Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1990-11-06 Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 1 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval November 6 , 1990 MOTION by Mr . Stephen Smith , seconded by Mr . Robert :Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , located in a Business " D " District , at the corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 131 such expansion consisting of replacement of the existing canopy , pumps , and cashier ' s booth with a larger canopy , new pumps , and larger ' cashier ' s booth , demolition of an existing film / photo developing kiosk on the site , and modification of the entry drives to the site . The number of gasoline service pumps is proposed to increase from eight pumps to nine pumps . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . The Tompkins County Planning Department is an involved agency in coordinated review . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on November 6 , 1990 , has reviewed the site plan entitled " SP - Judd falls Rd . & Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revised 5 / 22 / 90 , 6 . / 19 / 901 and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot -wide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza , and other application materials for this submission . 49 The Town of Ithaca Planning Department has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review in coordinated review of the proposed action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 2 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval November 6 , 1990 MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : i . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , located in a Business " D " District , at the corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 13 , such expansion consisting of replacement of the existing canopy , pumps , and cashier ' s booth with a larger canopy , new pumps , and larger cashier ' s booth , . demolition of an existing film / photo developing kiosk on the site , and modification of the entry drives to the site . The number of gasoline service pumps is proposed to increase from eight pumps to nine pumps . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on November 6 , 1990 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on November 6 , 1990 , has reviewed the site plan entitled " SP - Judd Falls Rd . & Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revised 5 / 22 / 90 , 6 / 19 / 90 , and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot -wide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza , and other application materials for this submission . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , as shown on the site plan entitled " SP - Judd Falls Rd . & Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revised 5 / 22 / 90 , 6 / 19 / 90 , and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot - ,ride entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza . , subject to the following conditions : 10 The installation of a speed deterrent bump between the gasoline station and the parking lot at East Hill Plaza , with the design for and the installation of such bump to be approved by the Town Engineer . • Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 3 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 2 . The approval of the construction plans for the facility by the Town Engineer . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , November 19 , 19900 P FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date p Clerk -TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 28 , 1990 THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MATTERS THAT WERE HEARD ON NOVEMBER 28 , 1990 BY THE BOARD . APPEAL OF SAMIR HANNA , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 10 ( BUILDING HEIGHT ) , AND ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 ( FRONT YARD BUILDING SET BACK ) , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE LOCATED AT 8 WINNER ' S CIRCLE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 1 -8 . 4 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE PROPOSED HAS AN EXTERIOR BUILDING . HEIGHT OF 32 FEET 9 INCHES , 30 FEET BEING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED , AND A FRONT YARD SET BACK OF 22 . 1 FEET , 25 FEET BEING REQUIRED . GRANTED WITH CONDITION . ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ( ADJOURNED FROM OCTOBER 10 , AND NOVEMBER 14 , 1990 ) , UNDER ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 77 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR AN INTERPRETATION BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF ARTICLE VII , SECTION 35 , OF SAID ORDINANCE TO DETERMINE IF ANY USES PERMITTED IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS "A" , " B " , AND " C " MAY BE PERMITTED IN A BUSINESS DISTRICT " D" , AND FURTHER , TO DETERMINE WHAT SALES/USES MAY BE CUSTOMARILY ENCOMPASSED WITHIN A GASOLINE SALES STATION . INTERPRETATION RENDERED . DISCUSSION : 1 . a . Proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to exempting subdivisions from the requirement to obtain fill permits under certain circumstances . RECOMMENDED . b . Proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to occupancy of mobile home park districts . RECOMMENDED . C * Proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the amortization of certain non-conforming uses . NO ACTION TAKEN . 2 . Recommendation to the Town Board with . respect to the appointment of the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson for 1991 . Edward Austen , 3 . Election of the Zoning Board of Appeals Vice Chairperson for 1991 . Joan Reuning . FRED TOWN OF ITHACA Town of Ithaca Dareii Ow4 a . i99 1 Zoning Board of Appeals Clerk November 28 , 1990 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 28 , 1990 PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Robert Hines , Joan Reuning , Edward King , Zoning Enforcement Office/ Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Town Attorney John Barney . ABSENT : Edward Austen . OTHERS PRESENT : Samir Hanna , William McMinn , Dave Auble . Chairman Aron called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearing has been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order . The Appeal on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF SAMIR HANNA , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 10 ( BUILDING HEIGHT ) , AND ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 ( FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK ) , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE LOCATED AT 8 WINNER ' S CIRCLE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 -58 - 1 - 8 . 4 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE PROPOSED HAS AN EXTERIOR BUILDING HEIGHT OF 32 FEET 9 INCHES , 30 FEET BEING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED , AND A FRONT YARD SET BACK OF 22 . 1 FEET , 25 FEET BEING REQUIRED . Mr . Samir Hanna appeared before the Board and presented a drawing of the proposed house . He explained the slopes that are involved on the property . Mr . Hanna stated that when they staked the property and started construction , the stakes were at a 25 feet setback for the intended location of the house . However , after the contractor dug the basement the fill material was found to be inadequate to carry the foundation of the house . Mr . Hanna said that at that time he hired consultants and engineers to look -at the situation and they came to the same conclusion . Mr . Frost interjected that his office has proof of the problems with the soil for this construction project . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 Mr . Hanna further stated that all the fill material was removed and replaced with compacted gravel ( engineered fill ) . He said that during that process the stakes were moved inadvertently from the original location and when the footers and the walls of the basement were poured , Mr . Baker , the surveyor , found that the proposed house was found to be in violation of the setback Article at two corners . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Mr . William McMinn , 1351 Slaterville Road , owner of Tax Parcel 58 - 1 - 10 . 1 , explained to the Board that he is concerned about the proposed construction of this house because his property overlooks the location . He said there may be three lots still to develop there and he is . concerned about the continuance of having variances awarded after the projects have moved on . He thinks that it is important to maintain the standards that the Town has set up and he feels the Board may be setting up a precedent for the future use of those lots which are situated in an awkward position to put buildings on . Mr . McMinn stated that he is concerned about the height of the proposed house because it eliminates two feet of trees for him to overlook 6 Mile Creek and South Hill which is one reason he bought his property in the first place . Mr . Hines spoke regarding the topography of the area in question and further discussion followed . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . MOTION ( Setback ) By Mr . Robert Hines ; seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a Variance for Mr . Hanna from the set back requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the proposed construction of a single - family residence to be located at 8 Winner ' s Circle with the following findings . 10 that the placement of the concrete foundation was done with reasonable diligence . 2 * that the placement of the foundation too close to the street line was inadvertent . 3 * that the proposed construction imposes no burden on the surrounding properties . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 4e that the development of this property is consistent with the development of the community in this area . 59 that to deny the variance would impose a hardship and severe burden on the applicant . Aye - Hines , Reuning , Aron , King . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . MOTION ( Height Variance ) By Mrs . Joan Reuning ; seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a height •variance to Mr . Hanna for the proposed construction of a single - family residence to be located at 8 Winner ' s Circle , with the following findings and condition . 19 that from the front of the building , the building would be below the maximum height , which would be the only side of the building that would have any implication with the neighborhood . 29 that from the rear of the house , no one would be adversely affected , being that there are no existing residences behind the house . 3e that the topography of this land makes it impossible to build a house that has any kind of height in the front without having to get a variance , thereby making it a hardship . 4e that the hardship is to bring the fill to the level of 2 feet . 5 * that the variance be granted for no more than three feet . Aye - Reuning , Hines , King , Aron . Nay � None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Resignation of Mr . Henry Aron to the Board of Zoning Appeals Chairman Aron stated that he has tendered his resignation as Board member and Chairman to be effective December 31 , 1990 . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 Election of Chairman for the Zoning Board of Appeals By Chairman Aron , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals elects as its Chairman Edward Austen for the period of January 1 , 1991 through December 31 , 19910 Aye - Aron , King , Hines , Reuning . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Election of Vice Chairman for the Zoning Board of Appeals By Chairman Aron , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals elects as its Vice Chairman Joan Reuning for the period of January 1 , 1991 through December 31 , 1991 . Aye - Aron , Reuning , King , Hines . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING (ADJOURNED FROM OCTOBER 10 AND NOVEMBER 14 , 1990 ) , UNDER ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 77 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR AN INTERPRETATION BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF ARTICLE VII , SECTION 35 , OF SAID ORDINANCE TO DETERMINE IF ANY USES PERMITTED IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS "A " , " B° , AND ° C° MAY BE PERMITTED IN A BUSINESS DISTRICT ^ D ''' , AND FURTHER , TO DETERMINE WHAT SALES/USES MAY BE CUSTOMARILY ENCOMPASSED WITHIN A GASOLINE SALES STATION . Resolution offered by Mr . Edward King ; seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE , SECTION 35 , ( re . permitted ACCESSORY uses in Business " D " Zones : gasoline sales stations and repair garages ) , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEREBY : • y Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 ADOPTS AS FINDINGS THE FOLLOWING . i . Section 35 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance specifies as the only permitted uses in the Business : " D " Zones to be created thereunder , the operation of Gasoline Service Stations and Automotive Repair Garages , while Section 31 , restricts the location of such Districts to prevent them in R- 15 Residence Zones , 2 . Section 35 itself also provides that these Districts are subject to the further restrictions of Section 71 , which establishes special separation minimums - - applicable only to gas stations and automotive repair garages , to keep building and facilities back from street lines and residence districts , and to limit the intrusion of these facilities into the side yards and front yards of the Lot . And Section 35 issues the further warning that Business D facilities and uses are also subject to the provisions of Section 54 of the Ordinance - - which permits the extension of a non-conforming building or use only upon authorization of the ZBA . 3 . Accessory Uses permitted in the Business Zones by Section 36 are limited to accessory storage buildings ! parking , and signs - - as far as they would seem to be applicable to a Business D zone . No provisions for the Special Approval of the ZBA ( with or without Planning Board approval of a site plan ) appears to be provided in Article VII [ Sections 31 - 39 ] ; but Section 39 and 46 - a of the Ordinance do call for site plan approval by the Planning Board for any building or structure to be erected within any business district . 4 . Some 55 specified types of Business operations are specified as permitted uses or operations in one or the other of the 3 Business Districts , in their delineation in Sections 32 - 34 of the Ordinance . Only Business " D " districts are limited to but 2 specified uses . 5 . It thus seems clear from the Ordinance itself that businesses providing automotive gasoline , oil , care and repair , were to be specially sited and specially controlled by limitations . The inherent danger in the storage and dispensing of volatile , flammable and explosive fuels , and the high volume of traffic into them and out of them onto streets or highways abutting , undoubtedly account in large measure for the concern of the drafters in singling out these businesses for special attention and restriction . 6 . Minimizing retail sales activities at most service stations sites appears to be the general goal and thrust of our Zoning Ordinance . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 7 . Yet there are undoubtedly some situations , places , facilities , where an expansion of such sales might be desirable and safely implements , but the burden of establishing need , desirability and safety ought to be placed upon the proponent and subjected to careful scrutiny via public hearings and board determinations - - site plans and traffic impact studies being essential elements to be considered in every determination . 8 . Note is also made of the fact that many or most service stations in the area sell other automotive utilities and supplies ( tires , batteries , wiper blades , snow-brushes and ice scrapers ; mud flaps , anti - freeze ; windshield wash , etc . etc . ) , as well as soda , cigarettes , candy , gum and snacks . 90 One argument advanced for the specific enlargement of retail sale opportunities at Business D facilities is that economic necessity requires that a supplier of these essential items for automotive fuels and repairs supplement the sales generated at such a location by the sale of other products . If that is true as a general proposition for all service stations , it would seem that it should be established to the satisfaction of the Town Board as a reason for expanding the statement of permitted uses in Business D Zones in Section 35 . If in a particular situation only , the Planning Board , in recommending or opposing a Variance , should carefully scrutinize whether the Station ought to be sited there at all , and what limiting parameters might be essential or wise for the operation . 10 . The essential purpose of a gasoline service station ( with or without repair facilities ) being to enable the motorist to fuel his vehicle and resume his highway travel . A station should be able to provide most things of immediate necessity or aid to that end , without Special Permission or Variance . And that automatic inclusion ought to include some fueling and refreshing of driver and passengers , as well as of the vehicle itself . The limitations suggested by Mr . Barney , to " snack food items , coffee , soda , cookies , cigarettes , and various type convenience items generally used for immediate consumption by the patron who has purchased gasoline products " might well be sufficient to the task of deterring the use of the station as a substitute grocery or drug store , newspaper and magazine vending establishment , etc . - - thus limiting station traffic in volume and duration . But consider also . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 ( a ) Items essential or merely helpful to enable the vehicle to proceed on its journey would seem to include the following . wiper blades , fuses , [ See 118 " above ] ( b ) AND custom dictates that it is now reasonable to expect to be able to purchase items to aid the individual , such as : candy , gum , cigarettes , kleenex , and colas and other soft drinks , coffee could also be included as helpful to restore alertness , aspirin and alka - seltzer would also be helpful . Cookies , ice cream , crackers and other munchies might also add to the enjoyment of the trip and even contribute to an avoidance of drowsiness . 11 . Of primary importance to Planners and Zoners , it would seem , is/ are the goal ( s ) of minimizing dangerous congestion and traffic flow into and out of service stations . The amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic expected at one site and another may vary widely , depending upon the location of the station . Expanding the number of goods for sale will surely expand the frequency and intensity of traffic on the site , the time spent there , and the likelihood of extensive harm and damage if a fire or explosion should take place there . 12 . To expand a station operation to include the sale of daily newspapers , bread , canned goods , household items and other staples and items commonly found in a convenience store , grocery store , drug store , magazine stand , video store , and other types of retail sales stores requires the exercise of a great deal of caution - - for vehicle and pedestrian traffic , congestion , and potential danger is thereby invited . Newspapers invite daily stops , as does the offering of other items . 139 In the interests of promoting safety by minimizing or optimizing vehicular traffic in and out of service stations , while yet not defeating the purpose of such stations , narrow circumscription of the items that may be unquestionably sold at gasoline service stations and repair garages , seems in order in interpreting Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance . NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that this Board now decides that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Section 35 , permitting gasoline service station and repair garages only in Business " D " Zones , is to be interpreted to mean that : A . The Zoning Ordinance and Section 35 in particular are not to be interpreted to generally permit therein any primary or accessory uses as are permitted in the other Business Zones , A , B , C , or E . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 B . However , some retail sales from a station or garage should be permitted in accordance with need and custom and the purposes of such automotive service and repair facilities . The essential purpose of a gasoline service . station ( with or without repair facilities ) being to enable the motorist to fuel his vehicle and resume his highway travel , the Service Station operator ought also be permitted to provide , as is customary , most things of immediate necessity or aid to that end , including some limited fueling and refreshing of driver and passengers , as well as of the vehicle itself ; but the items offered for retail sale should be limited snack food items , coffee , soda , cookies , cigarettes , and various type convenience items generally used for immediate consumption by the patron who has purchased gasoline products . But Service Stations and Garages should not be used as a substitute grocery or drug store , newspaper and magazine vending establishment , nor to engage in any other retail sales which themselves invite vehicular or pedestrian traffic and tend to increase station traffic in volume and duration without correlation with the primary purpose of the station - -viz . , to service motor vehicles . AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that sale items to be generally permitted include the following : ( a ) Items essential or merely helpful to enable the vehicle to proceed on its journey could include the following : wiper blades , fuses , automotive utilities and supplies , such as tires , batteries , wiper blades ; snow- brushes and ice scrapers , mud flaps , anti - freeze ; windshield wash ; and similar articles and supplies . ( b ) And custom dictates that it is now reasonable to expect to be able to purchase items . to aid the individual , such as : candy , rgum , cigarettes , kleenex , and colas and other soft drinks , coffee could also be included as helpful to restore alertness , aspirin and alka - seltzer would also be helpful . Cookies , ice cream , crackers and other munchies might also be reasonably sold to the motorist who has just purchased gasoline or oil products at the station - - such items . being regarded as adding to the enjoyment of the trip and perhaps contributing to an avoidance of drowsiness . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 ( c ) Our general intent is that the offerings for retail sale at a station or garage are to be generally so limited and focused on the travelling motorist that people are discouraged from daily or frequent shopping there , and particularly from making purchases there unrelated to their vehicular travel or irrespective of their having stopped primarily for vehicular service needs . ( d ) Section 35 of the Ordinance is not to be interpreted to expand a station operation to include the sale of items other than referred to above such as daily newspapers , bread , canned goods , household items and other staples and items commonly found in a convenience store , grocery store , drug store , magazine stand , video store , and other types of retail sales stores , irrespective of travelling needs and immediate consumption . No item offered should itself be likely to significantly increase vehicular or pedestrian traffic or congestion around the station or in the immediate area . Chairman Aron called for a voice vote in the above matter which resulted as follows . Mr . King - Aye Mr . Hines - Aye Mrs . Reuning - Aye Mr . Aron - Aye The motion was carried unanimously . Mr . Hines offered a resolution which was seconded by Mr . King as follows : WHEREAS , Section 35 of the Town . of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance was enacted at a time when the market structure of gasoline sales and service was substantially different than it is at present , and WHEREAS , gasoline sales facilities in and about the County of Tompkins customarily and as part of their regular business activities sell a variety of snack foods and drinks and related convenience items for the travelling public , and WHEREAS , the Board of Zoning Appeals has been called upon to interpret the meaning of gasoline service stations and the Board of Zoning Appeals has interpreted that noun to include activities relating to retail sales of items of convenience for the travelling public , and Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 WHEREAS , the Board of Zoning Appeals feels that the matter should properly be addressed by the Town Board with the prospect of drafting a more comprehensive definition of gasoline sales or service stations , now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Ithaca does recommend to the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca and the Planning staff of the Town of Ithaca they consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca amplifying or redefining the meaning of the term " gasoline sales station " . Chairman Aron called for a voice vote on the above resolution which resulted as follows : Mr . Hines - Aye Mr . King - Aye Mrs . Reuning - Aye Mr . Aron - Aye The motion was carried unanimously . Proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to exempting subdivisions from the requirement to obtain fill Permits under certain circumstances MOTION : By Mr . Henry Aron ; seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that the following Local Law be recommended to the Town Board for their consideration and action : TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO . OF THE YEAR 19 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE EXEMPTING SUBDIVISIONS FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN FILL PERMITS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES . Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows : The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted , amended and revised effective February 26 , 1968 , and subsequently amended , be further amended as follows : 10 Article XIII , Section 70 , is hereby amended by adding a new subdivision 5 in the list of exceptions reading as follows : Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 115 . Removal or deposit of fill in connection with construction of roads and other facilities in a subdivision approved in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , provided , however , that ( a ) plans for such construction showing in sufficient detail the proposed removal and/ or deposit of fill were submitted to the Planning Board and approved by the Town Engineer in conjunction with the subdivision approval ; or ( b ) the Planning Board expressly waived the requirement of submission of such drawings and the total amount of material to be either deposited or removed is less than 500 cubic . yards . In any event the exception granted by this subparagraph shall not apply to any construction which occurs more than three years after granting of final subdivision approval by the Town Planning Board . " 2 . This Local Law shall take effect upon its publication as required by law . Aye - Aron , Hines , King , Reuning . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to occupancy of mobile home park districts MOTION : By Mr . Henry Aron ; seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , That the following Local Law be recommended to the Town Board for their consideration and action . TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO . OF THE YEAR 19 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO OCCUPANCY OF MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICTS . Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows : Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted , amended and revised effective February 26 , 1969 , and subsequently amended , be further amended as follows : 1 . Article II -A , Section 3 ( b ) , is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following : " In a mobile home park , there shall be no more than one dwelling unit maintained in each mobile home . In addition , each dwelling unit may be occupied by not more than ( a ) one family , or ( b ) one family plus no more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other occupants . " 2 . This law shall take effect upon its publication as required by law . Aye - Aron , King , Hines , Reuning . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance providing for the amortization of certain non-conforming uses . MOTION : By Mr . Henry Aron ; seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that in the matter of " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE AMORTIZATION OF CERTAIN , NON- CONFORMING USES " recommendation to the Town Board for their consideration , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals determines at this time not to act . Aye - Aron , Hines , Reuning , King . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . The meeting adjourned at 8 : 50 p . m . � • Connie J . Ifolcomb Recording Secretary APPROVED : Henry Aron , Chairman FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Dat ; / 99 -TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 14 , 1990 THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MATTERS THAT WERE HEARD ON NOVEMBER 14 , 1990 BY THE BOARD . APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , . OWNER/APPELLANT , ARTHUR G . STIERS , AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 30 -FOOT BY 18 -FOOT " GAS CYLINDER STORAGE DOCK" , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 , IN THE CORNELL ORCHARDS AREA ON PALM ROAD ADJACENT TO THE GENERAL STORES WAREHOUSE . GRANTED APPEAL OF VINAY AND SAGA AMBEGAOKAR , OWNERS/APPELLANTS , TED BRONSNICK , AGENT , REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF OR THE GRANT OF A BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE-STORY , TWO-CAR , DETACHED GARAGE , SET BACK FIVE FEET FROM THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY , AT 3 SUGARBUSH LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 61 - 1 - 14 . 5 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE AVERAGE NATURAL SLOPE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY EXCEEDS AN 8 PERCENT FALL AT THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY LINE RESULTING IN A BUILDING HEIGHT FOR SAID PROPOSED GARAGE OF 19 FEET 10 INCHES . ARTICLE IV , SECTION 13 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE LIMITS THE HEIGHT OF DETACHED GARAGES TO 15 FEET UNLESS THE NATURAL SLOPE OF A PROPERTY EXCEEDS AN 8 PERCENT FALL DIRECTLY FROM THE STREET LINE ( NOT ROAD RIGHT OF WAY ) , IN WHICH CASE SAID ORDINANCE LIMITS THE HEIGHT TO ONLY ONE STORY , WHICH MAY BE PRESUMED TO BE GREATER THAN 15 FEET IN HEIGHT . GRANTED APPEAL OF GLENN F . HUBBELL , OWNER/APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTIONS 18 AND 19 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE OPERATION OF AN ANTIQUES AND SECOND HAND GOODS SHOP IN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT . AT 1308 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 27 - 1 - 14 . 1 , ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID ORDINANCE DOES NOT PERMIT ANTIQUE AND SECOND HAND BUSINESSES IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT . ADJOURNED TO DECEMBER 12 , 1990 TOWN OF ITHACA Date, /-w ..�saJ /or 9p Clerk APPEAL OF CHASE FARM ASSOCIATES , OWNER/APPELLANT , HARRISON RUE , AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE USE OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY , LOCATED AT 108 RIDGECREST ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 -45 - 1- 5 . 1 AND —5 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ( ADJOURNED FROM OCTOBER 10 , 1990 ) , UNDER ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 77 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR AN INTERPRETATION BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF ARTICLE VII , SECTION 35 , OF SAID ORDINANCE TO DETERMINE IF ANY USES PERMITTED IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS "A" , " B" , AND " C " MAY BE PERMITTED IN A BUSINESS DISTRICT " D " , AND FURTHER , TO DETERMINE WHAT SALES/USES MAY BE CUSTOMARILY ENCOMPASSED WITHIN A GASOLINE SALES STATION . ADJOURNED TO NOVEMBER 28 , 1990 FILED TOWN OFDDITHACA Datezwm 0 / 0 -TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 14 , 1990 !7 Present : Chairman Henry Aron , Joan Reuning , Edward Austen, Edward King , Robert Hines , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew Frost . Others Present . Arthur Stiers , Bea Stiers , Ted Bronsnick , Glenn Hubbell , Harrison Rue , Eva Hoffmann , D . F . Spencer , Carolyn Richter , Roger Sayre . Chairman Aron called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order . Reappointment of Joan G . Reuning to Zoning Board of Appeals Recommendation to Town Board MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Edward W . King . WHEREAS . 1 . Mrs . Joan G . Reuning ' s current five -year term as a member. of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals expires on December 31 , 19900 2 . Mrs . Reuning has served the Town of Ithaca as a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals with expertise and due and proper diligence since January , 1978 . 3 . Mrs . Reuning has expressed both her willingness and desire to continue her service as a member of said Board of Appeals . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the reappointment of Mrs . Joan G . Reuning to said Board of Appeals for a five -year term commencing January 1 , 1991 and expiring December 31 , 1996s Aye - Austen , Hines , King , Aron , Reuning . Nay - None Carried Unanimously . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 The first Appeal on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , OWNER/APPELLANT , ARTHUR G . STIERS , AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 30 -FOOT BY 18 -FOOT " GAS CYLINDER STORAGE DOCK° , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 , IN THE CORNELL ORCHARDS AREA ON PALM ROAD ADJACENT TO THE GENERAL STORES WAREHOUSE . Mr . Arthur Stiers explained the proposal to the Board . At the present time the bulk of the compressed gases are now stored at the Humphreys Service Building and small amounts are handled . from the facility at Humphreys to the warehouse facility for distribution to the Campus at large . He stated that they are anxious to get the bulk storage to an outside facility at the Orchards where they can be distributed from that point . It will minimize handling of the cylinders and it will also facilitate access to the loading dock by the delivery truck , which now is a semi -vehicle and has to maneuver through a very congested area to unload and pick up return cylinders . Mr . Stiers stated that the dock itself is an elevated concrete platform with a super structure and a shed roof over the top , approximately 3 foot high by 18 feet by 30 feet . Mr . Stiers explained that they receive approximately 50 cylinders a week . They carry approximately 225 total cylinders at any given time on the Campus . He said that what they would like to do is consolidate all the cylinders in one location where they can be controlled . They will not be changing the nature of the facility or the distribution point in any way other than going into an improved storage yard which is a gravel and cinder storage yard adjacent to the structure . They . have not expanded the footprint or area of the existing loading area . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Chairman Aron referred to the Environmental Review Committee ' s comments on CU ' s gas cylinder storage shed , dated 10/ 30/ 90 , which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . He questioned on what authority the committee gives the Board their recommendation when the Board has staff whose job and qualification it is to give us the correct information . Mr . Frost explained that this was information that was received and he did not feel that he could not hand it out . