /O ZO CA3'� .S�iorc 1�.�i'vL /�`iA�'Q � �t/. i � /4 S So Tax Parcel Number: �9 - z - /8 Rev.10/90 G/yllrl7 4. Is Proposed Action: � NEW � EXPANSION � MODIFICATION/ALTERATION <��Qee.s�� 5. Describe Project Briefly (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and oth?r r levant ite/ms) : / / / /�,O�li'lC/r!<rJT D�S��.Sfl'/r�4.4�4" �i'G ��G .l'irlq��'��"C✓�G/l.e�lCl br� G� Ch�%rJ/�t G�Ji'��l /7C�✓ �� Z tra -�,/C�JrAs-1L'G v�i�C �R c c_ G✓ ��f�!/ GdODd -/'i''A�rJL� C d!i'rrls7r � L/�/G/OSG!/�G-. LLfi'!C/ GlSG il'f il�YJh'!L�''LI� di�Givli'� .:S /�CS/�tHr/4/ ,l/O Oi�Li" GUrrGrlT Or �'u�[irL COr!?/i'GlG�•O/i � 5 ��iH�'! �G� . (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) /�f? .��of S: Z e a�/vro'�! D. / e. Amount of Land Affected: Initially (0-S yrs) Acres (6-10 yrs) Acres (>10 yrs) Acres How is the Land Zoned P.resently ?�� 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restriction�s^? YES � NO a If no, describe conflict briefly : 6cc.� ��q� �a�' �'�f'��""'�9 u3� / � \ 9. Will proposed action lead to a request tor 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? � Industrial �Agriculture � Park/Forest/Open Space Please describe : � Residential �C Commercial � Other 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 currently valid permit or aDProval? YES U NO u Ityes, list agency name and Permit/approvai. Also, state whether that permit/approval will require modification. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOYLEDGE �licant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : /� o %i.�� u��"�� /� Signature i � /. . � � • �_ i � Date: �✓. � /99Z �i PA RT 11 - E NY I RO N ME NTA L ASS ESS M E NT (To be completed by the Town of I haca Use attechmpn s as necessanry j va l � A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES � NO n If yes, coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF. B. 1t�i11 proposed action receive coordinated review as provided tor unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6? S u NO u(If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, it any.) i,ould proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following :(Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C t. Existing air quality , surface or 9roundwater quality , noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly : None anticipated. Proposal inv,olves replacement of a chimney on a non-conf rmir C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or lot . neighborhood character? Explain briefly : None anticipated. Chimney will be consistent with neighborhood character C3. Yegetation 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 : C6 i' None anticipated. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1- C5? Explain briefly : None anticip�,ted. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly : None anticipated. 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 l— DETERMI NATION Of SIGNI FICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions : For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each eftect should be assessed in connection with its (a) settinq (ie. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) 9eographic scope; and (� 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 W ILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination. Nam nature of Resporisible gency er in ,��,�� 'l�� eparer's Signature If different fr� 0 � gency � Signature of Contributing Preparer Date : , . /► . s , � � er) A • � � ��`j"°^ �,-� � (Q�{�\, t �` . S •YI,� ��'w�W� ;��p�� * 3 i� ._��'Vi�, :;:,� ;��;AC�: :; +.'? �ii�^,:�/'Zt:>r�Ii.tG 1018 East Shore Drive Ithaca, New Yorl< 14850 November 9, 1992 Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals I thaca, New Yorf< Dear Board Members� I have been aware of Mr. FlumerFelt's plans unuseable fireplace and chimney for some time. proposed wood-framed chimne�� enclosure will be and extend 5 or 6 inches closer to my property objection whatsoever to his plans. In fact, the be much safer and an improvement in appearance deteriorated brickwork. • � �' � � � � to replace I understand about 3 feet 1 i ne . I I�ave new chimney over the old Very truly yours, .� /!, � ' v' ' Richard W. Slocum his the wider no should a . . i� ----- -- ---- --------. -- -�-- -.--- - -----._ _- -�_�-��,�c..,�--��--� � -��`�- ---`�� -�-�_ ---- - �.�5� ----- � - -----------.- -- �=------- . -------------- ----- -- ---------------.- - ------ ---- � � �C.�� +� ��-1� � ��' �.��--�� ------- - --- ---- ------- -.------- ----------- ---- --.---_----- -_- ---- �� + �-� � � �c�as ; ��c� � t � � � ��-.� -- - - -- ----.---- ---- _ ______� � - - -- - --- - - -------------- -- - ---.-- --- -- ----- - -- - ------ --- . __ � � �.,s� � �' � �o � �r�e-LUSt��,� � i-� t n- �e-`�---. - -- -- -- - ------.--- --------------------------- .--- ----------- --------- �� t� �-) t� � �. �, 'C� �. �� G � n ��-� �'� � � c� -- _�_ . -- - �1.�! �� -� t� o � ��t_�� I_ V � �� . - � S- -�N � -- - - �.__ - ----------.------- -.---- Q--- -- - - ------- -------------- ---- - --- -- -- -- . �, ----�--�. �n �.�--i�_e-� -�a, - ------�--_- � � _ _� � �- _� N� ------- F � � ------��_��_� � � .--- �--- ��-'�� s - ( � ----�-� 1�_� �� ----- -- _ _ _ _ `� � _� � -� --- I. �-1 � �o �, t� � �-�s . -_----_---�--c-.�-��_--_---_-_ --_-_ __ ___ ____ _ .____ ___ __ . _ __ __ _ __._ . __ __.. __ _ ._ ___ w. ------- -- ---- --(- -- --- ( U� - - - ; -� �v--�Q�- --- - ---- - -------------- ----------. _--�.;------ �-- -- - ---- �o �� - � �S� .S�-��__ __��. ----------- �-��-� �ci� �`� --1 �f �o - -- ---- ----- - -- - ------------- --- --- _ _._. . ___- -- _ .___ _ _--- -- - ��i� ----- -----.�_- --- - - - --. -- ---- -------------------------- ----- - - -.----=----.�- v � � � - - ----_ .------ � ---- ----0 -------- ._ _---- - -