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 Chairman Aron referred to and read Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form which was signed by the Assistant Town Planner , George Frantz , dated 10/ 30/ 90 . The . form is attached as Exhibit # 2 . Chairman Aron read into the record the Adopted Resolution from the Planning Board of 11/ 6 / 90 , attached as Exhibit # 3 . Mr . King asked , in regard to the Environmental Review Committee ' s comments , if the Planning Board considered their comments . Mr . Frost stated that the Planning Board did consider the comments from the ERC as part of their review . Mrs . Reuning stated that she thinks there are some illegitimate points on that page and she would be interested in knowing what the Planning Board did say . She thinks it would be good for the Board , not necessarily for this project , if Cornell would give the Town a plan of what is going to happen at that location . Mr . Stiers stated that he believes the Town Engineer spoke to the fact that a meeting had occurred . The large scale plan is in progress and the Planning Board had been in attendance at those meetings and based on that , this building is one fairly insignificant structure and wouldn ' t impede any future work out there . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Stiers how much security would be provided for the area . Mr . Stiers responded that Life Safety has their building staffed 24 hours a day . In order to get into the Orchards area , you have to go by the Life Safety building ; the area is lit , and patrolled regularly . The cylinders would be chained together and in bulk on the loading dock . Mr . Frost presented a photo of the area and stated that one of the advantages in having the cylinders there is that it is not a densely populated area . Mr . Stiers stressed the danger of the trucks getting into and out of the Humphreys Service Building , which is a very congested area . Mr . King asked if ' the tanks are stored inside at Humphreys Service Building . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 Mr . Stiers said that at Humphreys they are stored in a semi - enclosed situation . The Fire Department prefers that they be stored in an open type situation . The new structure would be entirely open - sided . Environmental Assessment By Mr . Edward Austen , Seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Cornell University requesting the special approval of the Board of Appeals for the proposed construction of a 30 - foot by 18 - foot " Gas Cylinder Storage Deck " , proposed to be located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 , in the Cornell Orchards on Palm Road adjacent to the General Stores Warehouse , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance based on the recommendations of the reviewer . Ayes - Austen , King , Reuning , Hines , Aron . Nays - None . MOTION By Mrs . Joan Reuning ; seconded by Mr . Edward Austen . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant Special Approval for the construction of a 30 - foot by 18 - foot Gas Cylinder Storage Dock , proposed to be located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 , in the Cornell Orchards area , with the following findings . 10 that the construction of this dock will allow for better control and a more accessible location for this facility . 2e that the visibility is not a problem because there is no one but Cornell who will be looking at the facility . 3e that no one appeared in opposition to the proposal . 4e that the construction meets the requirements of Section 77 . 7 of the Zoning Ordinance . Ayes - Reuning , Austen , Hines , King , Aron . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 The second Appeal on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF VINAY AND SAGA AMBEGAOKAR , OWNERS/APPELLANTS , TED BRONSNICK , AGENT , REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF OR THE GRANT OF A BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE-STORY , TWO-CAR , DETACHED GARAGE , SET BACK FIVE FEET FROM THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY , AT 3 SUGARBUSH LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 61 - 1 - 14 . 5 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE AVERAGE NATURAL SLOPE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY EXCEEDS AN 8 PERCENT FALL AT THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY LINE RESULTING IN A BUILDING HEIGHT FOR SAID PROPOSED GARAGE OF 19 FEET 10 INCHES . ARTICLE IV , SECTION 13 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE LIMITS THE HEIGHT OF DETACHED GARAGES TO 15 FEET UNLESS THE NATURAL SLOPE OF A PROPERTY EXCEEDS AN 8 PERCENT FALL DIRECTLY FROM THE STREET LINE ( NOT ROAD RIGHT OF WAY ) , IN WHICH CASE SAID ORDINANCE LIMITS THE HEIGHT TO ONLY ONE STORY , WHICH MAY BE PRESUMED TO BE GREATER THAN 15 FEET - IN HEIGHT . Mr . Frost explained that the Zoning Ordinance , Section 13 , states that you can have a one - story garage when you have an 80 rise or fall slope directly from the street line . A detached garage is an accessory building and is typically limited to a 15 - foot height limitation . He said that in regard to this particular property , the slope of the land appears to start , in his opinion , at the road right - of -way , not at the street line so in terms of interpretation , that being the case , if the Board determines that interpretation then they are really looking at a building height variance since the proposed structure is greater than the 15 - foot limitation . . Mr . Ted Bronsnick appeared before the Board and presented a map showing the grades on the property in question . He explained that it is only at the back side of the proposed garage that it is 19 ' 10 " from the proposed finished grade to the ridge because of the grade of the lot , at the front it is 11 feet . Discussion followed regarding the topography of the land . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Mrs . Eva Hoffmann , the closet neighbor , spoke to the Board in favor of the proposed construction of the garage . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance for the construction of a one - story , 2 - car , detached garage , as shown in plans submitted , at 3 Sugarbush Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 61 - 1 - 14 . 5 , Residence District R- 15 , with the following findings . 16 that the photographs submitted by the Zoning Officer indicate that the garage will be hidden from Snyder Hill Road by the house . 2 * that the applicant presented by photographic and schematic portrayals and testimony by Mr . Bronsnick that there would . be practical difficulties and hardship in trying to comply with the height otherwise permitted by the Zoning Ordinance . 39 that the plans are in conformance with the plans for development in the community . 4e that the closest neighbor , Mrs . Hoffmann , spoke in favor of the construction of the garage . A vote on the motion resulted as follows . Ayes - Hines , Reuning , Aron , King , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The next Appeal on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF GLENN F . HUBBELL , OWNER/APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V , SECTIONS 18 AND 19 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE OPERATION OF AN ANTIQUES AND SECOND HAND GOODS SHOP IN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AT 1308 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 -27 - 1 - 14 . 1 , ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID ORDINANCE DOES NOT PERMIT ANTIQUE AND SECOND HAND BUSINESSES IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT . Mr . Glenn Hubbell appeared before the Board . Chairman Aron stated to Mr . Hubbell that according to the photo that was taken ' by Mr . Frost and from driving by the property in question , there is already outside storage at the location , which in his opinion looks very bad . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 Mr . Hubbell responded that what he has is relative to an antique shop and there are times when some people don ' t expect to see certain things around a shop of that nature . Mr . Hubbell stated that he was in front of the Board in 1976 and he felt he was operating within some guidelines of propriety and never received any reprimand or inquiry thereafter and he said that he guesses things got a little slip - shod . Chairman Aron referred to a letter from Mr . Frost to Mr . Hubbell , dated 10/ 3 / 90 , which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 . He said that Mr . Hubbell has been operating without permission since 1978 . Mr . Hubbell said that he presumes he has been somewhat remiss as to whether it was his responsibility to monitor this situation . Chairman Aron read from the ZBA minutes of the 3 / 3 / 76 meeting at which Mr . Hubbell appeared . The minutes are attached hereto as Exhibit # 5 . Mr . Hubbell said , in defense of his operation , that somewhere along the line someone should have told him that he was over his one year permit . Mr . King stated that it was Mr . Hubbell ' s responsibility as stated in said minutes of 1976 , of which Mr . Hubbell had a copy . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared before the Board . Chairman , Aron closed the public hearing . Chairman Aron referred to the SEAF and read into the record Part III , that was signed by Asst . Town Planner George Frantz on 10 / 15/ 90 , which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 6 . Chairman Aron stated that when he sees the property in the state that it is in , he has to take exception to Mr . Frantz ' recommendation of a negative determination of environmental significance because one of pollutions is eye pollution and this property is definitely an eye pollution . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Hubbell what he would recommend to rectify this problem with the storage that is outside those buildings . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 Mr . Hubbell responded that he would endeavor to meet whatever regulations were required . He said that he has painted the house , fixed the windows and improved the property . He said the letter from Mr . Frost was only received a few weeks ago and that did not leave him time to clean up 14 years of negligence . Mr . Hubbell stated that he purchased another 6 . 6 acres below the original which gives him a 400 or 500 foot buffer zone to the east toward the City so there are virtually no neighbors who look into the front , side or back yards of his property . Mrs . Reuning stated that she agreed with Chairman Aron regarding the negative declaration on the environmental assessment form . She suggested that the Board give Mr . Hubbell a couple of weeks to clean up the outside of the buildings and then come back to the Board for further consideration of his request . Further discussion followed regarding what alternatives the Board has . MOTION By Mrs . Joan Reuning ; seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Appeal of Mr . Glenn Hubbell be adjourned until the .Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on December 12 , 1990 to give Mr . Hubbell a chance to comply with the previous order of the Board to clean up the outside storage on his property . The voting on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Reuning , King , Aron , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The motion to adjourn the matter was carried unanimously . The last Appeal on the Agenda was the following : APPEAL OF CHASE FARM ASSOCIATES , OWNER/APPELLANT , HARRISON RUE , AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE USE OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY , LOCATED AT 108 RIDGECREST ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 45 - 1- 5 . 1 AND - 5 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 Mr . Harrison Rue passed out information to the Board entitled " Proposed Moving Costs " and 11108 Improvements to Office " , copies of which are attached here as Exhibits # 7 and # 8 , respectively . He stated that the business has undergone some reorganization and as part of the function of that the organization and the number of employees and the impact on the neighborhood is considerably smaller than it was when Mr . Frost first notified them that there had been a complaint . Mr . Rue stated that it would be very difficult to undergo a move right now . It would be a substantial economic injury to the organization to have to move now and then to move again . He said they have every intention next Spring or Summer of moving the offices . As he stated in his letter he has asked permission to maintain the office at the present location until August 1991 . He said that their intention is certainly to move before that but that would give them some flexibility . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Mr . Roger Sayre , 110 Ridgecrest Road , stated that he and his wife have no animosity toward Mr . Auble and his associates . However , this particular property ( # 108 ) which is next to his property is a real thorn in the side of the community due to the nature , its division , and the construction of the second work structure which was originally intended to be a workshop and became a residence and is now an office . Mr . Sayre said that he would admit that the property has improved for the better , it has been spruced up since Mr . Auble took it over . He would like to maintain that this is a residential neighborhood and he thinks in keeping with the spirit of Zoning Laws we should maintain that residential character in the neighborhood and such a business should not be operating out of the neighborhood . Mr . Sayre stated that there are alternative locations that this business could be headquartered in . There is a model on King Road which is equally as large as this residence that is currently being used . He stated that he thinks this property should be maintained as a single family residence property and perhaps even raze the structure in the back if that is what it is going to take to prevent the dual nature of the property . In answer to Chairman Aron ' s question , Mr . Sayre stated that he is opposed to the applicant being given a variance for his request . Mr . Sayre said that he understands that the request is for a limited period ' of time , to August 1991 , but he believes that is only a postponement of a bad problem . He stated that it is a personal affront to him to look out his window and see cars parked in a parking lot and business activities going on . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 Mr . Rue explained that the rear building has been shut down . There are only five people working in the front unit . The kitchen has been totally removed from the rear building and at the moment it is only being used for storage . The front building was three apartments . It has now been converted to one unit which is used for office space . Two of the three kitchens in the front unit were also permanently removed at the same time as the kitchen in the rear unit . Mr . King asked Mr . Rue if the use were permitted to continue until next August , would he continue to use that rear building . Mr . Rue stated that at the moment they are using the rear building and he sees no reason to use it for other than storage . Mr . Frost interjected that there is a long history on this property . He said that essentially there was a restriction that prohibited the use of that back building for anything other than an accessory building . Mr . Frost stated that from the standpoint of the Ordinance , a property is entitled for at least up to one year to have buildings used as part of a development . If and when this ultimately turns back to a residence , the back building will not be issued a certificate from his office for anything other than an accessory building , absent of any residential dwelling unit . Mrs . Carolyn Richter , 110 Ridgecrest Road , spoke on the history of the property and stated her opposition to the proposal . Discussion followed on .the floor . Mr . Rue stated that Mr . Auble is not connected with the project any longer . He wanted to give Mr . Auble credit for assessing the fact that this was an eyesore when he bought this house and their intention at the time of the purchase was to clean them up , use them temporarily as an office and then revert them to single family ownership . Mr . Rue spoke on the economic hardship issues . Mr . King asked Mr . Rue what their eventual proposed use of these buildings are . Mr . Rue said that they propose at the moment to sell the building . Numbers 104 and 106 Ridgecrest Road are advertised for sale as of today . Number 108 will also be eventually sold as a residential dwelling . Further discussion followed regarding the reasons the company does not want to move their office facilities at this time . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 Mr . Rue stressed that the economic hardship to the organization would be significant given the current state of the general economy . Mr . Hines asked for assurance that Mr . Rue ' s organization . will not be back in front of the Board in the future asking for another extension of time for this building . Mr . Rue stated that he can guarantee that he , personally , will not be back in here before the Board asking for another extension . Town Attorney Barney spoke of the history of the house back in the late 160 ' s and early 1701s . Further discussion followed regarding the number of persons utilizing the office space in the building in question . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing and asked the Board for a motion on the matter . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant Special Approval to Chase Farm Associates for the continuation of the use of a, residential property located at 108 Ridgecrest Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 and - 5 . 2 , for business purposes with respect to the development of a residential area , with the following findings and conditions . 1e that there is a significant investment involved in the business . 2e that there will be no more than 5 people employed to work in or out of that building or on the property . 3 * that the building be returned to residential use on or before July 31 , 1991 and in the meantime the rear building , 108A , will be used only as an accessory building for storage and like uses , without any personnel using it for an office or other such uses . 4 * that the impact would not be unreasonable on the neighborhood , being apparently less than it has been in the past year . 5 * that the economic situation is so bad that it would be a particular hardship for the company to have to move twice . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals November 14 , 1990 6 . that when the building is restored to residential purposes , the gravel area behind the first building shall be re - converted to lawn . Chairman Aron called for a voice vote which resulted as follows : Aye - Mr . King Aye - Mrs . Reuning Aye - Mr . Hines Aye - Mr . Austen Aye - Mr . Aron The motion was carried unanimously . ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ( ADJOURNED FROM OCTOBER 10 , 1990 ) , UNDER ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 77 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR AN INTERPRETATION BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF ARTICLE VII , SECTION 35 , OF SAID ORDINANCE TO DETERMINE IF ANY USES PERMITTED IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS "A" , " B " , AND nC " MAY BE PERMITTED IN A BUSINESS DISTRICT " D" , AND FURTHER , TO DETERMINE WHAT SALES/USES MAY BE CUSTOMARILY ENCOMPASSED WITHIN A GASOLINE SALES STATION . Chairman Aron referred to written statements by Mr . King and Mr . Hines , attached hereto as Exhibits # 9 and # 10 , and extensive discussion followed on the floor . It was the consensus of the Board that Mr . King and Mr . Hines will draft a resolution to submit to the Board . The draft resolution will come back to the Board on November 28 , 1990 for consideration and review . The meeting adjourned at 10 : 05 p . m . Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary Henry Aron , Chairman go 10 / 30/ 90 ER Comm . ' s comments on CU ' s gas sylinder storage shed We note that some EAF Qs were ans ' d . incorrectly : # 8 yes should be no # 11 yes should be no We note that we were not supplied with topographic information , so that we could not properly analyze impacts . We note that the additional information that would have been provided by the new EAFs was not supplied We note that this project is an additional incremental industrial use in an R- 30 zone Our recommendation : Is there some urgency for this project ? I . e . , Is the present storage system for these gas sylinders a dangerous situation ? If yes M,MMM, then applicant must come back with a statement of how this project will address that danger . Project review could then move ahead , but not until after applicant provides a security design ( so that , e . g . , the open shed will not be accesible to vandals ) - - and provides analysis of any potential impacts on ( 1 ) Cascadilla creek and ( 2 ) BTI experiments . If no - - then do not act on this project at all until CU has supplied a DEIS on its entire plans for this part of town , to include among other things details on where all of the University ' s industrial - type support facilities are to be located . And for this particular project , in proximity to Casca - dilla , we assume the EIS will address -general protection for that stream and gorge . • 14- 1b 4 12/87►— Text 12 PROJECT I . D. NUMBER 8tT.2t SEAR Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1 . APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2 . PROJECT NAME Cornell University , Ithaca , NY General Stores Warehouse Gas Cylinder Dock oii J , PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality Town of Ithaca County Tompkins Count - New York 4 , PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc, or provide map) See Attached Location Plan See Attached Site Plan 5 , IS PROPOSED ACTION: ❑ New ® Expansion ❑ Modl}Icationlalteratlon 8 . DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Covered Storage Dock For Storage and Handling of Compressed Gas Cylinders . 7 , AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: SQ � ,� � Ft , Initially 652 . 5 a6iie16 Ultimately acres 8 . WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? Ely" ❑ No If No, describe briefly 9 . WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ❑ Residential ® Industrial ❑ Commercial ® Agriculture ® Park/Forest/Open space ❑ Omer Describe: 10 . DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)?rot ❑ Yes I,W No It yes, list agency(s) and permlVapprovals 11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VAUD PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, list agency name and permWapp " Special Approval For Existing Materials Control Facility , 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REOUIRE MODIFICATION? ® Yes ❑ No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE 18 TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applica11tisponew ArAjLr G tiers Date: 9 / 27 / 90 Signature: rvr If the action Is In the Coastal Ana, and you an a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form !Edon. proceeding with this assessment OVER Z 1 . PART 11 — ENY IRON MENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be conVletod by the Town of Ithaca ; Use attachments as necessary ) A . Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES NO 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 Q 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 ATTACK 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 C1 - C5 ? Explain briefly ; SEE ATPACHFD C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES ❑ NO . ® If yes , explain briefly E . Comments of staff © , CAC Other ❑ attached . (Check applicable boxes) PART II I — DETERMINATION 0 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 (it . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude . If necessary , add attachments or reference . supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . ❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . Then proceed directly to the full EAF and /or prepare a positive declaration . ❑ Check this box if .you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS "Maw� � Name of Lead Agency Prepay 's Signature If A~ont from Responsible Officor) HENRY ARON , CHAIRMAN Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Signature of Res onsible Officer in Lead Agency Date & # �. i I I i PART II — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Proposed Gas Cylinder Storage Dock . Cornell Unlversity General Stores Warehouse . A . Does Action exceed any TYPE I threshold in 6 NYCRR, PART 617 . 12 ? Yes No Action is UNLISTED.c_ Be Will Action receive coordinated review as provided for UNLISTED Actions in 6 NYCRR , PART 617 .6 ? Yes. (_ No Involved Agency( ies ) : Town of Ithaca Planning Board , Zoning Board of Appeals C . Could Action result in any adverse effects associated with 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 ? Explain briefly : None anticipated . Proposed action Is the construction of a 30' x 18' raised platform with roof for the storage of 20 lb and 1001b size gas cylinders used in ongoing University operations . Gas,,which are proposed to be stored on the dock are : oxygen , nitrogen , carbon dioxide , helium , argon , acetylene , and compressed air . Proposed structure will be constructed within existing storage yard and adjacent to the General Stores warehouse . No significant adverse Impacts with regard to the above environmental concerns are expected as a result of this action . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural resources ; or community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly : No significant adverse impacts anticipated . No known archaeological or historic resources , or agricultural or other natural resources , exist on the site , or are expected to otherwise be affected . No significant adverse effects on neighborhood character expected as a result of the proposed action . Site is screened from the east (Game Farm Road direction ) by an existing earth berm directly adjacent to site : and by a natural rise in land further east; from the north (NYS Route 366 ) by existing buildings ; from the west by topography ; and from the south by topography and vegetation . The Town of Ithaca East Ithaca Recreation Way is approximately 500 feet south of the proposed storage dock . It is screened from the storage yard area and proposed dock however by a band of trees and brush , and the + / ea 30 foot high ravine side . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats , or threatened or other natural resources ? Explain briefly . No significant adverse impacts anticipated . No significant habitats or endangered or otherwise significant vegetation or wildlife species , or other natural resources are known to exist on the site . 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 ? Explain briefly : None expected . The site is zoned Residence District 14-30 . The proposed action is in support of ongoing education-related university operations , and as such Is considered a permitted use under the Residence District R-30 regulations . The changes in use or intensityof use of the land as a result of the proposed action are limited In nature and not expected to have any significant adverse impacts . f C5 . 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 C I -CS ? Explain briefly : None anticipated . C7 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 Nom If Yes , explain briefly PART 111 — DETERMINATION OF S16NIFICANCE Given the small scale of the proposed action , its conformance with Town of Ithaca Zoning , its similarity with the character of the surrounding land uses , and reasons given above , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the above referenced project . LEAD AGENCY : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals REVIEWER : George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner DATE : 10/30/90 �,�h41 - Cornell University - - Gas Cylinder Storage Dock - 1 - East of Orchards area , south of Route 366 , and west of Game Farm Road Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Cornell University - - Gas Cylinder Storage Dock East of Orchards area , south of Route 366 , and west of Game Farm Road Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 MOTION by Mr . Robert Ken erson , seconded by Dr . William Lesser : WHEREAS : 1 . " This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval for a proposed 30 - foot by 18 - foot " Gas Cylinder Storage Dock " , proposed to be located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 . 2 . The proposed project is located within the existing Cornell University General Stores warehouse storage yard , east of the Cornell Orchards area approximately 2 , 100 feet south of NYS Route 366 and 2 , 500 feet west of Game Farm Road , in a Residence District R- 30 zone . 3 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board ' of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in coordinated review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is an involved agency in coordinated review . 4 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on November 6 , 1990 , has reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form and review , and other submissions related to this proposal . 5 . The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 10 That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . 2 . That the Planning Board , in making recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the following : a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location . b . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected . r Cornell University - - Gas Cylinder Storage Dock - 2 - East of Orchards area , south of Route 366 , and west of Game Farm Road Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 c . The proposed use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . 30 That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request of Cornell University for Special Approval for a proposed 30 - foot by 18 - foot " Gas Cylinder Storage Dock " , proposed to be located in the storage yard area of the existing General Stores warehouse on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , be approved . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nandy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , November 13 , 19900 TO" ®F ffBA►CA 126 EAST SENW ► MS, ITMACAr NEW YORK l4We October 3 , • 1990 Mr . Glen Hubbell 1308 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca , New York 14850 RE : Hubs Antiques & Furniture Dear Mr . Hubbell : This letter serves as a follow up to our telephone conversation on October 2 , 1990 , in reference to the operation of your antique and furni - ture business at 1308 Mecklenburg Road . You maintain your own residential building . on the property , along with several accessory buildings that are used as part of your business operation . On March 3 , 1976 , you appeared before the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals and obtained a " special permit " " for one year , to operate an antique and second hand goods shop " . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance would not otherwise permit any commercial operation in a residential zone . ( Your property is located in a Residential District R - 30 zone ) . I am enclosing a copy of the " minutes " for your 1976 Zoning Board of Appeals appearance . There is no record of your ever receiving any extension beyond 1976 for the continued operation of your business on Mecklenburg Road . Your property is in violation of Article V , Section 18 and 19 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance as a result of the business use in a residential zone . As we discussed I am enclosing an application for an appearance before the Zoning Board of Appeals in which you will be seeking a " use variance " . I anticipate a hearing date of November 14 , 1990 . Please complete all the enclosed papers and return it to this office at your earliest convenience , along with a check for $ 80 . 00 payable to the Town of Ithaca . Should you have any questions please feel free to call me at 273 - 1783 . Sincerely , Andrew Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer AF / dlw Enclosures , / cc : Shirley Raffensperger #C' 17Z Henry Aron John Barney Zoning Board of Appeals - B - March 3 , 191" 4 . Mr . Hubbell further proposes that only members of hi fate family would be employed in the antique operation . 5 . The sale of antiques will be maintained at a low level as indic above compatible wit ood that this is - _ . . THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that said Board grant and hereby . does grant a special permit to Mr . Glenn L . Hubbell for one year to operate an antique and secondhand goods shop , to use the buildings for temporary storage of materials for compensation with the pro- vision that any signs connected with these operations must conform with the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance , Local Law # 1 - 1972 , and BE I'•i FURTHER RESOLVED , that these uses are restricted to the existing buildings north of the house on this property kli�wn as 1308 Mecklenburg Road , being a portion of :' own of Ithaca Tax Parcel 6 - 27 - 1 -14 . i There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Francese , Hewett , King , Austen . Nay - None . The Chairman declared the MOTION carried unanimously . Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the Hub ell ter duly closed at 8 : 55 p:. m . RESOLUTIO*J 7, ONING BOARD OF API' ':'�.S .S . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , sacc;ded by Mr . Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that eIIh me ibL of tile Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca -reepaive $ 25 . 00 per meeting attended . Aye - Francese , ewett , King , Aust �: en . Nay - None . The Chairman declared the MOTION carried unanimously . ADJOURNM777^ Uron Motion , the Chairman declared the Meeting of the Zoning Poard of Appeals d::ly adjourned at 9 : 15 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Peter K . Fraacese , Chairman # �woe Zoning Board of Appeals PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 617.2l SEAR Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1 . APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2 . PROJECT NAME L ff N /V L L L Al. u G C IV / 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality County O M P W/_ 4 . PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) / 3 o Fs 14 j0 GK o R Q. 2 77N /9c &, /v. ej.: / .0 $-s o 4A /� /? rte 74 W /4A r¢ rLltci� 4, c- fvGUR6 l3oA t,✓' &�Sr* /'t/' IFRf2 f.JLsT MAUc/Y — MC`GKtt=/v(� UrZG2D. / A% T22Sccr" 'V/ 5 . IS PROPOSED ACTION: ❑ New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modification/alteration cJ5 c - u �2 � ,a Y � 313176 L 0 :v T 1 n/ U ,4 "rl t , 6 . DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: rlfVO/ZJ; G7pr,` Arror✓ O != 14ovrIQUJ � is; S &Z- n. )CV;3N / "T✓ 1Q 1.: Qc1S / n/ LSS / n/ LcX1 $ Tl / ✓ G S 'TRVGrU .2L S pL /2 5 1° L. G � /� �- P EMIT row /v Lvov PPA=� AA. S 3 /3 / 7 & 7 , AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially acres Ultimately acres 8 . WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ® Yes E&No If No, describe briefly Nv Pt 2 -=0N / w o 11 01 ,V191vc u AR ✓ Y , iy S 1 'r -To a..d Z 4= ti / Na 00 ujf= RPRFA4� $ 3/3 / ytp 9 . WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ❑ Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ® Agriculture ❑ Park/Forest/Open space ❑ Other Describe: Non or N* /=19- 2 M 1:F99 / /V T 1_ n/ S I r .:'d v 5' ou TN It C 19 S .r / D ti L /}G/L n/ T 9 s 4et 2 h s To C rrd I. 11Vc 10 . DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL. STATE OR LOCAL)? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, list agency($) and permit/approvals SPcG / & .. PtRM 1T TU . ✓ ni ,', THE, (;` Zov . �LCi /J /� PPcALs /VE- 9Fi- l /2 / tn /'+ rPkICr13T10 "%/ ir�ofZ j1t/ S � — ✓14Rir�wCr • • 11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VAUD PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ❑ Yea ❑ No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval PE (;Z / T T-ow v TT & Rc /t 4:tv01v 1fv6 13d• l3PPxFNA. S 3/ i 11E it 14 Mu3 r- 2j�r icIIzM w / rH vsc - Van I01VCI 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑ Yes No i CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE APplicant/sponsor name: Gi. Cryn/ f f iJ 3 L Date. /c// . J Signature: dc If the action is In the 'Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form !Boilers proceeding with this assessment OVER If 7046 � )4- � PART 11 — ENVI RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be oom leted by the Town of Ithaca Use attachments as necessary ) A . Does proposed action exceed any Type 1 Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ? YES NO If yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF . S . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ? YES NO ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .) C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible) Cl . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACK 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 C1 - C5 ? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly SEE ATrAc= 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 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 (f) magnitude . If necessary , add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed . ❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur . Then proceed directly to the full EAF and /or prepare a positive declaration . ❑ Check this box if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Name of Lead Agency PreparWeSignature (If diffet* t from Responsible Officer) HENRY ARON , . CHAIRMAN Name 8c Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing reparer Date : Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency / fA PART 11 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT : Request for Variance from Article V , Sections 18 and 19 of Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance : 1308 Mecklenberg Road REVIEWER : George R . Frantz , Asst . Town Planner DATE : November 7 , 1990 A . Does Action exceed any TYPE I threshold in 6 NYCRR , PART 617 . 12 ? Yes No Action is UNLISTED_X_ Be Will Action receive coordinated review as provided for UNLISTED Actions In 6 NYCRR , PART 617 .6 ? Yes No.(_ Involved Agency0es ) : C . Could Action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : C I . 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 ? Explain briefly : No significant adverse impacts anticipated . Proposed action is the grant of a variance from Article V , S?ctinns 18 and 19 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning ordinance to allow an existing nonconforming use within an existing structure to continue . No new construction or change in existing character of site is proposed under this action . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural resources ; or community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly : No significant adverse impacts anticipated . No archaeological or historic resources are known to exist on the site . No agricultural , aesthetic , or other natural resources are expected to be affected by the proposed action . No significant adverse impacts to community or neighborhood character are anticipated as a result of the proposed action . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or other natural resources ? Explain briefly . No significant adverse impacts anticipated . C4 . A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? Explain briefly : Grant of the variance as requested would be contrary to certain community goals and plans as officially adopted , The subject parcel is located in an Agricultural District, which allows , among other uses , single- and two-family homes , specific public and institutional uses , agricultural uses , offices of a resident doctor , dentist , musician , engineer , teacher , lawyer , architect, artist or member of other recognized profession and quasi -profession , and customary home occupati %ns operated solely by a resident of the dwelling and subject to restrictions outlined in Article V , Section 19 . The surrounding land use is generally rural residential and open fields , brush , and woodland , and no commercial development in the portion of the town where the subject parcel is located is proposed or anticipated in any community, plans and goals officially adopted by the Town of Ithaca . It must be noted however that there Is an existing nonconforming commercial use in the vicinity of the subject parcel in the form of another antique retail business across the road . CS . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly : Given the small scale of the use for which the proposed variance is requested , no significant adverse impacts with respect to the above factors are anticipated . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C 1 -05 ? Explain briefly : None anticipated . C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy )? Explain briefly : No significant adverse impacts anticipated . D . Is there . or Is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? Yes No.(_ If Yes , explain briefly PART III — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Because of the relatively small scale of the activity for which a variance is requested , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended . George R . Frantz Asst . Town Planner b PROPOSED MOVING COSTS TRUCK RENTAL 275 LABOR 1500 COMPUTER NETWORK SETUP 400 COST OF PHONE LINES 400 DEPOSIT INSTALLATION 400 TELEPHONE LINES INTO OFFICE 275 OFFICE EQUIPMENT SETUP 250 DECOR 300 COST OF NEW ADDRESS ON STATIONERY , ENVELOPES , ADS 500 TOTAL COSTS 4300 108 Improvements to Office Total Labor : 250 / hrs . @ 20 per hr . 50000 Electrical : 4 ' 2 bulb flourcent fixtures ( 25 ) 30 / piece 750 . 4 ' 4 bulb is if ( 4 ) 50 /piece 200 . 4 dedicated computer lines / phones 10000 2 Nine light entry doors 200 . / ea . 4000 Underground computer lines 400 . Painting : C . J . Morris - exterior 2000 . C . J . Morris - interior 3009 Remodeling : Remove old bath south end front building 5000 Sand / reburbish wood floors 600 . Carpet : Site Work : Parking lot fill 20000 TOTAL 12 , 2009 YX BZn - 'IYM OF LTMCA IVrERPRfTATTON OF 'ZONING ORl)INANCEi ; 35 ( Permitted Uses in business " D" 'Zones : gasoline sales stations & repair garages ) [ Rambling Thoughts & Notes of E , t4 , King 11 /8/90] [Paragraph Numbers are only for ease of references to this DRAH'r] le Section 35 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance specifies as the only permitted uses in the Business "D" Zones to be created thereunder , the operation of Gasoline S; rvice Stations and Automotive Repair Garages , while Section 31 , restricts the location of such Districts to prevent than in R-15 Residence Zones , 2 . Section 35 itself also provides that these Districts are subject to the further restrictions of Section 71 , which establishes special separation MMUMM — applicable Only to gas stations arul autorotive repair garages , to keep building and facilities back from street lines and residence districts , and to limit the intrusion of these facilities into the side yards and front yarns of the [tit . And Section 35 issues the further facilities and uses are also subject to the Provisions Of Sectionn 54sofe the D Ordinance -- which p;rrmirs thcr extension of a non-conforming building or use only upon authorization of the ZBA . 3 • Accessory Uses permitted in the 1usiness Zones by Section 36 are limited accessory stor-icy, uuil.; i.n<J p•ur;cinq , and signs -- as far as they would seen to be applicable to a Business D zone . No provision for the Special - Approval of the 'ZBA ( with or without Planning Board approval of a site plan ) appears to be provided in Article VII [ 3 •) 31-39 ] ; but Sections 39 and 46-a of the Ordinance do call for site plan approval by the Planning Board for any building or structure to be erected within any business District , 4 • Some 55 specified types of Business operations are specified as permitted uses or operations in one or the other of the other 3 Business Districts , in their delineation in Sections 32 - 34 of the Ordinance . Only Business "D" districts are limited to but 2 specified uses . 5 . It thus seems clear from the Ordinance itself that businesses providing automotive gasoline , oil , care and repair , were to be specially sited and specially controlled by limitations . The inherent danger in the storage and dispensing of volatile , flammable and explosive fuels , and the high volume of traffic into them and out of than onto streets or highways abutting , undoubtedly account in large measure for the concern of the drafters in singling out these businesses for special attention and restriction . 6 . The suggestion is made that perhaps any ( or at least sane ) of the other retail sales which are specified or permitted in the business Zones of less concern [A, B, or C -- and perhaps E] be automatically permitted in these Business "D" Zones , and note is made of the fact that many Gasoline Service stations ( and perhaps some automotive repair garages ) are operated in conjunction with a "Convenience Store" in which all manner of groceries , kitchen supplies and utensils , candy, cigarettes , snacks (delicatessen item [ i ] arxl sandwiches [ 7 ] are sold . 7 . Note is also made of the fact that rainy or most service stations in the area sell other automotive utilities and supplies ( tires ; batteries ; wiper blades ; snowy- brushes and ice scrapers ; mud flaps ; anti- freeze ; windshield wash ; etc . etc . ) , as well as so-.la , cigarettes , candy , gum and snacks , Q 8 • One par un tieUlar applic- t would like to be allcx„�ed to sell not only the automotive items mentioned in the above Paragraph , but also items for use or conuuntion by the motorist himself : .. I E • g • Cigarettes , 3(X3a , jU1.Cf' , coffee , COOkins , chips , p,inuts , ice , etc . -- which he characterizes as item " to be consumed immnodiately after purchase" ; t)ut he sjxacifically excluxl beer " . es "deli and I ?rt He would also like to sell newspapers at his service st•stion . 9e One argument advanced for the specific enlargement of retail sale Opportunities at Business D facilities is that eeorx>nic necessity requires that a supplier of these essential items for automobile fuels and repairs supplement the sales generated at such a location by the sale of other products . Ifithat is tnie as a general proposition for all service stations , it would seem that it should be established tO the satisfaction of the Town Board as a reason for expanding the statmient of perrr Zones in Section 35 . If in a particular situation ttac3 uses in Business U Li in recormiencii y, the Planning Board , ding or opposing a Variance , should carefully scnitinize whether the Station ought to be sited there at all , and what limiting parameters might be essential or wise for the operation , 10 . I suspect that the pointed reference , in Section 35 , to the Section governing the extension of non-conforming uses ( Section 54 ) was inserted at least partly because gasoline pumps had first appeared at many rural grocery aryl ,>ther retail stores , and the intent was to curtail the expansion or extension of such diverse types of retail operations . ESSENTIALS OF A rASOLINR SERVICF, STATION 11 . The essential purpose of a gasoline service station (with or without repair facilities ) being to enable the motorist to fuel his vehicle and resume his highway travel . A station should be able to provide most things of imnediate necessity or aid to that end , without Special Permission or Variance . And that automatic inclusiion ought to include some fueling and refreshing of driver and passengers , as well as of the vehicle itself , The limitations suggested by Mr . Barney, to "snack food items , coffee, soda , cookies , cigarettes , and various type convenience items generally used for im nediate consirnption by the patron who has. purchased gasoline products" might ` well be sufficient to the task of deterring the use of the station as a substitute grocery or drug store , newspaper and magazine vending establishment , etc kBut consider also :: an-- thus limiting station traffic in volume d duration . In In c ( a ) Items essential or merely helpful to enable the vehicle to proceed on its journey would seem to include the following : wiper blades , fuses , above] . . [ See ( b) AND custom dictates that it is now reasonable to expect to be able to purchase items to aid the individual , such as : candy, gum, cigarettes , kleenex , and colas and other soft drinks , coffee could also be includel as helpful to restore alertness , aspirin and alka-seltzer would also be helpful . Cookies , ice cream, crackers and other munchies might also add to the enjoyment of the trip and even contribute to an avoidance of drowsiness . PLANNING LOCUION OF THE STATION AND CURTAILMENT OF TRAFFIC 12 . Of primary iRmrtance to Planners and Zoners , it would seem, is/are the goals ) of minimizing dangerous congestion and traffic flow into and out of service stations , The amorng of vehicular and pedestrian traffic expected at one site ai ny another may vary wridely , depending upon the location of the station . Expanding the number of goods for sale will surely expand the frequency and intensity of traffic on the site , the time spent there , and the liklihood of extensive harm and damage if a fire or explosion should take Place there . /� 13 . To expand a station operation try inc- luae the sale of daily ncwrspapars , j. &0/� Q bread , canned goods , household items and other staples and items commnly / found in a convenience store , grocery store , r1rug store , magazine stand , video � store , and other types of retail sales store, requires the exercise of a great C: deal of caution -- for vehicle aril 3e �' potential danger is thereby Pedestrian traffic , congestion , and invited . News ' the offering of other itcnn . Parrs invite daily stops , as does 1 - I" 14 . In the case of a rural Ayjrj station on a well travelled through highway where retail stores are scarce , it might be deerned essential to provide not only a gasoline service station , but also to permit retail sales therein of 1mMedia to consum--able provisions for the travelling vehicle and motorist , but also to provide groceries and other provisions for hone cons umption by the local residents , campers , and IN owners . Having an ICE vending machine on site could be4qui.te reasonable :anti helpful to area campers ; but it might seem misplaced at another location . PLANNING AND SPPrIAL PERMITS 15 . Minimizing retail sales activities at most service station sites appears to tx� the general goal arui thrust of our Zoning Ordinance . 16 . Yet there are undoubtedly some situations , places , facilities , where an expansion of such sales might be desirable and safely implemented , but the burden of establishing need , desirability and safety ought to be placed upon the proponent and subjected to careful scrutiny via public hearings and board determinations -- site plans and traffic impact studies being essential elements to be considered in every detenaination , 17 . Our Ordinance at present offers simple mechanism for presentation of such matters , and the use of variance procedures seerLq uniesirabla Special permissions developed upon Site Plan review and consideration , seems mtDqt desirable , INrERPRorni kI OF § 35 OF THE ORDINANCE 18 . In the interests of prorating safety by minimizing or optimizing vehicular traffic in and out of service stations , while yet not defeating the purpose of such stations , narrow circumscription of the items that may be unquestionably sold at gasoline service stations and repair garages , seems in order in interpreting Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance , E(XY.J. lies 19 . If it can be established the economics of operating any gasoline service station mandates the expansion of that operation into other retail sales areas , then it would seen that the way to go is to amend Section 35 of the Ordinance to specify that other particular retail sales may be permitted therein, arr9 to specify the mechanism ( if one is to be required ) for obtaining reviews and approval of such expanded operation . CONCLUSION 206 We should go with the 19 11 interpretation suggested by John Harney but either expanded a bit to assuredly include the automotive items and a few over the counter remedies [ the aspirin , etc . ] ( at least for for a station located out on through highways , away from other retail stores ) ; eliminating daily newspapers , at least ; and expressing the intent that the offerings there are to be generally so limi are dted and focused on the travelling motorist that people iscouraged from daily shopping there . How and when room is made for the Q'iWENIENCE S1nRE with pumps ; and how EXPANSIONS of the offering lines are to be accomplished ( Planning Hoard reoamnendation as a first step? Vari<ancers? Special Permits? Further interpretations by the LgA with CLASSIFICA,ItWS of SrAMNS by location , other proximate retail stores , and other criteria ? Heats me . [ Special Permits act rec'amnendetom of the Planning Board world be the best solution , I think : on where in the Ordinance do we get the authority for such permits or C # 9 I authorizations? / END 3 • it iI i I i i I I I V's h 1e I ! l - =Y i 13ZA - 'I'O4•N OF .ITHACA IVrERPRE'INUON OF 'ZONING ORDINANCE 335 ( Permitted Uses in business " D " Zones : I gasoline sales stations & repair garages ) [ Rambling Thoughts & Notes of E * We King 1 .1 /8/ 90 ] [ Paragraph Numbers are only for ease of references to this DRAFT] A 1 . Section 35 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance specifies as the only permitted uses in the Business " D " Zones to be created thereunder , the operation of Gasoline Service Stations and Automotive Repair Garages , while Section 31 , restricts the location of such Districts to prevent theme in R-15 Residence Zones . 2 . Section 35 itself also provides that these Districts are subject to the further restrictions of Section 71 , which establishes special separation mmumu a -- applicable only to gas stations and automotive repair garages , to keep building and facilities back from street lines and .residence districts , and to limit the intrusion of these facilities into the side yards and front yards of the Lot . And Section 35 issues the further Warning that Business D facilities and uses are also subject to the provisions of Section 54 of the Ordinance -- which permits the extension or a non-conforming building or use only upon authorization of the ZBA . 3 . Accessory Uses perm:ittec1 in the Business Zones by Section 36 are limited to accessory storak3e 1» s .ai d4J.ng , p-irKinq , rind signs -- as far as they would seem to be applicable to a business D zone . No provision for the Special Approval of the zaA ( with or without Planning Board approval of a site plan ) appears to be provided in Article VII [ § ' 31 -39 ] ; but Sections 39 and 46-a of the Ordinance do call for site plan approval by the Planning Board for any building or structure to be erected within any business District . 4 . Score 55 specified types of Business operations are specified as permitted uses or operations in one or the other or the other 3 Business Districts , in their delineation in Sections 32 - 34 of the Ordinance . Only Business " D" districts are limited to but 2 specified uses . 5 . It thus seems clear from the ordinance itself that businesses providing automotive gasoline , oil , care and repair , were to be specially sited and specially controlled by limitations . The inherent danger in the storage and dispensing of volatile , flamrnabl-e and explosive .fuels , and the high volume of traffic into them and out of them onto streets or highways abutting , undoubtedly account in large measure for the concern of the drafters in singling out these businesses for slx�cial attention and restriction . 6 . The suggestion is made that perhaps any ( or at .least some ) of the other retail sales which are specified or permitted in the business Zones of less concern [ A , B , or C -- and perhaps E ] be automatically permitted in these Business " D" Zones , and note is maade of the fact that many Gasoline Service Stations ( and perhaps some automotive repair garages ) are operated in conjunction with a "Convenience Store" in which all manner of groceries , kitchen supplies and utensils , candy , cigarettes , snacks ( delicatessen .items L ? ] and sandwiches [ T ] are sold . 7 . Note is also made of the .fact that many or most service stations in the area sell other automotive utilities and supplies ( tires ; batteries ; wiper blades ; snow- brushes and ice scrapers ; mud flaps ; anti - freeze ; windshield wash , etc . etc . ) , as well as so_ia , cigarettes , candy , guru and snacks . 8 . One particular applicant would :Like to be allowed to sell not only the automotive items mentioned in the above paragraph , but also items for use or conumption by the motorist himself ; E • go cigarettes , soda , juice , coffee , cookies , chips , peanuts , ice , * so etc , -- which he characterizes as items " to be consumed immediately after purchase " ; beer eer "" but he specifically excludes "deli and . 1 •J t i I He could also 1ikc:A to sell newspapers at his service station . 9 . One argument advanced for the specific enlargement of retail sale opportunities at Business D facilities is that econ mic necessity respires that a supplier of these essential items for automobile fuels and repairs supplement the sales generated at such a location by the sale of other products . IfAthat is true as a general proposition for all service stations , it would seem that it should be established to the satisfaction of the Town Ba-Ard as a reason for expanding the statement of permitted uses in Business n Zones in Section 35 . If in a particular situation only , the Planning Board , in reccmending or opposing a Variance , should carefully scrutinize whether U-ie Station ought to b . sited there at all , and what limiting parameters might be essential or wise for the operation . 10 . I suspect that the pointed reference , in Section 35 , to the Section governing the extension of non-conforming uses ( Section 54 ) was inserted at least partly because gasoline pnnps had first appeared at many rural grocery and other retail stores , and the intent was to curtail the expansion or extension of such diverse types of retail operations . ESSENTIALS OF A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION 11 . The essential purpose of a gasoline service station ( with or without repair facilities ) being to enable the motorist to fuel his vehicle and resume his highway travel . A station should be able to provide most things of immediate necessity or aid to that end , without Special Permission or Variance . And that automatic inr_ lusiion ought to include sane fueling and refreshing of driver and passengers , as well as of the vehicle itself . The limitations suggested by hlr . Barney , to " snack food items , coffee , soda , cookies , cigarettes , and various type convenience items generally used for immediate consumption by the patron who has: purchased gasoline products " might well be sufficient to the task of deterring the use of the station as a substitute grocery or drug store , newspaper and magazine vending establishment , etc . -- thus .limiting station traffic in volume and duration . kBut consider also : ( a ) Items essential or merely helpful to enable the vehicle to proceed on its journey would seen to include the following : wiper blades , fuses , . . . [ See " 7 " abovel ( b ) AND custom dictates that it is now reasonable to expect to be able to purchase items to aid the individual , such as : candy , gum , cigarettes , kleenex , and colas and other soft drinks , coffee could also be included as helpful to restore alertness , aspirin and a .lka-seltzer would also be helpful . Cookies , ice cream, crackers and other munchies might also add to the enjoyment of the trip and even contribute to an avoidance of drowsiness . PLANNING U :ATION OF RIE STATION AND CURTATLMEN'T' OF TRAFFIC 12 . Of primary importance to Planners and Zoners , it would seem , is/are the goal ( s ) of minimizing dangerous congestion and traffic flow into and out of service stations . The amoung of vehicular and pedestrian traffic expected at one site and another may vary widely , depending upon the location of the station . Expanding the n1xnber of goods for sale will surely expand the fraquency and intensity of traffic on the site , the time spent there , and the liklihood of extensive harm and damage if a fire or explosion should take place there . 13 . To expand a station operation to include the sale of daily newspapers , bread , canned goods , household items and other staples and items r_onenonly found in a convenience store , grocery store , drug store , magazine stand , video store , and other types of retail sales stores requires the exercise of a great deal of caution -- for vehicle and pcx3estrian traffic , congestion , and potential danger is thereby invited . Newspapers invite daily stops , as does the offering of other items . 2 V 1 14 . In the case of a rural gas station on a well travelled through highway where retail stores are scarce , it might be deemed essential to provide not only a gasoline service station , but also to permit retail sales therein of immediate consumable provisions for the travelling vehicle and motorist , but also to provide groceries and other provisions for heave consumption by the local residents , campers , and RV owners . Having an ICE vending machine on site could tn+ quite reasonable ind helpful to area campers ; but it might seem misplaced at another location . PI-d'\NNING W) SPECIAL PERMITS 15 . Minimizing retail sales ,activities at most service station sites appears to be the general goal a.nd thrust of our Zoning Ordinance . 16 . Yet there are undoubtedly some situations , places , facilities , where an expansion of such sales might be desirable and safely implemented , but the burden of establishing need , desirability and safety ought to be placed upon the proponent and subjected to careful scrutiny via public hearings and board determinations -. site plans and traffic impact studies being essential elements to be considered in every dntenaination . 17 . Our Ordinance at present offers simple mechanism for presentation of such matters , and the use of variance procedures seems undesirable . Special permissions developed upon Site Plan review and consideration , seems most desirable . INTERPRE'T'ATION OF § 35 OF THE ORDINANCE 18 . In the interests of promoting safety by minimizing or optimizing vehicular traffic in and out of service stations , while yet not defeating the purpose of such stations , narrow circumscription of the items that may be unquestionably sold at gasoline service stations and repair garages , seems in order in interpreting Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance . ECONOMICS 19 . If it can be established the economics of operating any gasoline service station mandates the expansion of that operation into other retail sales areas , then it would seen that the way to go is to cunend Seciton 35 of the Ordinance to specify that other particular retail sales may be permitted therein , and to specify the mechanism ( if one is to be required ) for obtaining reviews and approval of such expandeNI operation . CONCLUSION 209 We should go with the If 11 interpretation suggested by John Barney , but either expanded a bit to assuredly include the automotive items and a few over the counter remedies [ the aspirin , etc . ] ( at least for for a station located out on through highways , away from other retail stores ) , eliminating daily newspapers , at least ; and expressing the intent that the offerings there are to be generally so limited and focused on the travelling motorist that people are discouraged from daily shopping there . Haw and when room is made for the COWENIENCE SPORE with pwnps ; and how EXPANSIONS of the offering lines ara to be accomplished ( Planning Board recommendation as a first step? Variances? Special Permits? Further interpretations by the ZRN with CLASSIFICATONS of STATONS by location , other proximate retail stores , and other criteria ? Beats me . [ Special Permits on reccmendaton of the Planning Board wrDuld be the best solution , I think : but where in the Ordinance do we get the authority for such permits or authorizations? END 3 .e FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Daie���0 TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 10 , 1990 THE FOLLOWING ARE THE APPEALS THAT WERE HEARD ON OCTOBER 10 , 1990 BY THE BOARD . APPEAL OF JUDITH B . MACINTIRE , APPELLANT , RALPH W . NASH , ESQ . , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A " BED AND BREAKFAST " FACILITY FOR UP TO A MAXIMUM OF FOUR BOARDERS AND/ OR LODGERS , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN AN EXISTING SINGLE —FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 217 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 126 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE BOARDER IN A SINGLE — FAMILY HOME . NIL VOTE . APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANT , JOSEPH M . LALLEY , AGENT , REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF THE SPECIAL APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON JULY 30 , 1985 , FOR THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE OPERATIONS GARAGE . THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION IS THE INSTALLATION OF ABOVE —GROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS WITHIN THE AREA OF THE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE OPERATIONS GARAGE LOCATED OFF NYS ROUTE 366 ON CORNELL UNIVERSITY ' S PALM ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 64 - 1-2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THE MODIFICATION OF THE SPECIAL APPROVAL IS REQUESTED UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . GRANTED WITH CONDITION APPEAL OF ITHACA COLLEGE , APPELLANT , TROWBRIDGE ASSOCIATES , AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF A PORTION OF THE EXISTING ITHACA COLLEGE MAIN CAMPUS ROAD AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AUTOMOBILE PARKING LOT . ITHACA COLLEGE IS LOCATED AT 953 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6-41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . GRANTED WI'T'H CONDITION i APPEAL OF ITHACA COLLEGE , APPELLANT , HOLT ARCHITECTS , AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUC'T'ION OF A NEW ACADEMIC SCIENCE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON THE ITHACA COLLEGE CAMPUS NORTH OF WILLIAMS HALL , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . I IN ADDITION , A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 10 , OF SAID ORDINANCE IS REQUESTED , TO PERMIT A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 60 FEET , AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST POINT AT EXTERIOR GRADE TO THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE ROOF LINE , 30 FEET BEING THE PERMITTED HEIGHT . GRANTED SPECIAL APPROVAL AND VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING , UNDER ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 77 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR AN INTERPRETATION BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF ARTICLE VII , SECTION 35 , OF SAID ORDINANCE TO DETERMINE IF ANY USES PERMITTED IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS " A " , " B " , AND " C" MAY BE PERMITTED IN BUSINESS DISTRICT " D " . ADJOURNED . FILED TOWN OF -ITKACA Town of Ithaca Date 9 1 Zoning Board of Appeals _ October 10 , 1990 Clem TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 10 , 1990 PRESENT : Acting Chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Robert Hines , Joan Reuning , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Andrew Frost , Town Attorney John Barney , Town Engineer Dan Walker . ABSENT . Henry Aron . OTHERS PRESENT . Cathy Valentino , Frank Smith , Judith MacIntire , Joseph Lalley , Chris McDonald , Danielle Landis , Daniel Walker , Sandy Reis , Robert Schmidt , Don Lifton , Larry Fabbroni , Janelle Tauer , Robert O ' Brien , Tom Salm , Peter Trowbridge , R . Lovelace , Mike Welch , Ralph W . Nash , Esq . Acting Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order . The first Appeal on the Agenda was the following : APPEAL OF JUDITH B . MACINTIRE , APPELLANT , RALPH W . NASH , ESQ . , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A " BED AND BREAKFAST " FACILITY FOR UP TO A MAXIMUM OF FOUR BOARDERS AND/OR LODGERS , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 217 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 -57 - 1 - 8 . 126 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE BOARDER IN A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME . Ms . Judith B . MacIntire and Attorney Ralph W . Nash appeared before the Board . Attorney Nash explained to the Board that Ms . MacIntire would like to operate a Bed and Breakfast at her residence at 217 Eastern Heights Drive , using two bedrooms , a maximum of four people ( two couples ) staying there at any one time . He said that under the previous Ordinance , before the amendment in January 1990 , she was allowed two boarders but with the :present Zoning Ordinance she is allowed only one . Attorney Nash stated that Ms . MacIntire did operate a small Bed and Breakfast at this residence prior to January 1990 with two boarders as authorized under the previous Ordinance . f Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals October 10 , 1990 Attorney Nash went on to explain that Ms . MacIntire would like to be able to continue operation and have up to four boarders to supplement her income and in order to maintain the residence , and she feels it would be a good addition to the neighborhood . He stated that , as noted in the application materials with the concurrence of the neighbors in this application , they feel there will be no negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood and it will be a beneficial use which will allow Ms . MacIntire to maintain the residence . Attorney Nash provided photos of the residence in question to the Board members . Acting Chairman Austen referred to statements from neighbors at 215 Eastern Heights Drive , 216 Tudor Road , and 216 Eastern Heights Drive in favor of the proposed Bed and Breakfast . The statements are attached hereto as Exhibits # 1 , # 2 , and # 3 . Acting Chairman Austen referred to letters from Cheryl and Frank Smith at 104 Skyvue Road ; from Susan and Michael Welch at 229 Snyder Hill Road ; Roger and Kathryn Hubbs at 106 Skyvue Road , and a letter with several signatures , opposing the proposed Bed and Breakfast . These letters are attached hereto as Exhibits # 4 # 5 , # 6 , and # 7 . Acting Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . The following persons spoke to the Board and stated their reasons for being opposed to the proposed Bed and Breakfast : Frank Smith 104 Skyvue Road Janelle Tauer 211 Eastern Heights Drive Richard Lovelace 213 Eastern Heights Drive Cathy Valentino 110 Eastern Heights Drive Mike Welch 229 Snyder Hill Road Attorney Nash responded to the persons who spoke to the Board in opposition to the proposed Bed and Breakfast . He stated that there are rental properties in this area in the R- 15 zone . He said the commercial character of a Bed and Breakfast of the limited nature that Mrs . MacIntire is proposing is certainly much less of a commercial venture than is already operating in this zone with rentals . Attorney Nash further stated that in regard to the traffic question , what is being talked about here is possibly one extra vehicle a few days a month . Mrs . MacIntire has been operating with boarders and lodgers for 2 years and there has not been any appreciable increase of traffic and concern about traffic during that time . r Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals October 10 , 1990 Attorney Nash said at the present time Mrs . MacIntire does not have a sign and she has no desire to have a sign on her property advertising the Bed and Breakfast . Acting Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Acting Chairman Austen referred to the Environmental Assessment Form , Part II and III which was signed by Asst . Town Planner George Frantz on October 3 , 1990 , attached hereto as Exhibit # 8 . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . MOTION : By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Mrs . Judith MacIntire requesting variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the operation of a Bed and Breakfast facility for up to a maximum of four boarders and/ or lodgers , proposed to be located in an existing single - family residence at 217 Eastern Heights D�° ive , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance . A vote on the motion resulted as follows . Ayes - King , Reuning , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . MOTION By Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , in the matter of the Appeal of Judith MacIntire to operate a Bed and Breakfast facility at 217 Eastern Heights Drive , grant and hereby does grant a variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance with the following findings and conditions : 16 That if the variance were not granted , it would be an unnecessary hardship on the applicant who owns and occupies this residence with four bedrooms as a single family with only her father and herself residing there . F Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals October 10 , 1990 2 . That the proposed use should be limited as indicated in her application and the variance should be limited to such period as Ms . MacIntire owns and occupies the property or for five ( 5 ) years , whichever period is shorter . 3 . That there shall be no exterior sign indicating that this is a Bed and Breakfast facility . Mr . King commented that he thought such limitations would adequately protect the value of all properties because this will not necessarily be a permanent situation of this house and a re - evaluation will be done by the Board at the end of five years . Mrs . Joan Reuning seconded the motion and stated that she knows this is a community in which many people open up their homes at times of graduations and big weekends at the local Universities . She does not feel that the kind of people that are attracted to a Bed and Breakfast facility are anything but good influences on our children and neighborhoods . Town Attorney Barney suggested the following findings and conditions to the resolution and they were accepted by Mr . Edward King as maker of the motion and Mrs . Reuning as seconder . 4 . That the economic viability of the maintaining of the house is in jeopardy without the granting of the variance . 5 . That adequate parking be provided for any persons who are staying at the Bed and Breakfast . 6 . That there shall be no more than four ( 4 ) persons occupying the premises at one time . 7 . That the building shall be inspected by Mr . Frost to assure that all appropriate building codes and requirements have been met . The voting on the motion was as follows . Ayes - King , Reuning . Nays - Hines , Austen . The Motion was Nil . f t Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals October 10 , 1990 The next Appeal on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY , APPELLANT , JOSEPH M . LALLEY , AGENT , REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF THE SPECIAL APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON JULY 30 , 1985 , FOR THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE OPERATIONS GARAGE . THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION IS THE INSTALLATION OF ABOVE-GROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS WITHIN THE AREA OF THE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE OPERATIONS GARAGE LOCATED OFF NYS ROUTE 366 ON CORNELL UNIVERSITY ' S PALM ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THE MODIFICATION OF THE SPECIAL APPROVAL IS REQUESTED UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Mr . Joseph Lalley explained to the Board that they propose to install two fuel tanks : one 4 , 000 gallons and one 10 , 000 gallons in an above - ground installation with a containment dike in the area between the Maintenance and Service Operations ( M & SO ) garage and the salt grit storage building . He said they also intend to provide some drainage with an oil separator to tie in with some other drainage work that is going in as part of another project in the Orchards . Mr . Lalley stated that the use is consistent with their other activities in that area even though it is zoned residential . Mr . Larry Fabbroni pointed to a map and explained the location of the proposed tanks to the Board . Mr . Lalley stated that the fueling is done at two places on Campus at the present time , one is the State Fleet Garage and that is limited to State vehicles and the other facility is the CU Transit Garage . The tanks at that installation are approaching 20 years of age . He said that if approval of this installation is given , the gasoline storage at the Bus Garage will be converted to diesel to get more than the 2 1/ 2 days supply than they have now for the CU transit operation . Mr . Lalley further stated that the 10 , 000 gallon tank will be for unleaded gasoline and the 4 , 000 gallon diesel will be for the Grounds tractors that will be located in that vicinity with their new facility . They are planning to install a stage 1 vapor recovery system on both tanks that will essentially vent the fumes during the filling operation . Acting Chairman Austen asked if these tanks will be visible from the highway . i Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals October 10 , 1990 Mr . Fabbroni responded that the 10 , 000 gallon tank will be 8 feet tall . The tank will be on a dike ; the maximum total height will be 12 feet . He does not think it will be visible from the highway . He said the tank will be painted white with a catwalk around it for maintenance . Acting Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Acting Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Acting Chairman Austen read from Part II and Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form which was signed by Asst . Town Planner George Frantz , and is attached hereto as Exhibit # 9 . Mr . King stated that he thinks that it is significant that the proposed containment is a plus for the environmental control and is actually an improvement over the underground storage that has previously been approved . Environmental Assessment By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Cornell University requesting a modification of the Special Approval granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on July, 30 , 1985 , for the Cornell University Maintenance and Service Operations Garage , under Article V , Section 18 , of the 'Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the installation of above -ground fuel storage tanks within the area of the Maintenance and Service Operations Garage located off NYS 366 on Cornell University ' s Palm Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance . The voting on the motion was as follows . Ayes - King , Hines , Reuning , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Acting Chairman Austen read from the adopted Planning Board resolution of September 18 , 1990 which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 10 . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals October 10 , 1990 MOTION By Mrs . Joan Reuning ; seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals modify _ and hereby does modify the Special Approval for the installation of above -ground fuel storage tanks within the area of the Maintenance and Service Operations Garage located off NYS 366 on Cornell University ' s Palm Road , with the following findings and condition . 10 That there be approval of the final site construction plan details by the Town Engineer . 2 . That the proposal is in compliance with Section 77 . 7 , subdivisions a - f of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . 3 . No one appeared before the Board in opposition to the proposal . The voting on the motion was as follows . Ayes - Reuning , King , Austen ', Hines . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The next two Appeals on the Agenda were following . APPEAL OF ITHACA COLLEGE , APPELLANT , TROWBRIDGE ASSOCIATES , AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF A PORTION OF THE EXISTING ITHACA COLLEGE MAIN CAMPUS ROAD AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AUTOMOBILE PARKING LOT . ITHACA COLLEGE IS LOCATED AT 953 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 -41- 1 - 30 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . APPEAL OF ITHACA COLLEGE , APPELLANT , HOLT ARCHITECTS , AGENT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING_ ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ACADEMIC SCIENCE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON THE ITHACA COLLEGE CAMPUS NORTH OF WILLIAMS HALL , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . IN ADDITION , A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 10 , OF SAID ORDINANCE IS REQUESTED , TO PERMIT A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 60 FEET , Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals October 10 , 1990 AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST POINT AT EXTERIOR GRADE TO THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE ROOF LINE , 30 FEET BEING THE PERMITTED HEIGHT . Mr . Tom Salm appeared before the Board with Mr . Bob O ' Brien from HOLT Architects . They presented a model and slides to the Board for their review . There was extensive discussion between Mr . Salm , Mr . O ' Brien , Mr . Trowbridge and Board members during the slide presentation . Acting Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mr . Donald Lifton , Chase Lane , spoke to the Board in support of the Ithaca College projects that are before the Board . Acting Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Acting Chairman Austen read from the adopted resolution of the Planning Board of October 2 , 1990 which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 11 . Acting Chairman Austen referred to Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form filled out by Town Planner Susan Beeners and attached hereto as Exhibit # 12 . Mr . King read from an excerpt from the Planning Board meeting of October 2 , 1990 . The excerpt is attached hereto as Exhibit # 13 . Town Engineer Walker spoke to the Board regarding the sewer system in the area . He stated that there is an existing sanitary sewer system that runs from several laterals on the Campus to the main quadrangle . He stated that his primary concern is that the Danby Road sewer that this runs into is at capacity right now . He has had communications with the Engineering group for Ithaca College and they have basically shown him that the peaks from 9 , 000 gallons additional flow that will be coming from this new building would most likely occur at times that did not peak from the residential facilities , which is where the Town ' s major problem is now . Town Engineer Walker stated that he has spoken with the Ithaca College people about flow monitoring and a pre -treatment monitoring system as part of the Town ' s pre - treatment program that the Town is mandated by law to initiate . The Town has to be able to sample any sewage flow from facilities that would have hazardous chemicals or any waste . Mr . King asked where that monitoring would be done . . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals October 10 , 1990 Mr . Salm stated that in this building the pre - treatment system will have monitoring points within the building . Mr . Walker said that in maintaining the capacity of the Town ' s system we have to use whatever measures we can to reduce flows as much as possible and be as economical as possible . He said that he has recommended to Mr . Salm that installing a flow monitoring station to actually monitor what the sewage flows are would be appropriate for a facility this size and Mr . Salm has expressed agreement that the College and the Town can work together , either as part of this project or the overall plan for Ithaca College . Environmental Assessment for road and parking lot ) MOTION By Mrs . Joan Reuning ; seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that , in the matter of Ithaca College requesting Special Approval of the Board of Appeals , under Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed relocation of a portion of the existing Ithaca College main campus road and the construction of a new automobile parking lot at 953 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeal make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance . The voting on the motion was as follows . Ayes - Reuning , King , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . MOTION ( for road and parking lot ) By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning RESOLVED , That the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adopts the recommendations of the Town Planning Board , and grants the Special Approval for the relocation of the road and the construction of a parking lot at Ithaca College , with the following findings and condition . 1 . That there is a need for the proposed use and the existing and future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected . e Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals October 10 , 1990 29 The proposed relocation of the roadway and parking lot are in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Ithaca . 39 The proposed relocation of the roadway should have a positive effect on reducing the traffic hazards of the students crossing Route 96B 49 The proposed roadway and parking lot are in compliance with Section 77 . 7 , subdivisions a - f . 5 . That before any construction starts on the relocation of the road , the Town Engineer be presented with and approve grading plans , sediment and erosion control plans , and storm water management plans . The voting on the motion resulted as follows . Ayes - King , Reuning , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was unanimously carried . Discussion followed on the Fourth Appeal before the Board which was a request for Special Approval for the proposed construction of a new academic science building to be located at Ithaca College and a request for a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 10 , of the Zoning Ordinance , regarding a building height of 60 feet . Acting Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared before the Board . Acting Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Mr . Donald Lifton stated to the Board that his previous statements to the Board stand . Mrs . Reuning stated that she thinks that the aesthetics and everything that was presented to the Board look nice and the request for the height variance should not be a problem . Acting Chairman Austen read the adopted resolution from the Planning Board of October 2 , 1990 which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 14 . Acting Chairman Austen read from the Environmental Assessment Form , Part II , which was completed by Town Planner Susan Beeners and is attached hereto as Exhibit # 15 . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals October 10 , 1990 Mr . King noted that there will be an impact on air quality but it has been satisfactorily explained that it will be dealt with by use of the exhaust system for this new building . Environmental Assessment MOTION . By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that , in the matter of Ithaca College requesting the Special Approval of the Board of Appeals , under Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a new academic science building to be located on the Ithaca College Campus north of Williams Hall , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environ - mental significance . The voting on the motion was as follows . Ayes - King , Reuning , Austen , Hines . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Height Variance MOTION . By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , paragraph 10 , of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a building height of 60 feet for the proposed academic science building , as measured from the lowest point at exterior grade to the highest point on the roof line , to be located on the Ithaca College Campus , with the following findings and condition : 19 That this would be a minimal impact because of the slope of the land . 2 . That the proposed building being contained wholly within the Campus , it does not appear that it would have any adverse effect on anyone other than the applicant . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals October 10 , 1990 3 . That it would create practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship to limit the height of this building because at least half the additional height is functional and related to eliminating the fumes from the science building . 4 . That the general 45 - foot height of the building itself , the main part of the building , is consistent with other buildings nearby . 5 . That the height of the building rise no more than five feet plus or minus of the requested sixty feet . The voting on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Austen , Reuning , Hines . Nays - None . Special Approval MOTION . By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant Special Approval to Ithaca College for the proposed construction of a new academic science building to be located on the Ithaca Collage Campus north of Williams Hall , with the following findings and conditions . 1 . That the Board adopts the recommendations of the Planning Board and the Town reviewers . 2 . That there is a need for this proposed building . 3 . That the construction of this proposed building will not adversely affect the existing or probable future character of the neighborhood . 4 . That it does not offend the Comprehensive Plan of the Town . 5 . That it is in compliance with Section 77 . 7 , subdivisions a - f of the Town Zoning Ordinance . 6 . That the proposed location is subject to approval by the Town Engineer , prior to the issuance of the building permit , of the design and adequacy of a ) the water and sewer facilities serving the building , including any required sewage pre - treatment facilities Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals October 10 , 1990 monitoring discharge of hazardous materials from this sewer system ; b ) the adequacy of the sewer facility serving the entire Ithaca College Campus and this building ; and c ) storm water management systems . 7 . No one appeared in opposition to the project . 8 . That the construction be substantially in accordance with the plans and models and demonstrations presented to this Board . The voting on the motion resulted as follows . Ayes - King , Reuning , Austen , Hines . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING , Under Article XIV , Section 77 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for an interpretation by the Board of Appeals of Article VII , Section 35 , of said Ordinance to determine if any uses permitted in Business Districts " A " , " B " , and " C " may be permitted in a Business District " D " . Mr . Frost clarified for the Board that Business District " D " essentially permits gas stations . When you look at Business Districts A , B . and C in the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance , they list a variety of permitted uses in those districts . He said that this Board , back in 1978 had given an interpretation that in an industrial district , and this was particular to Bell ' s Convenience Store on Elmira Road , that a light industrial - zone is permitted to have any one of the uses of A . B . or C and D . Mr . Frost stated that the purpose here is prompted by an issue before the Planning Board regarding a gas station at East Hill Plaza where the question came up , as in many gas stations , they sell convenience items , whether in fact that would be a permitted use in a Business " D " . Mr . Frost referred to a letter from Andree Petroleum who owns and operates the gas station at East Hill Plaza , and the interpretation of 1974 and 1976 about light industrial zones which are attached hereto as Exhibit # 16 . Mr . Frost emphasized that the issue is really broader than the request from Mr . Andree . He said that Mr . Andree is just looking at some sodas and snacks and automotive products but retail is retail , no matter what you might sell . Mr . Frost referred to Mr . Andree ' s letter and sketches of the proposed building , also attached hereto as Exhibit # 16 . Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals October 10 , 1990 Further discussion followed regarding the items that a gas station may sell from their establishments and no conclusion was reached by the members of the Board . Town Attorney Barney stated that the Board might want to indicate that it is the Board ' s interpretation that permitted sales in conjunction with a gasoline station in a Business " D " Zone might be snack food items , coffee , soda , cookies , cigarettes , various type convenience items generally used for immediate consumption by the patron who has purchased gasoline products but not as an attraction for grocery store patrons . This was agreed to by the Board . Mr . King suggested that each Board member write their own ideas about how it should be expressed and bring it to the next meeting to vote on it . The meeting adjourned at 10 : 45 p . m . . Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary Y : Edward Austen , Acting Chairman WE RESIDING AT UNDERSTAND THA�: � M �� rQ� IS APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE ' SO THAT SHE MAY USE HER RESIDENCE AS A BED & BREAKFAST USING TWO BEDROOMS FOR HER GUESTS . WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTION- TO HER DOING SO . AND WE CONSENT . WE WISH TO HAVE HER VARIANCE ACCEPTED . n � I' ! 7 ED SIGNED .. �// `o WE RESIDING AT b . �L�� ✓' G C�—� UNDERSTAND THATrluJkt MatSsn} � r� IS APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE SO THAT SHE MAY USE HER RESIDENCE AS A BED & BREAKFAST USING Two BEDROOMS FOR HER GUESTS • , WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTION - TO HER DOING SO • AND WE CONSENT . WE WISH TO HAVE HER VARIANCE ACCEPTED . S I GNED .. G/ V f DATED / cl4doot; • z WE RESIDING AT , CvrYj UNDERSTAND THATJL, if , lAaC A t4S APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE SO THAT SHE MAY USE HER RESIDENCE AS A BED & BREAKFAST USING TWO BEDROOMS FOR HER GUESTS . WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTION- TO HER DOING SO , AND WE CONSENT . WE WISH TO HAVE HER VARIANCE ACCEPTED . SIGNED ImAzz DATED # 3 �� '� � �.b�rc�c' n r'1 �� �h� �c�� ve. '� t� `� 'f1 O - C"eS � aGx��!••� nom\ �C_\ .N- '�l �r �o.��• � �� s '� � �•�e. c�e.� ��`tx,c-�o�. �d �-- obv � �� res�.socv� i �.o 04 N P c y Ptio�- •. ana; - c>w r 1 xoto-le l VCro 424w4 A� ;4�,� c x R c, ( � 0__e) 7 �a.o �c.�.►ti �c4�, iv-e_ .�,o .uy►c2.t.� CL OK '000e� wo,� - OctamoLe Roger A . Hubbs Kathryn M . Hubbs 106 Skyvue Road Ithaca , NY 14850 October B . 1990 Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca Ithaca , NY 14850 Subject : Zoning Board Public Hearing 10 / 10 / 90. 9 Appeal of Judith MacIntire , Ralph W . Nash , Esq . , Agent i Dear Mr . .. Frost ; We , the undersigned residents and homeowners of Eastern Heights Subdivision , are opposed to the above referenced appeal . Due to a conflicting public school function , we are unable to attend the hearing , but request we go on record in opposition to the requested variance in Article IV , Section 11 , of the ' Town Zoning Ordinance . We feel Eastern Heights is a family neighborhood , and that requests for commercial use of subdivision property should be firmly denied . Should it be necessary for us to appear in person at some future date to oppose this or any other appeals of this nature , we trust the board will promptly notify us as to the time and place . I Sincerely . i Roger A . Hubbs l ' . 1-, ✓� -� bps i Kathryn Hubbs i � G October 5 , 1990 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals ! 126 East Seneca St . Ithaca , NY 14850 We wish to express our strong opposition to Judith B . MacIntire0s request for a zoning variance that would allow her to operate a " Bed and Breakfast " from her residence at 217 Eastern Heights Drive . As owner / occupants of single - family residences in the Eastern Heights neighborhood , we feel that such a variance would be detrimental for the following reasons : 1 . We strongly want to maintain the character of our neighborhood which now consists of single - family homes with a balanced mix of families with young children as well as retired persons . Although the neighborhood includes rental properties , these Properties were designed specifically for multi - family use , unlike that which is proposed by Ms . MacIntire . 2 . Such a property would also add traffic to an already busy residential street and bring transients into the neighborhood , creating safety concerns to our families ( particulary our children ) and our properties . 3 . We are further concerned about the possible deleterious effects to our property values , .. since many of the families purchasing homes in the neighborhood do so because of the appeal of a single - family/ owner - occupied area . 44 We consider a " Bed and Breakfast " establishment to be a business , and we do not want a business in our family - oriented neighborhood . / Although we will be unable to attend the meeting on October 10 because we will be attending the open house at the aroline Elementary School , we sincerely hope that you will consider our objections to Ms . Ma.cIntire ' s request and deny d er request for a variance . Please feel free to call us if you should have any questions , �r 1�uJC o 13 Y 273 612y- 27 - 563Z � , 7 � ti �o� : ^ gt• ' 3116 1 � '� - 16 Cl j u 7 e /% � . : 14e, �,h .477 y7 .7 .z PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT : Request for Variance from Article IV , Section 1 1 of Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance: 217 Eastern Heights Drive REVIEWER : George R . Frantz , Asst. Town Planner DATE : October 3 , 1990 A. Does Action exceed any TYPE I threshold in 6 NYCRR . PART 617 . 12 ? Yes__ Nom Action is UNLISTED_X_ B . Will Action receive coordinated review as provided for UNLISTED Actions in 6 NYCRR , PART 617 . 6 ? Yes_ Nod(_ Involved Agency( ies ) : C. Could Action result in any adverse effects associated with 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 fling problems? Explain briefly; No significant adverse impacts anticipated. Proposed action is the grant of a variance from Article 1V , Section 1 1 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning ordinance to allow the operation of a "bed and breakfast " using two existing bedrooms , with a maximum of four lodgers , in an existing residential structure. No addition to the existing home is proposed. No significant adverse impacts to existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , existing noise levels and traffic patterns , or solid waste production or disposal , and no erosion , drainage or flooding problems are expected as a result of this action. C2. Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural resources ; or I or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly: No significant adverse impacts anticipated. Existing character of surrounding neighborhood is residential . Because of the nature of the proposed use and the fact that no additions or alterations that would chance the character of the existing structure or site are proposed , no significant adverse impacts on neighborhood character are anticipated. C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or other natural resources? Explain briefly. Because the proposed use will be on an existing developed site , no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. 24 C4. A community' s existing plans or goals as officially opted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: No significant adverse impacts with regard to community goals and plans as officially adopted are anticipated as a result of grant of the requested variance, The subject parcel is located in a R - 15 Residence District. Within the R - 15 Residence DDistrict the Zoning Ordinance allows , rT O among other uses , single- and two- family homes , specific public and institutional uses , agricultural uses , offices of a resident doctor , dentist , musician , engineer , teacher , lawyer , architect , artist or member of other recognized profession and quasi - profession , and customary home occupations operated solely by a resident of the dwelling and subject to restrictions outlined in Article IV , Section 1 1 , A bed and breakfast use of the scale of the one proposed appears to be similar in character and expected impact on the surrounding area as those uses listed above which are already allowed within the R - 15 Residence District, CS. Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposedaction ? Explain briefly: Given the small scale of the use for which the proposed variance is requested , no significant adverse impacts with respect to the above factors are anticipated. C6 . Longterm , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - CS ? Explain briefly: No significant adverse impacts anticipated. C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly: No significant adverse impacts anticipated. D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Yes__ No.(_. If Yes , explain briefly PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Because of the relatively small scale and character of the activity for which a variance is requested , a negative determination of environmental significance is recommend, George R . Frantz Asst, Town Planner FI f A U ' Responsibility of lead Agency General Information ( Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question : Have my responses and determinations been reasonablef The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 1) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation In Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c . If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2 . If impact will occur but thresholc is lower than example, check column 1 . d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. Thi must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be IMPACT ON LAND Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? ONO ® YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15 % or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 1096 . • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 3 feet • Construction of paved parking area for 1 ,000 or more vehicles, 0 ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than i .o0o 13 ❑ Yef ❑ No tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 2 . Will there be an effect v. ... ,y unique or unusual land forms found on the site ? ( i . e. , cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc .)MNO OYES • Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ Ne 9 6 2 .s IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential Can Impact Be 3 . Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected ? Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Protect Change ( Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) ® NO C--YES Examples that would apply to column 2 . • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ [Dyes ❑ No 4 . Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10 % increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ED No • Other impacts : ❑ ❑ [] Yes ❑ No 5 . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity ? ONO EYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ C3 Yes ONO have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ Cl Dyes [] No gallons per minute pumping capacity, • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [I No day. • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an ❑ 13 ❑ Yes [] No existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ® ❑ Yes ONO products greater than 1 ,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 6 . Will proposed action alter drainage flow or pattems, or surface water runoff ? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. 13 13 ❑ Yes ❑ No 1 A A Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AIR 7 . Will proposed action affect air quality? ■ NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1 ,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [3 No refuse per hour, • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs, per hour or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ [] Yes ONO development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 . Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? ENO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 9 . Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 13 No of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 . Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? ENO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No land ( includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) #q 8 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes CD No agricultural land . • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ - ❑ ❑ Yes ONO of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District. more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • The proposed action would disruptor prevent installation of agricultural ❑ n ❑ Yes ONO land management systems (e. g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources ? ENO ❑YES ( If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617. 21 , Appendix B .) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use pattems, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes . 0 N aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 . Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? ENO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ Oyes ONO contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yea ONO IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 . Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 ENO OYES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 9 1 2 3 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact Be 14 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems ? Moderate Large Mitigated By ® NO DYES Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other Impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yea ❑ No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15 . Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ■ NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 . Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ® NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1 ,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No noise screen. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON PUSUC HEALTH 17 . Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ONO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ® ❑ Yes [] No substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low lave) discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Na gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. • Other impacts: Rouj'/ NE 1ZELEA46i nF r- uEL VAPOR ( B ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Nc Qllialrlf. A]AAMAI _ 6P9AATInNC or- FAGI _ lme • 1 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By 18 . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community ? Impact Impact Project Change ® NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N project is located is likely to grow by more than 5 % . • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [3 No will increase by more than 5 % per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [3 No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No (e . g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes El No • Other impacts : ❑ ❑ [] Yes DNo 19 . Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ISNO OYES If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact -or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Pact 3 — EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more Impact(s) is co sidered to be potentially large, even if the inigiact(s) may be mitigated Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2. 1 . Briefly describe the impact. 2 . Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3 . Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important To answer the question of importance, consider; • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) Ole . tlo� Q 11 PART III - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF . IMPACTS Proposed Fuel Island and Storage Tanks , Cornell University M . &S . O . Garage . 1 . Describe Impact. Proposed Action will involve the storage of 14 , 000 gallons of fuel products ( dim ] and gasoline ) in two tanks , and amount which is greater than the 1 , 100 gallon threshold for petroleum or chemical products under Part II question = 5 . Potential major spill or leak of fuel onto ground may have a potential large impact on the environment. 2 . How Could Project Impact Be Mitigated? The impact of a potential spill or leak of fuel cannot be mitigated or reduced to a small or moderate impact by project changes. 3 . Based On The Information Available , Decide If It Is Reasonable To Conclude That This Impact Is Or is Not Important. The design features of the proposed fuel storage tanks , specifically the proposed fuel tanks will be located above ground , and be surrounded by steel dikes designed to contain 1 10 % of the largest tank capacity in event of tank rupture ( See attached information sheet. ) , and the use of double- walled piping between the tanks and the fuel island itself , make the probability of a major fuel spill or leak and resultant potential large impact low . The proposed facilities will be constructed in conformance with applicable requirements of the N . Y. Fire Protection Association Code enforced by the Town of Ithaca Zoning and Building Department. In addition , potential spills at the fuel pump island will be directed by the pitch of the concrete pavement into a drainage system with an oil /water separator to capture the spilled fuel . Also , if a failure of the dike system occurs and fuel does escape onto the surrounding ground , Cornell University' s Life Safety Division is equipped with personnel and equipment to respond to such emergency situations in a timely manner . Thus the duration of any potential leak and resulting impact on the environment is likely to be short term in nature ; it can be controlled through generally accepted methods , including existing cleanup technology ; and the regional consequence of the impact appears to be limited. No resource of value which could be permanently lost has been identified. No potential divergence from local goals or needs has been identified. Based on the above and the information provided in Part I and Part I I , it is reasonable to conclude that the potential large impact identified in Part II , Question V 5 , is not important. Staff Recommendations Determination of Significance Staff recommends a negative determination of environmental significance for the project as proposed. This recommendation is based on the design of the project , including design of the fuel storage and transmission facitlities , and spill containment facilities ; uses anticipated ; its location and general character of surrounding land use ; the relatively small scale of the project ; and the information and analysis provided in Parts I , II , and I I I of the LEAF . Cornell University Maintenance and Service Operations ' Garage South of Route 366 and West of Game Farm Road Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , September 18 , 1990 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Cornell University Maintenance and Service Operations ' Garage South of Route 366 and West of Game Farm Road Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , September 18 , 1990 MOTION by Mr . Robert Miller , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for modification of the Special Approval granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on July 30 , 1985 for the Cornell University Maintenance and Service Operations ' Garage , to permit the installation of above - ground fuel storage tanks for the previously approved fuel island portion of the project . 29 The proposed project is located within the existing Cornell University Maintenance and Service Operations ' Complex , approximately 1 , 300 feet south of NYS Route 366 and 1 , 800 feet west of Game Farm Road , on Town of Ithace Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 , 3 . This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in coordinated review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is an involved agency in coordinated review . 4 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on September 18 ,- 1990 , has reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form and review , and other submissions related to this proposal . 5 . The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : i . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . 2 . That the Planning Board , in making recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the following : a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location . � o Cornell University Maintenance and Service Operations ' Garage South of Route 366 and West of Game Farm Road Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , September 18 , 1990 b . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected . c . The proposed use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . 3 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for modification of the Special Approval granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on July 30 , 1985 for the Cornell University Maintenance and Service Operations ' Garage , to permit the installation of above - ground fuel storage tanks for the previously approved fuel island portion of the project , be approved subject to the following condition : i . Approval of final site construction plan details by the Town Engineer . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . LP Nan 6y Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , September 21 , 19900 Ithaca College - 1 - Relocation of Existing Main Campus Road and Construction of Replacement Parking Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , October 2 , 1990 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Ithaca College Relocation of Existing Main Campus Road and Construction of Replacement Parking Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , October 2 , 1990 MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Stephen Smith : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval of the proposed Ithaca College Road Relocation project , proposed to consist of relocation of the existing main Campus road and the construction of replacement parking , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 , 2 . This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in coordinated review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is an involved agency in coordinated review . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on October 2 , 1990 , has reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form and review , and other submissions related to this proposal . 49 The Town Planner has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 10 That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . 29 That the Planning Board , in making recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the following : a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location . b . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected . c . The proposed use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . Ithaca College Relocation of Existing Main Campus Road and Construction of Replacement Parking Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , October 2 , 1990 39 That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for Special Approval of the proposed Ithaca College Road Relocation project , proposed to consist of relocation of the existing main Campus road and the construction of replacement parking , be granted . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . �'j • �.04.4.� Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town o-f Ithaca Planning Board , October 4 , 1990 . oe At r2 VJ Part 2 — PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency t' General Information (Read Carefully) � G W "� M; or • t/ gA°D • In completing the form the reviewer shou y the question: ave my responses And determinations beep reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. �j>�j � Yd ( p� Zi� , D aw • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simpIN asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold o magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State ant 's!aJ for most situations. But for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower dwesholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation In Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrdtive ant have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question • The number of examples_ p per question does not indicate the importance of each question, ° In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of tb impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshol is lower than example, check column 1 . d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderar impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A .No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. Th- must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact 9s IMPACT ON LAND Moderate Large Mitigated By 1 . Will the proposed action result In a physical change to the project site? Impact Impact Project Change ONO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15 % or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ill ® Yes Oft of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 109 . • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑No 3 feet 6D iF�rTown Fnv. V" • Construction of paved parking area for or more vehicles. (te � C� ® Was ❑No • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within [I ❑ ❑Yes ❑Ne j 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ®Yes ON* than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ Cl ❑Yes ❑No tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill, ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ Me .;;. , . • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ OYes ❑Ne `::: ` • Other impacts ❑! ❑ ❑ Yes ❑No r 2 . Will there be an effect v. .,toy unique or unusual land forms found on the site? ( i .e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)SNO DYES • Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO 6 G L : C000 e✓'N v , (915V l Loo 6634,1 YO . � )I;e w + 1V+ • Z8A A6t.� aA tol iojRD P6 ftoflli> ,mss - 2 3 r IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential Can Impact Be 3 . Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected ? Moderate Large Mitigated By (Under Articles 15, 240 25 of the Environmental Conservation law, ECL) Impact Impact Project Change PNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. • ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ;; • Dredging more than 100 cubic . yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N® Protected stream. '. •, . • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No + ' • Construction in a designated gnated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 4 . Will proposed action affect any norimprotected existing or new body of water? ONO ■ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ® IlYes ❑ No or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ❑ ❑ [] Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No S . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ONO BYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water 13 - ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 13 No • liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ Nb do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per . ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No day. • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an ® ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. - C4WGJY1C � • Proposed Action will require the storage of p6trokun chemical ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [3 r* products greater than 1 ,100 gallons. w Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ ❑yam ❑ and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N 6 . Will proposed action alter drainage flow or pattems, or surface water runoff ? ONO WYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ Cl ❑ Yes 11 N A;& /2 7 s a Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion, ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ON • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. 13 13 13Y" ❑ No • Other Impacts: 54� d y-AA,1 .4 � � ice ,,, ■ ; . 13 ❑Yes [No IMPACT ON AIR 70 Will ro p posed action affect air quality? ONO WYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1 ,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ 13 ❑ Yes ❑ No hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed S lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No to industrial use, • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 . Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? (LINO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 , • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ' list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site, 13 Cy" ❑ No • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat ❑ • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No than for agricultural purposes. Year, other ❑ ❑ ®Yea ❑ � • Other impacts: ❑ LI ❑Yes ❑ No 9 . Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or . nonendangered species? INNO . OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ C3 Dyes ❑No migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species, • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than . 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ NO of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally Important vegetation, IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 . Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? 10NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural 13 ❑ Ely" ❑No land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) l I I 1 j (4M Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By F Impact Impact Project Change �''"` • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No agricultural land. i4 1"C The proposed action would Irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ - ❑ ❑Yea 0 N of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land • The proposed action would disrupt or }� ( prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ Dyes [No r� land management systems (e g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip; : ..:. p cro Aping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No i IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? INNO OYES ( If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21 , Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether . man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ Oyes 0 N aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ [] Yes ONO screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: ❑ • ❑ ❑Yes 0 N IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 . Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre• historic or paleontological importance? ENO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ Ne contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register ' of historic places. -, ; • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ QYes ❑fo Y project site. ' ' f , • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ...; i archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. %' • Other impacts: ❑ ® ®Yes ❑mo IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 . Will Proposed . Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational o plwrtunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 ONO EYES : : • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ Oyes C1 No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Q ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No i. • Other impacts: rPa �^ Lfi•i� r � • f'L, LQ"-#�• -�,` ,{ - ❑ Oyes ❑ No i 9 1 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact ®� 146 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems ? Moderate Large Mitigated By ONO EYES Impact Impact Project Chang Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Nr i • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. �] ' ' `v'` • Other impacts: G 1:1 ❑ Yes GNr. ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Nr IMPACT ON ENERGY 1S . Will proposed action affect the communitys sources of fuel or energy supply? ONO IWYES . Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of ❑ any form of energy in the municipality. 13 Oyes ❑ N` • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ GYes ❑ N{ transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: f4'�,9� rAu U S2 /P S ,vim : - J V�' ;%, , 1� 111.101.1111._Grr� ?�✓ y l ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Nc NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 . Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ONO AYES Examples that would apply to column 2 ® Blasting within 1 ,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ [] ❑y ❑ facility. Oyes • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day), [] ❑ Oyes 13 P* • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. ❑ GYes ❑ N( • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a 13 G Oyes 131+noise screen. tiv..�jjyd • Other impacts: +'y1 - Gzryi 4�,4vv ❑ Oyes ❑N+ IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 . Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous 0 (.� ❑Yes QPIR substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" In any ❑ [] ❑Yes ❑ form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, Irritating. Infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ 13 gas or other flammable liquids. Oyes IN Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance G within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal ❑ Yes ❑ N� posal of solid or Hazardous waste. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N, 10 . IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact 8e OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By 18 . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? impact Impact Project Change ONO MIYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 13 No Project is located is likely to grow by more than S %. i' • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No will increase by Moro than S% -per year as a result of this project, - ? ° Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted Plans or #"IL ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ 1 ilYes ❑ No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No (e. g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects, ❑ ■ IlYes ❑ No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 190 Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? KNO OYES If Any Action In Part 21s Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of . Impact, Proceed to Part 3 5=b 106Y1� i N � L4 L� 1 art 3 - 1/ALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS 101z.14 t) Responsibility of Lead Agency l H V11 i17( Part 3 must be prepared if one or more Impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the hapacKs) any be mitigated Inatrections Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part L• 1 . Briefly describe the impact 2 . Describe (if applicable) how the Impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderato impact by project chanpb( 39 Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is InWartulL To answer the question of importance, consider. • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the Impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact j • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. lI� (Continue on attachments) I I I EXCERPT / PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 2 , 1990 Comments from Town Planner Susan Beeners Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts Ithaca College Road Relocation - EAF Pa t III Ithaca College Science Building - EAF art III At this point , Ms . Beeners , referring to Impacts on Land for the Ithaca College Road Relocation EAF Part II , Page 6 , noted that any construction on slopes of 150 or greater is a Potential Large Impact because there are embankments that are going to have slopes at 150 or more . Proposed building will be sited on slopes of 8 % . Construction of paved parking area for 100 or more vehicles is also a . Potential Large Impact , adding , the net increase proposed by Ithaca College is 101 vehicles . Construction that will continue for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage is also a Potential Large Impact . Ms . Beeners remarked that the above is the extent of potential large impacts on land . Ms . Beeners noted that it is checked yes as to Can Impact be Mitigated by Project Change , commenting , yes , of course , it could be mitigated by forgetting about the project entirely , and by reducing the project in size . With respect to the SEAR Part III probability of impacts to land , . duration of impacts , irreversibility , control , regional consequences , potential divergence from local needs and goals , and known objections to the project , with all of those considerations , Ms . Beeners would say that the benefits of the project are recommended to outweigh any of the potential localized negative impacts . Ms . Beeners also said that there has been discussion with the applicants with respect to erosion and sedimentation control . As to Impacts on water , Ms . Beeners mentioned the lower pond that is on the site plan is going to be increased from . 3 to . 4 of an acre so that is going to be over a 10 % increase in a surface area of water body . Mr . Trowbridge stated that there is a small retention pond that currently exists below the parking lot , and that is being enlarged to accommodate additional run - off . Ms . Beeners stated that the. additional run - off accommodation is a real beneficial impact , because of the fact that it is adding to some control of storm drainage down the hill . Ms . Beeners stated that the above is the only Potential Large Impact under water . Ms . Beeners stated that all the issues that are supposed to be addressed under :Part III have been duly considered and that , again , beneficial impacts outweigh potential adverse impacts . At this time , Ms . Beeners proceeded to Page 11 of the EAF , under No . 18 , " Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use " . Ms . Beeners said that , yes , it does have a Potential Large Impact , and also checked that the impact could be mitigated by project change . Ms . Beeners stated that there is also a Potential Large Impact in that the proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects , and also checked yes that the impact could be mitigated by project change . Ms . Beeners stated that , at this time , the impacts related to the road relocation , with respect to Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood are not really considered at this time to be adverse impacts . Ms . Beeners said that I . C . is going through a Master Plan process accompanied by a Generic Environmental Impact Statement , and if there is anything as far as potential development of new buildings along the road , then such A. NLo / i lLALAA, l . . y LV4L . {'1 \ ly V VV✓ CL L , LJJV would be subject to further environmental review by the Town . Ms . Beeners said that aspects such as the net increase in parking by 101 spaces , moving away from NCR and putting the parking on the Campus is a very good idea . Ms . Beeners said that in the long - run , one will have to look at it , very carefully , to make sure that the traffic using the existing service road , which goes down behind Rogan ' s is continued to be monitored . Ms . Beeners said that it is her understanding that tickets are issued if there is abuse in the use of the service road . Tom Salm , V . P . for Business Affairs at Ithaca College , responded that the service road is restricted all the time , it is intended for Physical Plant , Safety , and Security use , but students obviously use it to walk down off the Campus . Mr . Salm stated that the road is posted as restricted access . At this time , Town Planner Susan Beeners reviewed the Ithaca College Science Building EAF Part II . There will be some construction involving slopes of 15 % or greater , and as Mr . Trowbridge pointed out the building itself is going to be sited pretty mi_zch on slopes of about 8 % . The slopes with the steeper degree of slope to them will be basically landscaped or stablized as one would normally approach that . Again , that was checked as Potential Large Impact because it was involving that threshold , and in the example , yes , indeed , the impact could be changed . Ms . Beeners said that there will be some construction involving slopes of 15 or greater . Ms . Beeners noted that , as Mr . Trowbridge pointed out , the building itself is going to be sited pretty much on slopes of about 80 . The slopes with the steeper degree of slope to them will be basically landscaped or stablized as one would normally approach that . Ms . Beeners stated that the above was checked as Potential Large Impact because it was involving that threshold , and in the example , yes , indeed , the impact could be mitigated by project change , but that would only really be if there was a drastic modification to the project itself , which Ms . Beeners did not think was appropriate . Other Potential Large Impacts would then also relate to construction continuing for more than one year or involve more than one phase , adding , the impact could be mitigated by project change , yes , but not really that great of an idea . Ms . Beeners said that all the other impacts she went through she decided that they were pretty negligible impacts , small ' to moderate , except when she got to Page 11 , Growth and Character of the neighborhood . Ms . Beeners said that here is an example where it gets really hard in figuring out which one to check - Small to Moderate or Potential Large . " Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals . " Ms . Beeners recommendation is that there would be a Small to Moderate Impact related to the fact that the building would not comply with the 30 ' maximum height in the R - 15 zone . As it was discussed in the presentation related to the height and the context on the site , the height of 45 ' or 60 ' to the top of the fan gallery overall height of 60 ' . The granting of a variance by the ZBA would not be of significant impact , given that its interior of the Campus seems to be designed quite well , and fits in with the other buildings there on Campus . " Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use . " There is Potential Large Impact with respect to that as it is a trend as far as locating and expanding the core of the I . C . Campus . Also , there is the fact related to that trend that an important precedent would be set for future projects , e . g . , more buildings in the general vicinity of the central core , and possibly more buildings with heights of over 301 , those impacts are ' tXCerp -L / Yldnrlllly 1:) UCLLiA 17CC6lYiy all: LVAJCJ. L , 1JyV controllable and are not terribly important . Ms . Beeners , commenting on Part 3 as far as probability , duration , irreversibility , and the other aspects related to answering a question of importance , she sees no significant adverse impacts that would warrant recommending anything other than a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance , Dan Walker pointed out that there were indeed issues related to both sewer and water which need further review , and that these issues need to also be identified within the SEQR review . ( NOTES TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ) 1 . The Part III SEQR Form shows October 3 , 1990 modifications per Dan Walker ' s comments on water usage at the October 2 , 1990 Planning Board Meeting . Staff still recommends a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance having fully considered present information , and the issues of Part III of the SEQR Form , 2 . Harry Missirian of The Tompkins County Planning Department , per a telephone call on October 10 , 1990 indicated that the County has no negative comment pursuant to N . Y . S . General Municipal Law Section 239 - m and authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to proceed . Susan Beeners Town Planner mb 10 / 10 / 90 Ithaca College New Science Facility 1 Adjacent to Williams Hall and the Roy H . Park School of Communications Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , October 2 , 1990 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Ithaca College New Science Facility Adjacent to Williams Hall and the Roy H . Park School of Communications Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , October .2 , 1990 MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : 10 This action is the Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval of the proposed Ithaca College New Science Facility , proposed to be located on the Ithaca College Campus adjacent to Williams Hall and the Roy H . Park School of Communications , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Residence District R - 15 , 20 This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in coordinated review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is an involved agency in coordinated review . 39 The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on October 2 , 1990 , has reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form and review , and other submissions related to this proposal . 4 . The Town Planner has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 16 That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . 2 . That the Planning Board , in making recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the following : a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location . b . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected . c . The proposed use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . Ithaca College New Science Facility Adjacent to Williams Hall and the Roy H . Park School of Communications Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , October 2 , 1990 30 That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for Special Approval as stated herein and including a variance request for an overall building height of 60 feet , be granted , subject to the following conditions : 1 * grant of a variance for the proposed height of the building , approval of which is recommended , and 29 approval by the Town Engineer of the design and adequacy of the water and sewer facilities serving the building prior to the issuance of any building permit . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * l Nancy M . r! �uller1 Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . October 4 , 19900 Part 2 — PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE 4 ➢�a � bl3� � b • Respomibility of lead Agency General Information ( Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question : Have my res oases and de rminations bee reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. ��3 b � 2 (l� D • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also nel:essarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simpl asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold c magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State aw for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds m a fit`for a Potential la rge Impact response, thus requiring evaluation In Pa rt 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative ar have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each questia- • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2, Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers, c . If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of tt impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but thresho is lower than example, check column 1 . d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by changes) in the project to a small to modern impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A. No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. TF must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 —� Small to Potential Can Impact f� IMPACT ON LAND Moderate Large Mitigated By 1 . Will the proposed action result Ina physical change to the project site? Impact Impact Project Chan# ONO BYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slo of 15 % or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ 01 Wes ONc , :. foot of length), or where t general slopes in the project area exceed 10% . • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ ❑ yes ONc 3 feet. � � �pe� T�. ► n Ei+v , . • Cons Silva_ of pa cpta�rkcing proa for ;e of more vehicles. Q ❑ ❑ Y� ❑%y • Cons ton on 40 where 9 rocs TSMpP "' or generally within ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 13 r* i 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or Involve more ❑ ® WYes ❑Ne than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes E3 r* tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year, • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ ❑yes ❑ • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ O Oyes E3 r* • Other impacts ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 13 1* i 2 . Will there be an effect t(. '.61y unique or unusual land forms found on the site ? ( i . e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) MNO OYES • Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Nit f 6 IVY w i- n t • ZBA A (D ewD/� to ( 101iii b � � op1� Ids I °lL ( Q � i 2 3 IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential Can Impact as 3 . Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected ? Moderate large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Chang® (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column . 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. • ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No Protected stream. " Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No y:M • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wedand, ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [No i • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 4 . Will proposed action affect any non•protected existing or new body of water? ONO EYES • Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10 % increase or decrease in the surface are of any body of wa er _ ❑ 13 ❑ ❑ Yes No or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. �52Q- ►�4L d re.(oI a • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area ❑ ❑ 13 Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: AgOW 640 ❑ El Yes ❑ No S . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ONO EYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ [] Yes ❑ No have approval to serve proposed (project) action, • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ [] Yes ❑ No Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 10�310�� do not exist or have inadequate capacity, • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 .gallons per ❑ E3 ❑Yes [] No day. ` - fJ O P��tT rQ�P,r 'fv '1�. a , cc-+ m S, T6 f o � Z� qD • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or ther discharge into an ® ❑ Oyes ❑ No existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious rsua( contrast to natural conditions. ,+ervr Para rL4 /rwJa ijiii y1N Cey1 • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleirrn or chemical ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No producb greater than 1 .100 gallons, o Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N* ardor sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage ' facilities. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yea ❑ No 6 . Will proposed action alter drains flow or ' Be patterns, or surface water runoff? ONO 01YES j Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ ❑ [Dyes ❑ No 7 3 . small Sm o Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Pro act Change • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ 11 yes ONO • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ 11 Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodwaV. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Other ' :.�jP. , ti;.. , • impacts: r4 av��.C.e'� rte• i � ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No at IMPACT ON AIR 7 . Will proposed action affect air quality? ONO Examples that would apply to column 2 AYES • Proposed Action will induce 1 ,000 or more vehicle trips in any given 13 hour. ❑ ❑Yes [3 No • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 13 No heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of la pd committed ❑ Dyes ❑ No to industrial use. s,�,,,� w( � jk. ,� �,f Oat` • Proposed action will allow an increase in the densi of industrial' ❑ [] Yes ❑ No development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ [] Yes No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 , Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? IONO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes [3 No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year. other ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No than for agricultural purposes, • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No 9 . Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non,endangered species? W0 OYES Example that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑ ❑Ve ONO migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species, • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres 13 ❑ ❑Ve ❑ NO of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation, IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 . Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? %NO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 Oro # ��� 4.;.; •.. A,. � 1 Z 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Modorate Large Mltlgated By Impact Impact Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑ No agricultural land i ° The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ - ❑ Oyes ❑ No of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District. more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent Installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping. or create a need for such measures (e.g, cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 13 Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? 1PNO DYES ( If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617. 21 , Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ NO screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No 0-&04t Lit nt rnoy ✓lS i Act' �= ° C4 + tS— �t f&A. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 120 Will Proposed . Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre• historic or paleontological importance? . 040 OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ NO contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 13 No project site. • • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ . ❑ ❑Yes ❑No archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts:_h�L C9L 1S e.4vi:71 ❑ ❑ ❑Yos ❑No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 . Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 ENO OYES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Ne • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ 13 Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N 9 1 f� . IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 3 Small to Potential Can Impact So 14 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems ? Moderate Large Mitigated By ONO *YES Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 I - • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will result in mayor traffic problems. ❑ ❑ Oyes , [] No ; 'Other imOPac` a�t'#ct G 0 1M t �� ❑ Oyes ❑ No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15 . Will proposed action affect the communitys sources of fuel or energy supply? ONO *YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than S % increase in the use of 0 ❑ Dyes ❑ No any form of energy in the municipality, • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy Cl ❑ GYes ❑ No transmission or supply sykem to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. � " Other impacts: i' Yadjk ih 6dVtP4� 0') m 9 Cl ❑ Yes ❑ No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 . Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ONO INYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1 ,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Np facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No e Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Ne ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a G ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No noise screen. • Other impac A. ❑ ❑Yes ONO I rA M A a �� V1 !A Tf1( r IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 . Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? Examples that would apply to column 2 ONO *YES • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous Q Q ❑ Yea ❑w substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑Yes Ow form (Le, toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etcJ • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural C3 13 ❑ Yes 131*gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N[ within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. / � � • Other impacts: .410 V t C � s ❑ ❑ Yes QNc 4 t 10 � �sJ 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Small to Potential Can Impact Be 18 . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community! Moderate large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change ONO *YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No project is located is likely to grow by more than S %. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ 13 ❑ Yes ONO will increase by more than S% per year as a result of this project • Proposed action II cor flict.with offic ally adopted plans or goals. ® ❑ ❑ Yes ONO • Proposed action wiN�cause a than in 04the density of land use. 11 It IoYes QNo • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ IR ® Yes ONO • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment ❑ ❑ Yes ONO • Other impacts: O Cl OYes ❑ No 19 . Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ENO OYES If Any Action In Part 2 1s Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3 EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACT Responsibilhy of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more Impact(s) Is considered to be potentially large, even it the Impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions - Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 . Briefly describe the Impact 2 . Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(4 3 . Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is Importeaat. To answer the question of Importance, consider. • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the Impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled ',See, • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals E A l bi t • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) # �3 i I ANDREE PETROLEUM 684 684 Third Street , P . 0 . Box 641 Ithaca , New York 14851 September 28 , 1990 Mr . Andy Frost Town of Ithaca J 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , New York 14850 Dear Andy : In response to our phone conversation on Friday , September 21 , 1990 . The enclosed sketch is the proposed layout for the building at our East Hill Gasoline Station . A 30 ' X 20 ' or smaller building will be used . This is not intended to be a convenience store . There will be no deli and no beer . The following list will give you an idea of the type of products we want to sell : automotive products ( motor oil , c' ry gas , antifreeze , windshield wash , snowbrushes , ice scrapers ) , cigarettes , soda , juice , coffee , candy , gum , chips , cookies , peanuts , newspapers , ice . . . . these items will be consumed immediately after purchase . If you have any questions , please give me a call . Sincerely , Robert P . Andree RPA : sb Enclosure • , , -- d I i - I , I - I t 1 i , t ' : 1 I 1 I , 1 ' 1 r i , • i '. I 1 1 , I I ! I I I I ec I SURVEY of SELF- SERVE GAS STATIONS in the ITHACA AREA ! . Bell ' s - self serve / C- store 2 . Hess - self serve / gas , cigarettes , automotive , soda machine 3 . A- Plus , Rt . 13 - self serve / C - store 4 . Chuck ' s Mobil - self serve / C - store 50 Sunoco , Rt . 13 - self and full serve / repairs , soda , automotive , cigarettes 6 . Jay St . Mobil - self serve / repairs , soda , snacks , cigarettes 7 . A- Plus , Green St . - self serve / C - store 8 . Wm . Chin , Varna - self serve / repairs , C - store 9 .. Jim ' s Place - self serve / C - store 10 . Rogans - self serve / C - store 11 . Sunoco , Rt . 96B - self serve / C - store 12 . Triphammer Mobil - self serve / repairs , soda , candy, cigarettes , snacks 13 . Triphammer Sunoco - self and full serve / car rental , soda machine 149 Corners Mobil - self serve / C - store 15 . Corners Sunoco - self serve / repairs , soda machine , candy 0 " e � f Wa 1< \ » R Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 9 , 1974 10 : 00 A . M . PRESENT : Vice -Chairman Laurene Ripley , Roger Sovocool , Jack Hewett , Ed Austen , David Cowan (Assistant to the Zoning Officer ) . The Zoning Board of Appeals met to act upon the request of the Planning Board at a meeting of the Planning Board held on the 2Gth day of February , 1974 , for an interpretation of the present Zoning Ordinance regarding the placing of a retail store in a Light Industrial District . After discussion , it was MOVED by Mrs . Ripley and seconded by Mr . Sovocool : The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals interprets the present Zoning Ordinance to allow within Light Industrial Districts any lawful use allowed in the more restrictive zones , with the exception of dwellings . Aye - Ripley , Sovocool , Hewett , Austen . Nay - None . The Motion was carried unanimously . BROUGHT TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 17 , 1976 , ( in connection with Bell ' s Grocery request for gasoline Island ) RE-AFFIRMED ON THAT DATE . N . M . F . ( Secretary ) 64 . . If a r' Excerpt from Minutes of Planning Board Meeting held on February 26 , 197 , PRESENT : Chairman Barbara Holcomb , Robert Scannell , Daniel Baker , Robert Christianson , Sam Slack , Nancy Fuller ( Sec . ) ABSENT : Arnold Albrecht , John Lowe , Maurice Harris MOTION by Mr . Sam Slack , seconded by Robert Scannell . RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca request from the Zoning .Board of Appeals' an interpretation of the present Zoning Ordinance regarding the placing of a retail store in a l Light Industrial District . We refer them particularly to Article VIII , page 17 , Light Industrial Districts , and Article X , page - 20 , Industrial Products . The land in question is presently zoned Light Industrial . All in favor . Motion carried unanimously . J 6 �� ADOPTED RESOLUTION Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 Mr . Hines offered a resolution which was seconded by Mr . King as follows : WHEREAS , Section 35 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance was enacted at a time when the market structure of gasoline sales and service was substantially different than it is at present , and WHEREAS , gasoline sales facilities in and about the County of Tompkins customarily and as part of their regular business activities sell a variety of snack foods and drinks and related convenience items for the travelling public , and WHEREAS , the Board of Zoning Appeals has been called upon to interpret the meaning of gasoline service stations and the Board of Zoning Appeals has interpreted that noun to include activities relating to retail sales of items of convenience for the travelling public , and WHEREAS , the Board of Zoning Appeals feels that the matter should properly be addressed by the Town Board with the prospect of drafting a more comprehensive definition of gasoline sales or service stations , now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Ithaca does recommend to the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca and the Planning staff of the Town of Ithaca they consider an amendment t the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca amplifying or r fining the meaning of the term " gasoline_ sales station " . Dated . November 28 , 1990 Ithaca , New York HENRY ARON , Chairman Chairman Aron called for a voice vote on the above resolution which resulted as follows : Mr . Hines - Aye Mr . King - Aye Mrs . Reuning - Aye Mr . Aron - Aye The motion was carried unanimously . Connie Lt . Holcomb Recording Secretary Nan by M . uller , Secretary to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . December 5 , 19900 ADOPTED RESOLUTION 1 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 Resolution offered by Mr . Edward King ; seconded by Mr . Robert Hines : IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE , SECTION 35 , ( re . permitted ACCESSORY uses in Business " D " Zones : gasoline sales stations and repair garages ) , THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEREBY . ADOPTS AS FINDINGS THE FOLLOWING : 10 Section 35 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance specifies as the only permitted uses in the Business : " D " Zones to be created thereunder , the operation of Gasoline Service .Stations and Automotive Repair Garages , while Section 31 , restricts the location of such Districts to prevent them in R- 15 Residence Zones . 2 . Section 35 itself also provides that these Districts are subject to the further restrictions of Section 71 , which establishes special separation minimums - - applicable only to gas stations and automotive repair garages , to keep building and facilities back from street lines and residence districts , and to limit the intrusion of these facilities into the side yards and front yards of the Lot . And Section 35 issues the further warning that Business D facilities and uses are also subject to the provisions of Section 54 of the Ordinance - - which permits the extension of a :non-conforming building or use only upon authorization of the ZBA . 3 . Accessory Uses permitted in the Business Zones by Section 36 are limited to accessory storage buildings , parking , and signs - - as far as they would seem to be applicable to a Business D zone . No provisions for the Special Approval of the ZBA ( with or without Planning Board approval of a site plan ) appears to be provided in Article VII [ Sections 31 - 39 ] ; but Section 39 and 46 - a of the Ordinance do call for site plan approval by the Planning Board for any building or structure to be erected within any business district . 4 . Some 55 specified types of Business operations are specified as permitted uses or operations in one or the other of the 3 Business Districts , in their delineation in Sections 32 - 34 of the Ordinance . Only Business " D " districts are limited to but 2 specified uses . ADQPTFjD RESOLUTION Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 5 . It thus seems clear from the Ordinance itself that businesses providing automotive gasoline , oil , care and repair , were to be specially sited and specially controlled by limitations . The inherent danger in the storage and dispensing of volatile , flammable and explosive fuels , and the high volume of traffic into them and out: of them onto streets or highways abutting , undoubtedly account in large measure for the concern of the drafters in. singling out these businesses for special attention and restriction . 6 . Minimizing retail sales activities at most service stations sites appears to be the general goal and thrust of our Zoning Ordinance , 79 Yet there are undoubtedly some situations , places , facilities , where an expansion of such sales might be desirable and safely implements , but the burden of establishing need , desirability and safety ought to be placed upon the proponent and subjected to careful scrutiny via public hearings and board determinations - - site plans and traffic impact studies being essential elements to be considered in every determination . 8 . Note is also made of the fact that many or most service stations in the area sell other automotive utilities and supplies ( tires ; batteries ; wiper blades , snow-brushes and ice scrapers , mud flaps ; anti - freeze ; windshield wash , etc . etc . ) , as well as soda , cigarettes , candy , gum and snacks . 90 One argument advanced for the specific enlargement of retail sale opportunities at Business D facilities is that economic necessity requires that a supplier of these essential items for automotive fuels and repairs supplement the sales generated at such a location by the sale of other products . If that is true as a general proposition for all service stations , it would seem that it should be established to the satisfaction of the Town Board as a reason for expanding the statement of permitted uses in Business D Zones in Section 35 . If in a particular situation only , the Planning Board , in recommending or opposing a Variance , should carefully scrutinize whether the Station ought to be sited there at all , and what limiting parameters might be essential or wise for the operation . 10 . The essential purpose of a gasoline service station ( with or without repair facilities ) being to enable the motorist to fuel his vehicle and resume his highway travel . A station should be able to provide most things of immediate necessity or aid to that end , without Special Permission or Variance . 1 ADOPTED RESOLUTION Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 And that automatic inclusion ought to include some fueling and refreshing of driver and passengers , as well as of the vehicle itself . The limitations -suggested by Mr . Barney , to " snack food items , coffee , soda , cookies , cigarettes , and various type convenience items generally used for immediate consumption by the patron who has purchased gasoline products " might well be sufficient to the task of deterring the use of the station as a substitute grocery or drug store , newspaper and magazine vending establishment , etc . - - thus limiting station traffic in volume and duration . But consider also . ( a ) Items essential or merely helpful to enable the vehicle to proceed on its journey would seem to include the following . wiper blades , fuses , [ See 118 " above ] ( b ) AND custom dictates that it is now reasonable to expect to be able to purchase items to aid the individual , such as : candy , gum , cigarettes , kleenex , and colas and other soft drinks , coffee could also be included as helpful to restore alertness , aspirin and alka - seltzer would also be helpful . Cookies , ice cream , crackers and other munchies might also add to the enjoyment of the trip and even contribute to an avoidance of drowsiness . 11 . Of primary importance to Planners and Zoners , it would seem , is/ are the goal ( s ) of minimizing dangerous congestion and traffic flow into and out of service stations . The amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic expected at one site and another may vary widely , depending upon the location of the station . Expanding the number of goods for sale will surely expand the frequency and intensity of traffic on the site , the time spent there , and the likelihood of extensive harm and damage if a fire or explosion should take place there . 12 . To expand a station operation to include the sale of daily newspapers , bread , canned goods , household items and other staples and items commonly found in a convenience store , grocery store , drug store , magazine stand , video store , and other types of retail sales stores requires the exercise of a great deal of caution - - for vehicle and pedestrian traffic , congestion , and potential danger is thereby invited . Newspapers invite daily stops , as does the offering of other items . ADOPTED RESOLUTION Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 13 . In the interests of promoting safety by minimizing or optimizing vehicular traffic in and out of service stations , while yet not defeating the purpose of such stations , narrow circumscription of the items that may be unquestionably sold at gasoline service stations and repair garages , seems in order in interpreting Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance . NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that this Board now decides that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Section 35 , permitting gasoline service station and repair garages only in Business " D " Zones , is to be interpreted to mean that : A . The Zoning Ordinance and Section 35 in particular are not to be interpreted to generally permit therein any primary or accessory uses as are permitted in the other Business Zones , A , B , C , or E . B . However , some retail sales from a station or garage should be permitted in accordance with need and custom and the purposes of such automotive service and repair facilities . The essential purpose of a gasoline service station ( with or without repair facilities ) being to enable the motorist to fuel his vehicle and resume his highway travel , the Service Station operator ought also be permitted to provide , as is customary , most things of immediate necessity or aid to that end , including some limited fueling and refreshing of driver and passengers , as well as of the vehicle itself ; but the items offered for retail sale should be limited snack food items , coffee , soda , cookies , cigarettes , and various type convenience items generally used for immediate consumption by the patron who has purchased gasoline products . But Service Stations and Garages should not be used as a substitute grocery or drug store , newspaper and magazine vending establishment , nor to engage in any other retail sales which themselves invite vehicular or pedestrian traffic and tend to increase station traffic in volume and duration without correlation with the primary purpose of the station - -viz . , to service motor vehicles . AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that sale items to be generally permitted include the following : ( a ) Items essential or merely helpful to enable the vehicle to proceed on its journey could include the following . wiper blades , fuses , automotive utilities and supplies , such as tires ; batteries , wiper blades , snow-brushes and ice scrapers , mud flaps ; anti - freeze ; windshield wash , and similar articles and supplies . ADOPTED. UPOLUTION Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals November 28 , 1990 ( b ) And custom dictates that it is now reasonable to expect to be able to purchase items to aid the individual , such as : candy , gum , cigarettes , kleenex , and colas and other soft drinks , coffee could also be included as helpful to restore alertness , aspirin and alka - seltzer would also be helpful . Cookies , ice cream , crackers and other munchies might also be reasonably sold to the motorist who has just purchased gasoline or oil products at the station - such items being regarded as adding to the enjoyment of the trip and perhaps contributing to an avoidance of drowsiness . ( c ) Our general intent is that the offerings for retail sale at a station or garage are to be generally so limited and focused on the travelling motorist that people are discouraged from daily or frequent shopping there , and particularly from making purchases there unrelated to their vehicular travel or irrespective of their having stopped primarily for vehicular service needs . ( d ) Section 35 of the Ordinance is not to be interpreted to expand a station operation to include the sale of items other than referred to above such as daily newspapers , bread , canned goods , household items and other staples and items commonly found in a convenience store , grocery store , drug store , magazine stand , video store , and other types of retail sales stores , irrespective of travelling needs and immediate consumption . No item offered should itself be likely to significantly increase vehicular or pedestrian traffic or congestion around the station or in the immediate area . Chairman Aron called for a voice vote in the above matter which resulted as follows : Mr . King - Aye Mr . Hines - Aye Mrs . Reuning - Aye Mr . Aron - Aye The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Nancy li Fuller , Secretary to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . December 5 , 19901 INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE TOWN OF ITHACA, BY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE § 35 ( RE : Permitted ACCESSORY Uses in business " D " Zones : gasoline sales stations & repair garages ) ( 11 / 14/ 90 ) THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEREBY : ADOPTS AS FINDINGS , the observations contained in Certain Numbered Paragraphs of the 3-page " Thoughts & Notes of E . W . King 11 /8/90 " , the Paragraphs so adopted being those numbered : [ For Example ] 1 , 21 3 , 41 51 6 . [ or 1 thru 5 , plus 15 , 16 , 7 , 9 , 12 , 13 , AND ADOPTS FURTHER FINDINGS AS FOLLOWS : Anderson in "New York Zoning Law & Practice " , 2nd Edition [ 1973 ] in § § 11 . 15- 11 . 25 , dealing extensively with Gas Station Regulation by Zoning , footnotes a Syracuse Law Review Article of 1960 on the subject ( 12 SLR 66 ) and goes on to state ( at pg 520 ) : * * " Some courts , without the aid of legislative enactment , have held gasoline stations to be nuisances per se in residential districts , and have found certain stations to be nuisances in fact in commercial areas . In a cc mercial area , they are disliked because they do not draw the pedestrian traffic needed by scene retail businesses , and they produce sufficient vehicular traffic , noise , and smell to be regarded as inoaapatible with retail uses . [ And ] in all districts , gasoline stations are said to involve a fire hazard . " And he cites the New York Court of Appeals decision in Green Point Save Bank v Board of Zoning Appeals for that hazard observation . CONCLUDE : 11118 , and Spell Out the 11s 11 & 20 & 13 provisions tD . apply until the ORD is amended . ] CONCLUSION : THIS BOARD NOW DECIDES THAT THE TOW OF ITHACA ZONI NG ORDINANCE , SECTION 35 , PERMITTING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AND REPAIR GARAGES ONLY IN BUSINESS " D " ZONES , IS TO BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT : A . The Zoning Ordinance and Section 35 in particular are not to be interpreted to generally permit therein any primary or accessory uses as are permitted in the other Business Zones , A , B , C , or E . 1 Be However , sane retail sales from a station or garage should be permitted in accordance with need and custom and the purposes of such automotive service and repair facilities . The essential purpose of a gasoline service station ( with or without repair facilities ) being to enable the motorist to fuel his vehicle and resume his highway travel , the Service Station operator ought also be permitted to provide , as is customary , most things of immediate necessity or aid to that end , including some limited fueling and refreshing of driver and passengers , as well as of the vehicle itself ; but the items offered for retail sale should be limited to snack food items , coffee , soda , cookies , cigarettes , and various type convenience items generally used for immediate consumption by the patron wbo has purchased gasoline products , But Service Stations and Garages should not be used as a substitute grocery or drug store , newspaper and magazine vending establishment , nor to engage in any other retail sales which themselves invite vehicular or pedestrian traffic and tend to increase station traffic in volume and duration without correlation with the primary purpose of the station -- viz . , to service motor vehicles . SALE I'T'EMS M BE GENERALLY PERMITTED might include the following : ( a ) Items essential or merely helpful to enable the vehicle to proceed on its journey could include the following : wiper blades , fuses , ! automotive utilities and supplies , such as tires ; batteries ; wiper bllades ; snow- brushes and ice scrapers ; mud flaps ; anti- freeze ; windshield wash ; and similar articles and supplies . ( b ) And custom dictates that it is now reasonable to expect to be able to purchase items to aid the individual , such as : candy , gum , ' cigarettes , kleenex , and colas and other soft drinks , coffee could also be included as helpful to restore alertness , aspirin and alka-seltzer would also be helpful . Cookies , ice cream , crackers and other munchies might also be reasonably sold to the motorist who has just purchased gasoline or oil products at the station -- such items being regarded as adding to the enjoyment of the trip and perhaps contributing to an avoidance of drowsiness . ( c ) [ From 1209 ] Our general intent is that the offerings for retail sale at a station or garage are to be generally so limited and focused on the travelling motorist that people are discouraged from daily or frequent shopping there , and particularly from making purchases there unrelated to their vehicular travel or irrespective of their having stopped primarily for vehicular service needs . ( d ) [ FROM l3 . ] Section 35 of the Ordinance is not to be interpreted to expand a station operation to include the sale of daily newspapers , bread , canned goods , household items and other staples and items eomnonly found in a convenience store , grocery store , drug store , magazine stand , video store , and other types of retail sales stores , irrespective of travelling needs and immediate consumption . No item offered should itself be likely to significantly increase vehicular or pedestrian traffic or congestion around the station or in the immediate area . END 2 I B - TO,VgN OF ITHACA E J'1'ERPREi'ATION OF ZONING OIZDIr]ANCF X35 ( Permitt,ed Uses in business " D " 'Zones : gasoline sales stations & repair garages ) I [ Rambling Thoughts & Notes of E . W . King 11 /8/ 901 [ Paragraph Numbers are only for ease of references to this DRAFT ] 1 . Section 35 of the Town of Ithr- ica Zoning Ordinance specifies as the only permitted uses in the Business " D " Zones to be created Uiereunder , the operat- ion of Gasoline Service Stations and Automotive Repair Garages , while Section 31 , restricts the location of such Districts to prevent them in R-15 Residence Zones . 2 . Section 35 itself also provides that these Districts are subject to the further restrictions of Section 71 , which establishes special separation minimums -- applicable only to gay , stations and automotive repair garages , to keep building and facilities "back from street lines and residence districts , and to limit the intrusion of these facilities into the side yards and front yards of the Lot . And Section 35 issues the further warning that Business D facilities and uses are also subject to the provisions of Section 54 of the Ordinance -- which permits the extension of a non-conforming building or use only upon authorization of the ZBA . 3 . Accessory Uses permiittel in the Business Zones by Section 36 are Limited to accessory stora3e mat.mi :l , -rigs , p-irking , :_md signs -- as far as they would seem to be applicable to a Business D :zone . No provision for the Special Approval of the ZBA ( with or witl"iout Planning Board approval of a site plan ) appears to be provided in Article VII [ §' §' 31 -39 ] ; but Sections 39 and 46-a of the Ordinance do call for site plan approval by the Planning Board for any building or structure to be erected within any business District . 4 . Some 55 specified types of Business operations are specified as permitted uses or operations in one or the other of the other 3 Business Districts , in their delineation in Sections 32 - 34 of the Ordinance . Only Business " D" districts are limited to but 2 specified uses . 5 . It thus seems clear from the Ordinance itself that businesses providing automotive gasoline , oil , care and repair , were to be specially sited and specially controlled by limitations . The inherent danger in the storage and dispensing of volatile , flamrnabla and explosive fuels , and the high volume of traffic into them and out of them onto streets or highways abutting , undoubtedly account in large measure for the concern of the drafters in singling out these businesses for special attention and restriction . 6 . The suggestion is made that perhaps any ( or at .least score ) of the other retail sales which are specified or permitted in the business Zones of less concern [ A , B . or C -- and perhaps E ] be autcmatically permitted in these Business " D" Zones , and note is made of the fact that many Gasoline Service Stations ( and perhaps some automotive repair garages ) are operated in conjunction with a "Convenience Store" in which all manner of groceries , kitchen supplies and utensils , candy , cigarettes , snacks ( delicatessen items L ' ] and sandwiches [ ? ] are sold . 7 . Note is also made of the fact that marry or most service stations in the area sell other automotive utilities and supplies ( tires ; batteries ; wiper blades , snow- brushes and ice scrapers ; mud flaps ; anti- freeze ; windshield wash , etce etc . ) , as well as soda , cigarettes , candy , gun and snacks . 8w One particular applicant vx)uld .like to be allowed to sell not only the automotive items mentioned in the above paragraph , but also items for use or conunption by the motorist himself _ E . go cigarettes , soda , juice , coffee , cookies , chips , peanuts , ice , . . . etc . -- which he characterizes as items " to be consumed immediately after purchase " ; but he sPecif_ .ically excludes "deli and beer " . 1 .e. i He would also like to sell newspapers at his service station . 9 . One argument advanced for the specific enlargement of retail sale opportunities at Business D facilities is that ecan uu c necessity recpzires that a supplier of these essential items for autanobile fuels and repairs supplement the sales generated at such a location by the sale of other products . IfAthat is tnie as a general proposition for all service stations , it would seem that it should be establisheii to the satisfaction of the Town Hoard as a reason for expanding the statement of perinitteli uses in Business D Zones in Section 35 . If in a particular situation only , the Planning Board , in reccmnending or opposing a Variance , should carefully scrutinize whether the Station ought to be sited there at all , and what limiting parameters might be essential or wise for the operation . 10 . I suspect that the pointed reference , in Section 35 , to the Section governing the extension of non-conforming uses ( Section 54 ) was inserted at least partly because gasoline pumps had first appeared at many rural grocery and other retail stores , and the intent was to curtail the expansion or extension of such diverse types of retail operations . ESSEN'T'IALS OF A (W SOLINE SERVICE STATION 11 . The essential purpose of a gasoline service station ( with or without repair facilities ) being to enable the motorist to fuel his vehicle and resume his highway travel . A station should be able to provide most things of immediate necessity or aid to that end , without Special Permission or Variance . And that automatic inclusiion ought to include sane fueling and refreshing of driver and passengers , as well as of the vehicle itself . The limitations suggested by btr . Barney , to " snack food items , coffee , soda , cookies , cigarettes , and various type convenience items generally used for immediate const.nnption by the patron who has, purchased gasoline products" might well be sufficient to the task of deterring the use of the station as a substitute grocery or drug store , newspaper and magazine vending establishment , etc . -- thus limiting station traffic in volume and duration . kBut consider also : ( a ) Items essential or merely helpful to enable the vehicle to proceed on its journey would seen to include the following : wiper blades , fuses , . . . ( See " 7 " abovel ( b ) AND custom dictates that it is now reasonable to expect to be able to purchase items to aid the individual , such as : candy , gum , cigarettes , kleenex , and colas and other soft drinks , coffee could also be included as helpful to restore alertness , aspirin and a.lka-seltzer would also be helpful . Cookies , ice cream , crackers and other munchies might also add to the enjoynent of the trip and even contribute to an avoidance of drowsiness . PLANNING LOCYPTON OF THE STATION AND CURPNIU ENT OF TRAFFIC 12 . Of primary importance to Planners and Zoners , it would seem , is/are the goals ) of minimizing dangerous congestion and traffic flow into and out of service stations * q'he amoung of vehicular and pedestrian traffic expected at one site and another may vary widely , depending upon the location of the station . Expanding the niinber of goods for sale will surely expand the frequency and intensity of traffic on the site , the time spent there , and the liklihood of extensive harm and damage if a fire or explosion should take place there . 13 . To expand a station operation to include the sale of daily newspapers , bread , canned goods , household items and other staples and items commonly found in a convenience store , grocery store , drug store , magazine stand , video store , and other types of retail sales stores requires the exercise of a great deal of caution -- for vehicle and pedestrian traffic , congestion , and potential danger is thereby invited . Newspajx-ors invite daily stops , as does the offering of other items . 2 14 . In the case of a rural gas station on a well travelled through highway where retail stores are scarce , it might be deemed essential to provide not only a gasoline service station , but also to permit retail sales therein of im M- iate consumable provisions for the travelling vehicle and motorist , but also to provide groceries and other provisions for home consumption by the local residents , campers , and RV opmers . Having an ICE vending machine on ' site could beAquite reasonable :end helpful to area campers ; but it might seem misplaced at another location . PL IMItNU AND SPE4CIAL PERMITS 15 . Minimizing retail sales activities at most service station sites appears to be the general goal and thrust of our Zoning Ordinance . 16 . Yet there are undoubtedly some situations , places , facilities , where an expansion of such sales might be desirable and safely implemented , but the burden of establishing need , desirability and safety ought to be placed upon the proponent and subjected to careful scrutiny via public hearings and board determinations -- site plans and traffic impact studies being essential elements to be considered in every determination . 17 . Our Ordinance at present offers simple mechanism for presentation of such matters , and the use of variance procedures seems undesirable . Special permissions developed upon Site Plan review and consideration , seems most desirable . INTERPRETATION OF § 35 OF THE ORDINANCE .18 . In the interests of promoting safety by minimizing or optimizing vehicular traffic in and out of service stations , while yet not defeating the purpose of such stations , narrapi circumscription of the items that may be unquestionably sold at gasoline service stations and repair garages , seems in order in interpreting Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance . ECDNOMICS 19 . If it can be established the economics of operating any gasoline service station mandates the expansion of that operation into other retail sales areas , then it would seem that the way to go is to amend Seciton 35 of the Ordinance to specify that other particular retail sales may be permitted therein , and to specify the mechanism ( if one is to be required ) for obtaining reviews and approval of such expands-Ni operation . CONCLUSION 20 . We should go with the if 11 interpretation suggested by John Barney , but either expanded a bit to assuredly include the automotive items and a few over the counter remedies (. the aspirin , etc . ] ( at least for for a station located out on through highways , away from other retail stores ) ; eliminating daily newspapers , at least ; and expressing the intent that the offerings there are to be generally so limited and focused on the travelling motorist that people are discouraged from daily shopping there . How and when room is made for the CotWENIE. CE RMRE with pumps ; and how IPANSIONS of the offering lines ar = to be accomplished ( Planning Board recommendation as a first step? Variances? Special Permits ? Further interpretations by the `L�� with CLASSIFICA'IC?NS of STATONS by location , other proximate retail stores , tmnd other criteria ? Beats me . [ Special Permits on reCOMMendaton of the Planning Board would be the best solution , I think : but where in the Ordinance do we get the authority for such permits or authorizations ? FND 3 a,�., no —MMMI I NEWER Moon i I ! i i e i i V17S woe 00 4 I -- _. _ - - - -__- - f- - ----_--�------_----__- -- --- ----__--- -_ __---_ - - ---__---- -_- -tea . o . 11 i 13ZA - 'I1)V N OF .ITHACA IE'sI'ERPI;ETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE § 35 ( Permitted Uses in business " D" 'Zones : gasoline sales stations & repair garages ) i [ Rambling Thoughts & Notes of EeW . King 1 .1 /8/ 30 ] [ Paragraph Numbers are only for ease of references to this DRAF'.l'] 19 Section 35 of the Town of ItMca Zoning Ordinance specifies as the only permitted uses in the Business " D" Zones to be created thereunder , the operation of Gasoline Service Stations and Automotive Repair Garages , while Section 31 , restricts the location of such Districts to prevent them in R-15 Residence Zones . 2 . Section 35 itself also provides that these Districts are subject to the further restrictions of Section 71 , which establishes special separation minimizes -- applicable only to gas stations and automotive repair garages , to keep building and facilities Ikack from street lines and residence districts , and to limit the intrusion of these facilities into the side yards and front yards of the Lot . And Section 35 issues the further warning that Business D facilities and uses are also subject to the provisions of Section 54 of the Ordinance -- which permits the extension of a non-conforming building or use only upon authorization of the ZBA . 3 . Accessory Uses permitted in the Business Zones by Section 36 are limited to accessory stor_ a,3 _ngs , p- in irrq , :.ind signs -- as far as they would seem to be applicable to, a Business D zone . No provision for the Special Approval of the ZM ( with or without Planning Board approval of a site plan ) appears to be provided in Article VII [ •,�4 § 31 -39 ] ; but Sections 39 and 46-a of the Ordinance do call for site plan ,approval by the Planning Board for any building or structure to lye erected within any business District . 4 . Some 55 specified types of iusiness operations are specified as permitted uses or operations in one or the other of the other 3 Business Districts , in their delineation in Sections 32 - 34 of the Ordinance . Only Business " D" districts are limited to but 2 specified uses . 5 . It thus seems clear from the Ordinance itself that businesses providing automotive gasoline , oil , care and repair , were to be specially sited and specially controlled by limitations . The inherent danger in the storage and dispensing of volatile , f1curtable and explosive fuels , and the Pugh volume of traffic into them and out of them onto streets or highways abutting , undoubtedly account in large measure for the concern of the drafters in singling out these businesses for spacial attention and restriction . 6 . The suggestion is made that perhaps any ( or at least some ) of the other retail sales which are specified or permitted in the business zones of less concern [ A , B , or C -- and perhaps E ] be autcmatically permitted in these Business " D" Zones , and note is made of the fart that many Gasoline Service Stations ( and perhaps some autcmotivo repair garages ) are operated in conjunction with a "Convenience store" in which all manner of groceries , kitchen supplies and utensils , candy , cigarettes , snacks ( delicatessen items [ ' ] and sandwiches [ ? ] are sold . 7 . Note is also made of the fact that many or most service stations in the area sell other automotive utilities and supplies ( tires ; batteries ; wiper blades ; snow- brushes and ice scrapers ; mud flaps ; anti- freeze ; windshield wash ; etc . etc . ) , as well as soda , cigarettes , candy , gum and snacks . 8 - One particular applicant would .like to be allowed to sell not only the automotive items mentioned in the above paragraph , but also items for use or conumption by the motorist himself : E . ge cigarettes , soda , juice , coffee , cookies , chips , peanuts , ice , . . . etc . -- which he characterizes as items " to be consumed immediately after purchase " ; but he specifically excludes "deli and beer " . 1 i I He would also like to sell newspapers at his service station . 9 . One argument advanced for the specific enlargement of retail sale opportunities at Business D facilities is that eaaaiamic necessity requires that a supplier of these essential items for automobile fuels and repairs supplement the sales generated at such a location by the sale of other products . Ifithat is true as a general proposition for all service stations , it would seem that it should be established to the satisfaction of the Town Board as a reason for expanding the statement of pennittecl uses in Business D Zones in Section 35 . If in a ikarticuLa r situation only , the Planning Board , in reccaniending or opposing a Variance , should carefully scrutinize whether the Station ought to be sited there at all , and what limiting parameters might be essential or wise for the operation . 10 . I suspect that the pointed reference , in Section 35 , to the Section governing the extension of non-conforming uses ( Section 54 ) was inserted at least partly because gasoline ptnnps had first appeared at n.my rural grocery and other retail stores , and the intent_ was to curtail the expansion or extension of such diverse types of retail operations . ESSENTIALS OF A GASOLINF. SERVICE STATION 11 . The essential purpose of a gasoline service station ( with or without repair facilities ) being to enable the motorist to fuel his vehicle and resume his highway travel . A station should be able to provide most things of immediate necessity or ,aid to that end , without Special Permission or Variance . And that automatic inclusiion ought to include same fueling and refreshing of driver and passengers , as well as of the vehicle itself . The lbmitations suggested by Mr . Barney , to " snack food items , coffee , soda , cookies , cigarettes , and various type convenience items generally used for immediate consurnption by the patron who has. purchased gasoline products " might well be sufficient to the task of deterring the use of the station as a substitute grocery or drug store , newspaper and magazine vending establishment , etc . -- thus limiting station traffic in volume and duration . kBut consider also : ( a ) Items essential or merely helpful to enable the vehicle to proceed on its journey would seen to include the following : wiper blades , fuses , . . . [ ,See " 7 " above ] ( b ) AND custom dictates that it is now reasonable to expect to be able to purchase items to aid the individual , such as : candy , gum , cigarettes , kleenex , and colas and other soft drinks , coffee could also be included as helpful to restore alertness , aspirin and alka-seltzer would also be helpful . Cookies , ice cream , crackers and other munchies might also add to the enjoyment of the trip and even contribute to an avoidance of drowsiness . PLANVING LOCATION OF THE STATION AMID CURPAILME`Tr OF TRAFFIC 12 . Of primary importance to Planners and Zoners , it would seem , is/are the goal ( s ) of minimizing dangerous congestion and traffic flow into and out of service stations . The amoung of vehicular and pedestrian traffic expected at one site and another may vary widely , depending upon the location of the station . Expanding the number of goods for sale will surely expand the frequency and :intensity of traffic on the site , the time spent there , and the liklihood of extensive harm and damage if a fire or explosion should take place there . 13 . To expand a station operation to include the sale of daily newspapers , bread , canned goods , household items and other staples and item, cornnonly found in a convenience store , grocery store , drug store , magazine stand , video store , and other types of retail sales stores requires the exercise of a great deal of caution -- for vehicle and ly� lestrian traffic. , congestion , and potential danger is thereby invited . Newspapers invite daily stops , as does the offering of other items . 2 II 1 14 . In the case of a rural gas station on a well travelled through highway where retail stores are scarce , it might be deemed essential to provide not only a gasoline service station , but also to permit retail sales therein of immediate consumable provisions for the travelling vehicle and motorist , but also to provide groceries and other provisions for home consumption by the local residents , campers , and RV owners . Having an ICE vending machine on site could bEA quite reasonable -in(l helpful to area campers ; but it might seem misplaced at another location . Pf..MNING AM) SPECIAL PI:T4ITS 15 . Minimizing retail sales activities at most service station sites appears to be the general goal and thrust of our Zoning Ordinance , 16 . Yet there are undoubtedly some situations , places , facilities , where an expansion of such sales might be desirable and safely implemented , but the burden of establishing need , desirability and safety ought to be placed upon the proponent and subjected to careful scrutiny via public hearings and board determinations -- site plans and traffic impact studies being essential elements to be considered in every deteniunation . 17 . Our Ordinance at present offers simple mechanism for presentation of such matters , and the use of variance procedures seems undesirable . Special permissions developed upon Site Plan review and consideration , ,seems most desirable . IT—VERPRETATIOIN OF § 35 OF THE ORDINANCE 18 . In the interests of promoting safety by minimizing or optimizing vehicular traffic in and out of servica stations , while yet not defeating the purpose of such stations , narrow circumscription of the items that may be unquestionably sold at gasoline service stations and repair garages , seems in order in interpreting Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance . WY440MICS 19 . If it can be established the econanics of operating any gasoline service station mandates the expansion of that operation into other retail sales areas , then it would seem that the way to go is to amend Ser_iton 35 of the Ordinance to specify that other particular retail sales may be permitted therein , and to specify the mechanism ( if one is to be required ) for obtaining reviews and approval of such expands-NI operation . CY NCWSION 20 . We should go with the if 11 interpretation suggested by John Barney , but either expanded a bit to assuredly include the automotive items and a few over the counter remedies [ the aspirin , etc . ] ( at least for for a station located out on through highways , away from other retail stores ) ; eliminating daily newspapers , at least , and expressing the intent that the offerings there are to be generally so limited and focused on the travelling motorist that people are discouraged from daily shopping there . How and when room is made for the CONVENIENCE !'PORE with pumps ; and how EXPANSIONS of the offering lines are to be accc�nplished ( Planning Board recommendation as a first step? Variances? Special Permits? Further interpretations by the ZBA with CLASSIFICATONS of STATONS by location , other proximate retail stores , and other criteria ? Beats me . [ Special Permits on recommendaton of the Planning Board would be the best solution , I think : but where in the Ordinance do we get the authority for such permits or authorizations? END 3 Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 1 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval November 6 , 1990 MOTION by Mr . Stephen Smith , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHtREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , located in a Business " D " District , at the corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 13 , such expansion consisting of replacement of the existing canopy , pumps , and cashier ' s booth with a larger canopy , new pumps , and larger cashier ' s booth , demolition of an existing film / photo developing kiosk on the site , and modification of the entry drives to the site . The number of gasoline service pumps is proposed to increase from eight pumps to nine pumps . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . The Tompkins County Planning Department is an involved agency in coordinated review . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on November 6 , 1990 , has reviewed the site plan entitled " SP - Judd Falls Rd . & Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revised 5 / 22 / 90 , 6 / 19 / 90 , and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot -wide entry between the gas station and East Hill :Plaza , and other application materials for this submission . 4 . The Town of Ithaca Planning Department has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review in coordinated review of the proposed action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 2 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval November 6 , 1990 MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : 10 This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , located in a Business " D " District , at the corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 13 , such expansion consisting of replacement of the existing canopy , pumps , and cashier ' s booth with a larger canopy , new pumps , and larger cashier ' s booth , demolition of an existing film / photo developing kiosk on the site , and modification of the entry drives to the site . The number of gasoline service pumps is proposed to increase from eight pumps to nine pumps . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on November 6 , 1990 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on November 6 , 1990 , has reviewed the site plan entitled " SP - Judd Falls Rd . & Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revised 5 / 22 / 90 , 6 / 19 / 90 , and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot -wide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza , and other application materials for this submission . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , as shown on the site plan entitled " SP - Judd Falls Rd * . & Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revises 3 / 22 / 90 , 6 / 19 / 90 , and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot -hide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza , , subject to the following conditions : 1 . The installation of a speed deterrent bump between the gasoline station and the parking lot at East Hill Plaza , with the design for and the installation of such bump to be approved by the Town Engineer . r Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 3 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 2 . The approval of the construction plans for the facility, by the Town Engineer . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . November 19 , 19900 r Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 1 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval November 6 , 1990 MOTION by Mr . Stephen Smith , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , located in a Business " D " District , at the corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 13 , such expansion consisting of replacement of the existing canopy , pumps , and cashier ' s booth with a larger canopy , new pumps , and larger cashier ' s booth , demolition of an existing film / photo developing kiosk on the site , and modification of the entry drives to the site , The number of gasoline service pumps is proposed to increase from eight pumps to nine pumps . 29 This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . The Tompkins County Planning Department is an involved agency in coordinated review , 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on November 6 , 1990 , has reviewed the site plan entitled " SP - Judd Falls Rd . & Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revised 5 / 22 / 90 , 6 / 19 / 90 , and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot -wide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza , and other application materials for this submission , 4 . The Town of Ithaca Planning Department has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review in coordinated review of the proposed action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY , Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 2 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval November 6 , 1990 MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : 10 This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , located in a Business " D " District , at the corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 13 , such expansion consisting of replacement of the existing canopy , pumps , and cashier ' s booth with a larger canopy , new pumps , and larger cashier ' s booth , demolition of an existing film / photo developing kiosk on the site , and modification of the entry drives to the site . The number of gasoline service pumps is proposed to increase from eight pumps to nine pumps . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on November 6 , 1990 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 39 The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on November 6 , 1990 , has reviewed the site plan entitled " SP - Judd Falls Rd . & Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revised 5 / 22 / 90 , 6 / 19 / 90 , and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot -wide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza , and other application materials for this submission . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , as shown on the site plan entitled " SP - Judd Falls Rd . Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revised 5 /22 / 90 , 6 / 19 / 90 , and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot - ,ride entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza , , subject to the following conditions : 1 . The installation of a speed deterrent bump between the gasoline station and the parking lot at East Hill Plaza , with the design for and the installation of such bump to be approved by the Town Engineer . Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 3 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 2 . The approval of the construction plans for the facility by the Town Engineer . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . November 19 , 1990 . 4- Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 1 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * �r ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval November 6 , 1990 MOTION by Mr . Stephen Smith , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 16 This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , located in a Business " D " District , at the corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 13 , such expansion consisting of replacement of the existing canopy , pumps , and cashier ' s booth with a larger canopy , new pumps , and larger cashier ' s booth , demolition of an existing film / photo developing kiosk on the site , and modification of the entry drives to the site . The number of gasoline service pumps is proposed to increase from eight pumps to nine pumps . 29 This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . The Tompkins County Planning Department is an involved agency in coordinated review . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on November 6 , 1990 , has reviewed the site plan entitled " SP - Judd Falls Rd . & Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revised 5 / 22 / 90 , 6 / 19 / 90 , and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot -wide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza , and other application materials for this submission . 49 The Town of Ithaca Planning Department has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review in coordinated review of the proposed action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 2 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval November 6 , 1990 MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , located in a Business " D " District , at the corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 13 , such expansion consisting of replacement of the existing canopy , pumps , and cashier ' s booth with a larger canopy , new pumps , and larger cashier ' s booth , demolition of an existing film / photo developing kiosk on the site , and modification of the entry drives to the site . The number of gasoline service pumps is proposed to increase from eight pumps to nine pumps . 29 This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on November 6 , 1990 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on November 6 , 1990 , has reviewed the site plan entitled " SP - Judd Falls Rd . & Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revised 5 / 22 / 90 , 6 / 19 / 90 , and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot -wide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza , and other application materials for this submission . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , as shown on the site plan entitled " SP - Judd Falls Rd * . & Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revised 5 / 22 / 90 , 6 / 19 / 90 , and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot -wide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza , , subject to the following conditions : 10 The installation of a speed deterrent bump between the gasoline station and the parking lot at East Hill Plaza , with the design for and the installation of such bump to be approved by the Town Engineer . t Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 3 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 2 . The approval of the construction plans for the facility by the Town Engineer . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . November 19 , 19900 � - Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 1 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval November 6 , 1990 MOTION by Mr . Stephen Smith , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , located in a Business " D " District , at the corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 13 , such expansion consisting of replacement of the existing canopy , pumps , and cashier ' s booth with a larger canopy , new pumps , and larger cashier ' s booth , demolition of an existing film / photo developing kiosk on the site , and modification of the entry drives to the site , The number of gasoline service pumps is proposed to increase from eight pumps to nine pumps . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . The Tompkins County Planning Department is an involved agency in coordinated review . 39 The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on November 6 , 1990 , has reviewed the site plan entitled " SP - Judd Falls Rd . & Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revised 5 / 22 / 90 , 6 / 19 / 90 , and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot -wide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza , and other application materials for this submission . 4 . The Town of Ithaca Planning Department has recommended a negative determination of environmental . significance for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review in coordinated review of the proposed action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY , � - Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 2 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval November 6 , 1990 MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS * 1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , located in a Business " D " District , at the corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 13 , such expansion consisting of replacement of the existing canopy , pumps , and cashier ' s booth with a larger canopy , new pumps , and larger cashier ' s booth , demolition of an existing film / photo developing kiosk on the site , and modification of the entry drives to the site . The number of gasoline service pumps is proposed to increase from eight pumps to nine pumps . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on November 6 , 1990 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on November 6 , 1990 , has reviewed the site plan entitled " SP - Judd Falls Rd . & Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revised 5 / 22 / 90 , 6 / 19 / 90 , and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot - wide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza , and other application materials for this submission . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station , as shown on the site plan entitled " SP - Judd Falls Rd . . & Ellis Hollow Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 5 / 8 / 90 , revised 5 / 22 / 90 , 6 / 19 / 90 , and 7 / 13 / 90 , prepared by Morris I . Cleverley Engineering , P . C . , as amended to show a 60 - foot -wide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza , , subject to the following conditions : 1 . The installation of a speed deterrent bump between the gasoline station and the parking lot at East Hill Plaza , with the design for and the installation of such bump to be approved by the Town Engineer . x Robert W . Andree - - East Hill Gulf Station Expansion - 3 - Corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , November 6 , 1990 2 . The approval of the construction plans for the facility by the Town Engineer . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Lesser , Miller , Smith , Hoffmann . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . November 19 , 19900 1 - -- - i �s it-2 .GHQ-�. ��� -`---= --- -- _ - �c. �� _ _ � -{ � � `�� �-��- ,� - -/mod -- -`� - � � � � TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , New York 14850 WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 28 , 1990 7 : 00 P . M . A G E N D A APPEAL of Samir Hanna , Appellant , requesting variances from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 10 ( building height ) , and Article IV , Section 14 ( front yard building setback ) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a single - family residence to be located at 8 Winner ' s Circle , Town olf Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 8 . 4 , Residence District R- 15 . The residential structure proposed has an exterior building height of 32 feet nine inches , 30 feet being the maximum height permitted , and a front yard building setback of 22 . 1 feet , 25 feet being required . ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ( adjourned from October 10 and November 14 , 1990 ) , under Article XIV , Section 77 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for an interpretation by the Board of Appeals of Article VII , Section 35 , of said Ordinance to determine if any uses permitted in Business Districts " A " , " B " , and " C " may be permitted in a Business District " D " , and further , to determine what sales / uses may be customarily encompassed within a gasoline sales station . DISCUSSION : 1 . a . Proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to exempting subdivisions from the requirement to obtain fill permits under certain circimstances . b . Proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to occupancy of mobile home park districts . c . Proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance providing for the amortization of certain non - conforming uses . 2 . Recommendation to the Town Board with respect to the appointment of the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson for 1991 . 3 . Election of the Zoning Board of Appeals Vice Chairperson for 1991 . Andrew So Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273 - 1747 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , 14OVEMBER 28 , 1990 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , November 28 , 1990 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters . APPEAL of Samir Hanna , Appellant , requesting variances from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 10 ( building height ) , and Article IV , Section 14 ( front yard building setback ) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a single - family residence to be located at 8 Winner ' s Circle , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 8 . 4 , Residence District R- 15 . The residential structure proposed has an exterior building height of 32 feet nine inches , 30 feet being the maximum height permitted , and a front yard building setback of 22 . 1 feet , 25 feet being required . ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ( adjourned from October 10 and November 14 , 1990 ) , under Article XIV , Section 77 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for an interpretation by the Board of Appeals of Article VII , Section 35 , of said Ordinance to determine if any uses permitted in Business Districts " A " , " B " , and " C " may be permitted in a Business District " D " , and further , to determine what sales / uses may be customarily encompassed within a gasoline sales station . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273 - 1747 Dated : November 20 , 1990 Publish : November 23 , 1990 TOWN OFIITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I . Jean H . Swartwood , being duly sworn , depose and say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York ; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the Sign Board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper , The Ithaca Journal . Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca New York on Wednesday , November 28 , 1990 commencing at 7 : 00 PeHo as per attached Location of Sign Board used for Posting : Located at front bulletin board of Town Hall . Date of Posting : November 20 , 1990 Date of Publication : November 23 , 1990 Jean -I . Swartwood , Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS , : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27th day of November , 1990 , Notary Publi LEAH B, CARPENTER Notary Public, State of Now York Qualified in Tompkins Co. No. 4797177 My Commission Expires April 30, 1 9_N \ The Ithaca Journal Friday , November 23 , ,. 199Q ^' le IV, Section 14 (front_ yard TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING building setback); of' the;Tow` BOARD OF APPEALS of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, ' , NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS for the` pro ose construction:'. WEDNESDAY NOV.; 28, :1990w p 7, 0p` P:M, of a single=fgrt+tly. 1,Aen r, to•, be: located oN I inner s Cir `,. By direct on 'iof?the Chairmori cto' Iocotn " d1l:hacd lox Poicel' ? of Ah iN oningg• Board of Ap. Nd 6 58 T'B 4"iRestdente Dts C t Peols' tNOTtCE' � IS HEREBY4 tncl' R,r157 >The` .reaidet�ha[$., GIVEN- tFiar .. Public , Hedrings 1 .1 . Jie proposed}Nas earl ex_ t willcttie held. by the Zonings teriorMliutidin4�kh 'gKt of 32 r: Board of Appals of the'Towrt; feet nine tn"ches; ?- feet being 1 of• Ithc on {Wednesday, No- the moxtmuni , fiei ht ' r vember . 281 1990, : in Town F " " , Holy' 126 East Seneco ' Srreef, t mit�ed �andoFrontYPfee%°29 : (FIRST; Floor REAR . Entrance; ing aetborkkgf 22 ; , , „ t, WEST Side), . , Ithaca, N. Y. , feet beingg; ie uired,� E RING COMNIENCING .•AT;7:00; P. M. ; ADMINIST±RAIVyr� llobe� `.'14 on;the follo'wi`ng matters.. '(ad ourn'edINfrortr ' K . APPEAL, of Samir Honna, 'Ap! ona Novemberjl4, ' 1990)) un- Fellapellant; requesting variances, der Aiticle XIV,RSechon 77, of ihe' regLire'rnents of Arti• the Town of ;IthgcotZOning ion Cie IV; , Sechon 11• Porograpfi dinance, for an interpretation ' 10 (bu'ilding' he gRt)! 'ond Arti- by the Boordtof Pjppeois' of .Ar- t •- , , . title VII , Sectton!.35,;1of said Ordinance to deferrnI a if-o, ny;; uses permitted tn .Bustness Dis?, trios f ",B , ,onil, C ' maY I r be permitted to o 'BusI ess Dist, trio D ri and furttie7 to' deIe.P,� Il mine 'w'hat• sc�esu;es may!ber customarily` 'encompassed ' within a gpsolmer,^ sa essfo,r tion Satd Zoningg Board�of Appeolg , wtli�L a4' said time; 7� tS0 psR!°s r` "face; hAerotl�per andisatd, t? r sons In uppCd of+sit„hmoHers .z or robjectiorls mere{o Pe sotig 1 may oppe0r`,gby�'d"gent"01'", n , ':person. . ..;3 ,<: 1 !y Y, r . Andrew;5;_Fiast a !r i=;?%Bu i Idi ng- I nspecor/Zan i n9: G ' .Enforcement Officer 4.Town` 0 f itheca- � tlj 273 1747 Nov�erhber 2'3,'`� �� TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 28 , 1990 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , November 28 , 1990 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters . APPEAL of Samir Hanna , Appellant , requesting variances from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 10 ( building height ) , and Article IV , Section 14 ( front yard building setback ) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a single - family residence to be located at 8 Winner ' s Circle , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 8 . 4 , Residence District R- 15 . The residential structure proposed has an exterior building height of 32 feet nine inches , 30 feet being the maximum height permitted , and a front yard building setback of 22 . 1 feet , 25 feet being required . ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ( adjourned from October 10 and November 14 , 1990 ) , under Article XIV , Section 77 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for an interpretation by the Board of Appeals of Article VII , Section 35 , of said Ordinance to determine if any uses permitted in Business Districts " A " , " B " , and " C " may be permitted in a Business District " D " , and further , to determine what sales / uses may be customarily encompassed within a gasoline sales station . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273 - 1747 Dated : November 20 , 1990 Publish : November 23 , 1990 r - � AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Dani L . Holford , being duly sworn , deposes and says , that deponent is not a party to the actions , is over 21 years of age and resides at 2687 County Road 139 , Ovid , NY 14521 . That the 20th day . of November , 1990 , deponent served the within Notice upon : Samir Hanna B . Miller & C . Heaton 315 Blackstone Avenue 1353 Slaterville Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Francis Paolangeli William & Joan McMinn 125 Ridgecrest Road 1351 Slaterville Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Jason Slottje Francis Barraclough 126 Cambridge Place 1341 Slaterville Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 David & Stephanie Herrick Robert & Virginia Sweet Winners Circle 1401 1 / 2 Slaterville Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Callista Paolangeli , Clerk James W . Hanson , Jr . City of Ithaca Commissioner of Ping . 108 E . Green Street Biggs Building A Ithaca , NY 14850 301 Dates Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 Eric Datz , Bldg . Comm . City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca , NY 14850 By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper , in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York . #)kje6 V0 L Dani L . Holf rd Sworn to before me this 27th day of November , 1990 Notary Public N MI P- g� NewNew Y in Q'CM°d'oe E �. 2k IU4� TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , 14OVEMBER 28 , 1990 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , November 28 , 1990 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters . APPEAL of Samir Hanna , Appellant , requesting variances from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 10 ( bu 'ilding height ) , and Article IV , Section 14 ( front yard building setback ) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a single - family residence to be located at 8 Winner ' s Circle , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 8 . 4 , Residence District R- 15 . The residential structure proposed has an exterior building height of 32 feet nine inches , 30 feet being the maximum height permitted , and a front yard building setback of 22 . 1 feet , 25 feet being required . ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ( adjourned from October 10 and November 14 , 1990 ) , under Article XIV , Section 77 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for an interpretation by the Board of Appeals of Article VII , Section 35 , of said Ordinance to determine if any uses permitted in Business Districts " A " , " B " , and " C " may be permitted in a Business District " D " , and further , to determine what sales / uses may be customarily encompassed within a gasoline sales station . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273 - 1747 Dated : November 20 , 1990 Publish : November 23 , 1990 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 14 , 1990 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN . t4at Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , November 14 , 1990 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters . APPEAL of Cornell University , Owner / Appellant , Arthur G . Stiers , Agent , requesting the special approval of the Board of Appeals , pursuant to Article V , Section 180P Paragraph 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a 30 - foot by 18 - foot " Gas Cylinder Storage Dock " , proposed to be located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 , in the Cornell Orchards area on Palm Road adjacent to the General Stores Warehouse . APPEAL of Vinay and Saga Ambegaokar , Owners /Appellants , Ted Bronsnick , Agent , requesting the approval of or the grant of a building height variance with respect to the construction of a one- story , two - car , detached garage , set back five feet from the road right of way , at 3 Sugarbush Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 61 - 1 - 14 . 5 , Residence District R- 15 . The average natural slope of the subject property exceeds an 8 per cent fall at the road right of way line resulting in a building height for said proposed garage of 19 feet 10 inches . Article IV , Section 13 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance limits the height of detached garages to 15 feet unless the natural slope of a property exceeds an 8 per cent fall directly from the street line ( not road right of way ) , in which case said Ordinance limits the height to only one story , which may be presumed to be greater than 15 feet in height . APPEAL of Glenn F . Hubbell , Owner /Appellant , requesting variance of the requirements of Article V , Sections 18 and 19 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the operation of an antiques and second hand goods shop in an Agricultural District at 1308 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 14 . 1 , ( Residence District R- 30 requlations apply ) . Said Ordinance does not permit antique and second hand businesses in a residential district . APPEAL of Chase Farm Associates , Owner / Appellant , Harrison Rue , Agent , requesting the special approval of the Board of Appeals , pursuant to Article IV , Section 12 , Paragraph 3 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the continuation of the use of a residential property , located at 108 Ridgecrest Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 and - 5 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 , for business purposes with respect to the development of a residential area . i ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ( adjourned from October 10 , 1990 ) , under Article XIV , Section 77 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for an interpretation by the Board of Appeals of Article VII , Section 35 , of said Ordinance to determine if any uses permitted in Business Districts " A " , " B " , and " C " may be permitted in a Business District " D " , and further , to determine what sales / uses may be customarily encompassed within a gasoline sales station . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , . and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . i Andrew S . Frost } Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273 - 1747 I Dated : November 6 , 1990 Publish : November 9 , 1990 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Jean H . Swartwood , being duly sworn , depose and say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York ; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the Sign Board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper , The Ithaca Journal . Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , New York on Wednesday , November 14 , 1990 , commencing at 7 . 00 P M as per attached Location of Sign Board used for Posting : Located at front bulletin board of Town Hall . Date of Posting : November 8 , 1990 Date of Publication : November 9 , 1990 Jean H . wartwood , Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13th day of November , 1990 . otary Public 16ei» )L . 61301c// BETTY F. POOLE NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORK # 4646 427 residential property, located - at 108, Ridgecrest Rood, w Of Ithaca Tax Poicels , To 1 n 1 5 1 , 5 2; Residence Dts'• inct R-15 forr". ? . The Itha busmen' pur - Journal .' Fflda Pases 'with respect to the de y,. . November 9 aeeOPment of a resldentioF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING (odjourned from October. l0, 1990), under Article I S7, of the Town of ItFioca ' Zoning Ordinance, for on in- -TOWN OF ITHACA , ZONING terpretotion by the Board of 4 ' BOARD OF APPEALS Appeals of Article VII, Section NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 35, of said Ordinance to deter- WED. ; NOV, 14, 41990, 7P. M. mine ifiany uses permitted in B :Direction of the Chairman Business Districts "A" of the Zoning Boord of Ap- and C" moy be permitted in peals ' NOTICE " ' IS HEREBY a Business District "D°., and ,GIVEN that Public Hearin further, to determine what wilt ' be . held byy"'tKe`'Zoni 9 soles/uses may be customari- Board. of.'Appeois-of- the Town ly encompassed wit of Ithaca hin o gas_ , on Wednesday, No- aline soles station. vember 141 1990;,1cin Town Said Zoning Board of Appeals Hall, . 126 East Seneca Street, will at said time, 7:00 M. (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, and said place, hear oll per- WEST: Side ), Ithaca, N• Y sons in support of such matters COMMENCING AT 7:00 p• M or objections thereto. Persons on the following matters. nay appear by agent or in ' APPEAL of r Cornell, Uniyersit person. Owner/Appellant,'"`'Arlfiur �, Andrew S. Frost Stiers, Agent, ;requestingg the Building Inspector/Zoning special aFprovol of; the Board Enforcement Officer of Appea s, ppursuant to' Article Town of Ithaca V:;Section418, Por raph 4, of 273- 1747 the Towr 'of Ithocoi2oning Or- November 9, 1990 dinance;--Jor the proposed construction ' of a 30-foot by -fo 18oY"Gas Cylinder Storage_ Dock';, proposed to be located " on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel o: 6.64- 1 -2, Residence Dii- N4iict R-30, in the Cornell Or- chords area on Palm Road ad- cent to the General Stores Warehouse. APPEAL ; Of Vinay and. Saga Ambeg6okar, Owners/Appel_ , fonts; 4Ted Bronsnick, Agent, requestjng the approval of or i the grant of a building height variance with respect to the construction of a one-story, two-car, , detached garage, set back five feet from the road right of way, at 3 Sugarbush ? Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- cel No. 6-61 - 1 - 14. 5, Residence District R-15. The average not- urol'slope of the subject prop- ert) ''ezceeds an 8 per cent fall at the road right of way line resulting 'in a building height for said proposed garage of 19 feet 10 inches:: Article IV, Sec- lion 13, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, limits the height of detachedgorages to 15 '4, feet . unless " the'^";• natural slope'' of a pro�erty= ezceeds on 8.per-- cent fall directly from ihe ,styeets line (not 'rood,'right of .W4);t;in; which case? said Ordiriance limits the height to bonly. one story, which may be resymed;` toobe " greater than 5 feet, in height. APPEAL".of'Glenn F. Hubbell, Owner/Appellant, requesting yarionce ,of thel;requirements of Article V, Sections 18 and - 190;of:the Town of Ithaca Zon- ing:Orcllrionce;4for the opera- tion� oVbn antiques and sec- t and 'hdnd goods shop in an Agriculturol District at 1308 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithoco' Tox Parcel No.' 6.27. 1 _ 14. 1; (Residence District R-30 regulations apply). .Said Ordi- nance does not permit antique and second hand businesses In a residential district. • APPEAL of Chose Form Asso- ciates;y;'iOwner/Appel lant, Har'risomRue, Agent, request. ing`ulie°;special approval of the f8odrif ,o :Appeals, pursuant to Arhde` =1V, Section 12, Par- agraph 9; of the Town of Itha- CarZoning Ordinance , for the •continuation of the use of a TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 14 , 1990 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN . toat Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , November 14 , 1990 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters . APPEAL of Cornell University , Owner / Appellant , Arthur G . Stiers , Agent , requesting the special approval of the Board of Appeals , pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a 30 - foot by 18 - foot " Gas Cylinder Storage Dock " , proposed to be located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 , in the Cornell Orchards area on Palm Road adjacent to the General Stores Warehouse . APPEAL of Vinay and Saga Ambegaokar , Owners / Appellants , Ted Bronsnick , Agent , requesting the approval of or the grant of a building height variance with respect to the construction of a one- story , two - car , detached garage , set back five feet from the road right of way , at 3 Sugarbush Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 61 = 1 - 14 . 5 , Residence District R- 15 . The average natural slope of the subject property exceeds an 8 per cent fall at the road right of way line resulting in a building height for said proposed garage of 19 feet 10 inches . Article IV , Section 13 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance limits the height of detached garages to 15 feet unless the natural slope of a property exceeds an 8 per cent fall directly from the street line ( not road right of way ) , in which case said Ordinance limits the height to only one story , which may be presumed to be greater than 15 feet in height . APPEAL of Glenn F . Hubbell , Owner /Appellant , requesting variance of the requirements of Article V , Sections 18 and 19 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the operation of an antiques and second hand goods shop in an Agricultural District at 1308 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 14 . 11 ( Residence District R- 30 requlations apply ) . Said Ordinance does not permit antique and second hand businesses in a residential district . APPEAL of Chase Farm Associates , Owner / Appellant , Harrison Rue , Agent , requesting the special approval of the Board of Appeals , pursuant to Article IV , Section 12 , Paragraph 3 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the continuation of the use of a residential property , located at 108 Ridgecrest Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 and - 5 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 , for business purposes with respect to the development of a residential area . ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ( adjourned from October 10 , 1990 ) , under Article XIV , Section 77 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for an interpretation by the Board of Appeals of Article VII , Section 35 , of said Ordinance to determine if any uses permitted in Business Districts " A " , " B " , and " C " may be permitted in a Business District " D " , and further , to determine what sales / uses may be customarily encompassed within a gasoline sales station . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , . and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273 - 1747 Dated : November 6 , 1990 Publish : November 9 , 1990 i ' AFFIDAVIT 01' SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Dani L . Holford , being duly sworn , deposes and says , that deponent is not a party to the actions , is over 21 years of age and resides at 2687 County Road 139 , Ovid , NY 14521 . That the 8th day of November , 1990 , deponent served the within Notice upon : John E . Majeroni , CU Maurice Dusky Real Estate Department Ellis Hollow Road Apts . 20 Thornwood Drive , # 103 1028 Ellis Hollow Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Shirley K . Egan , CU Helen M . Griffin Assoc . Univ . Council Ellis Hollow Road Apts . 500 Day Hall 1028 Ellis Hollow Road Ithaca , NY 14853 Ithaca , NY 14850 Peggy Waldbridge Diane Welch 1561 Ellis Hollow Road 407 Mitchell Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Lewis S . Roscoe , CU Nancy Krook Dir . / Campus Planning 113 Pine Tree Road 102 Humphreys Service Bldg . Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14853 Peggy Robinson Robin Seeley 324 Mitchell Street 332 Hurd Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 East Lawn Cemetery Assoc . Cindy Sherman 934 Mitchell Street 3 Snyder Heights Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Susanne Lloyd , Clerk NYS Housing Finance Agency Town of Dryden c / o Dorm Auth . of NYS 65 East Main Street 161 Delaware Ave . Dryden , NY 13053 Delmar , NY 12054 - 1398 Arthur Stiers Dormitory Auth . of NYS Facilities Engineering 161 Delaware Ave . Cornell University Delmar , NY 12054 - 1398 Humphreys Service Bldg . Ithaca , NY 14853 ^ ,Vinay & Saga Ambegaokar Ted Bronsnick 3 Sugarbush Lane 511 West Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Vitaly & Natalia Spitsberg Hollis Erb 124 Snyder Hill Road 118 Snyder Hill Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 2 - Geoffrey & Carolyn Chester James Jr . & Daisy Sweet 5 Sugarbush Lane 120 Snyder Hill Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Gerrard & G . Obrien Ron & Eva Hoffmann 130 Snyder Hill Road 4 Sugarbush Lane Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 John & ' Audrey Lowe Carolyn Grigorov 136 Snyder Hill Road 126 Snyder Hill Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 John E . Majeroni , CU Real Estate Department 20 Thornwood Drive , # 103 Ithaca , NY 14850 Glenn Hubbell K Ostlund & B Lang 1308 Mecklenburg Road 185 West Haven Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Eddy Hill , Inc . Maria Gaydosh c / o Jacqueline Eddy 1295 Mecklenburg Road Bostwick Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Anthony Ceracche Enterprises Lakeside Development Inc . 522 West State Street P . O . Box 248 Ithaca , NY 14850 Watkins Glen , NY 14891 Edward Murphy Robert & Joyce Wright 1220 Mecklenburg Road 4641 E . Desmoines Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Mesa , AZ 85205 James Ideman P . O . Box 941 Moravia , NY 13118 Butterfield Associates Joseph & Carole Jeraci 301 East State Street 112 Ridgecrest Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Butterfield Associates Edward & Barbara Gregoire P . U . Box J 175 East King Road Ithaca , NY 14851 Ithaca , NY 14850 Marc & Loretta Macaluso David & Patricia Swartout 15 Chase Lane 107 Ridgecrest Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Chase Farm Associates Allan & Kathleen Baker 301 East State Street 109 Ridgecrest Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Roger Sayre & Carolyn Richter Broderick & Barbara Holt 110 Ridgecrest Road 23 Chase Lane Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Roberto & Lynn Bertoia 113 Ridgecrest Road Ithaca , NY 14850 I ' - 3 - Callista Paolangeli , Clerk James W . Hanson , Jr . City of Ithaca Commissioner of Ping . 108 E . Green Street Biggs Building A Ithaca , NY 14850 301 Dates Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 Eric Datz , Bldg , Comm . City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca , NY 14850 By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper , in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York . Dani L . Holfo4�d Sworn to before me this 13th day of November , 1990 Notary Public JEAN H. SWARTWOOD State of New York Qwb in ompidas Co. Na 4702044 Comm Expires Feb. 28, 19.2 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 14 , 1990 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN . toat Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , November 14 , 1990 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters . APPEAL of Cornell University , Owner / Appellant , Arthur G . Stiers , Agent , requesting the special approval of the Board of Appeals , pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a 30 - foot by 18 - foot " Gas Cylinder Storage Dock " , proposed to be located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 , in the Cornell Orchards area on Palm Road adjacent to the General Stores Warehouse . APPEAL of Vinay and Saga Ambegaokar , Owners /Appellants , Ted Bronsnick , Agent , requesting the approval of or the grant of a building height variance with respect to the construction of a one- story , two - car , detached garage , set back five feet from the road right of way , at 3 Sugarbush Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 61 - 1 - 14 . 5 , Residence District R- 15 . The average natural slope of the subject property exceeds an 8 per cent fall at the road right of way line resulting in a building height for said proposed garage of 19 feet 10 inches . Article IV , Section 13 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance limits the height of detached garages to 15 feet unless the natural slope of a property exceeds an 8 per cent fall directly from the street line ( not road right of way ) , in which case said Ordinance limits the height to only one story , which may be presumed to be greater than 15 feet in height . APPEAL of Glenn F . Hubbell , Owner /Appellant , requesting variance of the requirements of Article V , Sections 18 and 19 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the operation of an antiques and second hand goods shop in an Agricultural District at 1308 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 14 . 1 , ( Residence District R- 30 requlations apply ) . Said Ordinance does not permit antique and second hand businesses in a residential district . APPEAL of Chase Farm Associates , Owner / Appellant , Harrison Rue , Agent , requesting the special approval of the Board of Appeals , pursuant to Article IV , Section 12 , Paragraph 3 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the continuation of the use of a residential property , located at 108 Ridgecrest Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 and - 5 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 , for business purposes with respect to the development of a residential area . ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ( adjourned from October 10 , 1990 ) , under Article XIV , Section 77 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for an interpretation by the Board of Appeals of Article VII , Section 35 , of said Ordinance to determine if any uses permitted in Business Districts " A " , " B " , and " C " may be permitted in a Business District " D " , and further , to determine what sales / uses may be customarily encompassed within a gasoline sales station . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , . and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273 - 1747 IDated : November 6 , 1990 Publish : November 9 , 1990 ANDREE PETROLEUM 684 Third Street , P . 0 . Box 641 Ithaca , New York 14851 September 28 , 1990 u Q• Mr . Andy Frost Town of Ithaca �J 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , New York 14850 Dear Andy : In response to our phone conversation on Friday , September 21 , 1990 . The enclosed sketch is the proposed layout for the building at our East Hill Gasoline Station . A 30 ' X 20 ' or smaller building will be used . This is not intended to be a convenience store . There will be no deli and no beer . The following list will give you an idea of the type of products we want to sell : automotive products ( motor oil , dry gas , antifreeze , windshield wash , snowbrushes , ice scrapers ) , cigarettes , soda , juice , coffee , candy , gum , chips , cookies , peanuts , newspapers , ice . . . . these items will be consumed immediately after purchase . If you have any questions , please give me a call . Sincerely , Robert P . Andree RPA : sb Enclosure : 1 I I : 1 I 1 I 1 i I ' _ i i I i l I I I , I : I \ � - i , : • I TO ;d c \ ` I ON - l - --- i r IL I I . i I 1 , I I I ! I I • 1 i I I I ! SURVEY of SELF- SERVE GAS STATIONS in the ITHACA AREA 1 . Bell ' s - self serve / C - store 2 . Hess - self serve / gas , cigarettes , automotive , soda machine 3 . A- Plus , Rt . 13 - self serve / C - store 4 . Chuck ' s Mobil - self serve / C - store 5 . Sunoco , Rt . 13 - self and full serve / repairs , soda , automotive , cigarettes 6 . Jay St . Mobil - self serve / repairs , soda , snacks , cigarettes 7 . A- Plus , Green St . - self serve / C - store 8 . Wm . Chin , Varna - self serve / repairs , C - store 9 . Jim ' s Place - self serve / C - store 10 . Rogans - self serve / C - store 11 . Sunoco , Rt . 96B - self serve / C - store 12 . Triphammer Mobil - self serve / repairs , soda , candy, cigarettes , snacks 13 . Triphammer Sunoco - self and full serve / car rental , soda machine 14 . Corners Mobil - self serve / C - store 15 . Corners Sunoco - self serve / repairs , soda machine , candy Goo K Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 9 , 1974 10 : 00 A . M . PRESENT : Vice -Chairman Laurene Ripley , Roger Sovocool , Jack Hewett , Ed Austen , David Cowan (Assistant to the Zoning Officer ) . The Zoning Board of Appeals met to act upon the request of the Planning Board at a meeting of the Planning Board held on the 2Gth day of February , 1974 , for an interpretation of the present Zoning Ordinance regarding the placing of a retail store in a Light Industrial District . After discussion , it was MOVED by Mrs . Ripley and seconded by Mr . Sovocool : The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals interprets .. the present Zoning Ordinance to allow within Light Industrial Districts any lawful use allowed in the more restrictive zones , with the exception of dwellings . ��-L, � � r""� • �� Aye - Ripley , Sovocool , Hewett , Austen. Nay - None . The Motion was carried unanimously . " BROUGHT TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 171 19761 ( in connection with Bell '. s Grocery request for gasoline Island ) RE-AFFIRMED ON THAT DATE . N . M . F . ( Secretary ) r Excerpt from Minutes of Planning Board Meeting held on February 26 , 1974 PRESENT : Chairman Barbara Holcomb , Robert Scannell , Daniel Baker , Robert Christianson , Sam Slack , Nancy Fuller ( Sec . ) ABSENT : Arnold Albrecht , John Lowe , Maurice Harris MOTION by Mr . Sam Slack , seconded by Robert Scannell . r RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca request from the Zoning Board of Appeals ` an interpretation of the present Zoning Ordinance regarding the placing of a retail store in a Light Industrial District . We refer them particularly to Article VIII , page 17 , Light Industrial Districts , and Article X . page . 2.0 , Industrial Products . The land in question is presently zoned Light Industrial . All in favor . Motion carried unanimously . ANDREE PETROLEUM 684 Third Street , P . 0 . Box 641 Ithaca , New York 14851 September 28 , 1990 Mr . Andy Frost Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , New York 14850 Dear Andy : In response to our phone conversation on Friday , September 21 , 1990 . The enclosed sketch is the proposed layout for the building at our East Hill Gasoline Station . A 30 ' X 20 ' or smaller building will be used . This is not intended to be a convenience store . There will be no deli and no beer . The following list will give you an idea of the type of products we want to sell : automotive products ( motor oil , dry gas , antifreeze , windshield wash , snowbrushes , ice scrapers ) , cigarettes , soda , juice , coffee , candy , gum , chips , cookies , peanuts , newspapers , ice . . . . these items will be consumed immediately after purchase . If you have any questions , please give me a call . Sincerely , Robert P . Andree RPA : sb Enclosure I I p k I _C _ I I I I --- ------ - •- -- L . ... .: I Ol FL lk! : I I I I i i f t , I I rr - I I I I I I I i I i I 0A ' I i I I k I 1 r I r ' I IrI t I I r I I I I I j r I I ; I r , I , ' I SURVEY of SELF- SERVE GAS STATIONS in the ITHACA AREA � . Bell ' s - self serve / C - store 2 . Hess - self serve / gas , cigarettes , automotive , soda machine 3 . A- Plus , Rt . 13 - self serve / C - store 4 . Chuck ' s Mobil - self serve / C - store 5 . Sunoco , Rt . 13 - self and full serve / repairs , soda , automotive , cigarettes 6 . Jay St . Mobil - self serve / repairs , soda , snacks , cigarettes 7 . A- Plus , Green St . - self serve / C - store 8 . Wm . Chin , Varna - self serve / repairs , C - store 9 . Jim ' s Place - self serve / C - store 10 . Rogans - self serve / C - store 11 . Sunoco , Rt . 96B - self serve / C - store 12 . Triphammer Mobil - self serve / repairs , soda , candy, cigarettes , snacks 13 . Triphammer Sunoco - self and full serve / car rental , soda machine 14 . Corners Mobil - self serve / C - store 15 . Corners Sunoco - self serve / repairs , soda machine , candy GOO x Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 9 , 1974 10 : 00 A . M . PRESENT : Vice -Chairman Laurene Ripley , Roger Sovocool , Jack Hewett , Ed Austen , David Cowan (Assistant to the Zoning Officer ) . The Zoning Board of Appeals met to act upon the request of the Planning Board at a meeting of the Planning Board held on r the 2Gth day of February , 1974 , for an interpretation of the present Zoning Ordinance regarding the placing of a . retail store in a Light Industrial District . After discussion , it was MOVED by Mrs . Ripley and seconded by Mr . Sovocool : The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals interprets .. the present Zoning Ordinance to allow within Light Industrial Districts any lawful use allowed in the more restrictive zones , with the exception of dwellings . Aye - Ripley , Sovocool , Hewett , Austen . Nay - None . The Motion was carried . unanimously . BROUGHT TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 17 , 1976 , ( in connection with Bell '. s Grocery request for gasoline Island ) RE-AFFIRMED ON THAT DATE . N . M . F . ( Secretary ) n r Excerpt from Minutes of Planning Board Meeting held on February 26 , 1974 PRESENT : Chairman Barbara Holcomb , Robert Scannell , Daniel Baker , Robert Christianson , Sam Slack , Nancy Fuller ( Sec . ) ABSENT : Arnold Albrecht , John Lowe , Maurice Harris MOTION by Mr . Sam Slack , seconded by Robert Scannell . RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca request from the Zoning Board of Appeals ` an interpretation of the present Zoning Ordinance regarding the placing of a retail store in a Light Industrial District . We refer them particularly to Article VIII , page 17 , Light Industrial Districts , and Article X . page . 20 , Industrial Products . The land in question is presently zoned Light Industrial . All in favor . Motion carried unanimously . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , OCTOBER 10 , 1990 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , Octoll )er 10 , 1990 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters . APPEAL of Judith B . MacIntire , Appellant , Ralph W . Nash , Esq . , Agent , requesting variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the operation of a " Bed and Breakfast " facility for up to a maximum of four boarders and / or lodgers , proposed to be located in an existing single - family residence at 217 Eastern Heights Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel. No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 126 , Residence District R- 15 , Said Ordinance permits only one boarder in a single - family home . APPEAL of Cornell University , Appellant , Joseph M . Lalley , Agent , requesting a modification of the Special Approval granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on July 30 , 1985 , for the Cornell University Maintenance and Service Operations Garage . The requested modification is the installation of above - ground fuel storage tanks within the area of the Maintenance and Service Operations Garage located off NYS Rte . 366 on Cornell University ' s Palm Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 . The modification of the Special Approval is requested under Article V , Section 18 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . APPEAL of Ithaca College , Appellant , Trowbridge Associates , Agent , requesting the Special Approval of the Board of Appeals , under Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed relocation of a portion of the existing Ithaca College main campus road and the construction of a new automobile parking lot . Ithaca College is located at 953 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Ithaca College , Appellant , HOLT Architects , Agent , requesting the Special Approval of the Board of Appeals , under Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a new academic science building to be located on the Ithaca College Campus north of Williams Hall , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . In addition , a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 10 , of said Ordinance is requested , to permit a building height of 60 feet , as measured from the lowest point at exterior grade to the highest point on the roof line , 30 feet being the permitted height . ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING , under Article XIV , Section 77 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ord nance , for an interpretation by the Board of Appeals of Article VII , Section 35 , of said Ordinance to determine if any uses ermitted in Business Districts " A " " B " ' P , , and C may be permitted in a Business District " D " . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273 - 1747 Dated : October 2 , 1990 Publish : October 5 , 1990 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT 01' POSTING AND PUBLICATION If Jean H . Swartwood , being duly sworn , depose and say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York ; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the Sign Board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper , The Ithaca Journal . Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hallr 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca New York on Wednesday , October 10 1990 commencing at 7 : 00 P . M . , as per attached Location of Sign Board used for Posting : Located at front entrance of Town Hall . Date of Posting : October 2 , 1990 Date of Publication : October 5 , 1990 Jean H . Swartwood , Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9th day of October , 1990 . c .� Notary Public LEAH 8. CARPENTER Notary Public, State of New York Oualified in Tompkins Co. Na 47971 My Commission Expires April 30. 19 t YWRI, : It _VV i At A A _ el k tia `Jourrla1 ' Friday , October 5 , 1990 tit a r t Y I 2 ' q T ,y f^' iat�s . , • , AV pellont , HOLT ... A'rchitecti, Agent, requesting the Special Approval of the. Board of Ap- peals, under Ahicle•• IV, Sec,-, lion 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance;'.' ' for - the proposed construction of � a new academic science ' build- ing to be located on the Ithaca College' Campus north of 'Wil- liams Hall , Town of Ithoco Tax Parcel No. 6-41 - 1 -30. 2, iResi- dence District R- 15. In - .addi-tion, a variance from there- n , , +" quirements of ' Article ;IV, i { k.JOWN1, OF ITHACA ZONING Section 11 , Paragraph 10; of BOARD OF APPEALS said Ordinance is ' re uested, ?S~ a dr�r-NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS to permit a building height of t. , i' 'AWED OCT.- 10, 1990, 7P. M. 60 feet, as, meosured from ' the t = B direction of the Chairman lowest point at exterior grade ; ' of „the", Zoning Board of Ap- to the highest point on the 'lr peals • NOTICE IS HEREBY roof line„ 30 feet ' being the % + �� +' GIVENLthat , Public Hearings permitted . height. ( �, I .will beheld by ithe Zoning ADMINISTRATIVE •'v: HEARING, `a� F &; Board of;'Appea s of the Town under Article XIV, Section 77, "?, C ' , 1!av;of ' Ifhaco 'on Wednesday, Oc- oUthe Town of Ithaca Zoning tsO, sober ^ f,i 990, in Town Hall , Ordinance, for an interprets- } 1,126 East, Seneco Street, (FIRST lion by the Board of Appeals 14FIo'or,.laREAR": Entronce, WEST of Article VII, Section 35, of pp . Side);"PiIthoca;+� N. Y., COM- said Ordinance to determine if j!*'-;MENCING, AT •7:00 P. M. , on . any uses permitted in Business the following' matters. Districts A", : "B", and i'C" i �!. APPEAL`of."Judith B. Maclntire, � may be permitted in a Busi- Appeliorit, tRalph W. Nosh, Hess District "D". t+"1-Es , 1, onto, re uestin vari- Said Zoning oard of Appeals IL -'Z ce of!rythe^requirements of g 1�-y'. + q will of said time, 7 :00 . m . , ;„ . ArticlehlV+, Section I1 , of the p i t -. and said place, hear all per- ,Town;.of Ithaca Zoning Ordi- sons in support of such matters trance, 'to erm !t the operation - p pp or objections thereto: Persons 'ofA . "Bed and Breakfast” fa- may appear by agent or in " III for u, pp to a ,maximum of `` four boar orrs'and/or lodgers, Person . Andrew S. Frost loroposed toRbe .locoted in an ,L , Building Inspector/Zoning existing .; single-family resi- Enforcement Officer T� �fAbnce att217,•Eaitern . Heights Town of Ithaca ? ; 1Jrive Town"of Ithaca Tax Par- 273-1747 !�� 'cel 4No r:6-57- 1 -8. 126, Resi- October 5, 1990 1Ti Bence District R=15. Said Ordi- _ V" ',permits only one " boarder, 'in . o ', single-family ,a= home ' r WAPPEA&of Cornell University, y i 11rAppelloni!;rJoseph,, M. Lalley, rAganki;'Atequesting•o modifico-. ! `;_honWof athe�Special , Approval ; granted;byy theeZoriing Board ,�.off�Apppeolsr6n •July 30, 1985 v:for mthe:3iCornelI,' , University Maintenonce and Service Op- - ^,: erohons Garoge.: The request- -_r, ed'modifi,' tion is the installo- ` -n 1` ; `tion of*?'above-ground fuel storoge ,tanks within the area the Mdintenonce and Serv- . Operctions i 'Garage lo- LiJ _ ( � cu'ated off NYS Rte 366 on Cor- ^° 1 Vv ;nell + Untversity, ,srPalm Road, N Town ofilthoco Tax :Parcel No. L ' .&-04l -2 '•Residence' District R- R• z I�,;530vThe,'moddicahon of the � i �,Special 'Approval , is requested ' + `under Article. V , Section 18, of GYP tfie Town offl'thaco`Zoning Or- ' dinonce: - , - t + ;APPEAL ofdthaco College, Ap- nA. � p s e11 nt-' rowk i!dge Asso- '.V Lr , dates;=Agent, requesting the + Special •Approvol;of 'the Board Appeals,: under Article IV, 1 tSedion. ,11 , of,,:the., Town of ' { ' Ithaca on in _, for' 1( Iskthe proposed relocation of a the 9, + "rCollegge fma n campusltrood t ' rind the construction of a new •`automobile perking lot. Ithaca ) ; College ' 4 located ai .953 Dan- n ,,:;• . , :by Rodd, ' Town of Ithaca Tax -No, '.ok6-41 - 1 -30. 2, Rest- u t dence'D'istrict+R= 15. y +APPEAL of,lthoco College, Ap- a TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , OCTOBER 101 1990 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , Octol0er 10 , 1990 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters . APPEAL of Judith B . MacIntire , Appellant , Ralph W . Nash , Esq . , Agent , requesting variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the operation of a " Bed and Breakfast " facility for up to a maximum of four boarders and /or lodgers , proposed to be located in an existing single - family residence at 217 Eastern Heights Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel. No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 126 , Residence District R- 15 , Said Ordinance permits only one boarder in a single - family home . APPEAL of Cornell University , Appellant , Joseph M . Lalley , Agent , requesting a modification of the Special Approval granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on July 30 , 1985 , for the Cornell University Maintenance and Service Operations Garage . The requested modification is the installation of above - ground fuel storage tanks within the area of the Maintenance and Service Operations Garage located off NYS Rte . 366 on Cornell University ' s Palm Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 . The modification of the Special Approval is requested under Article V , Section 18 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . APPEAL of Ithaca College , Appellant , Trowbridge Associates , Agent , requesting the Special Approval of the Board of Appeals , under Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed relocation of a portion of the existing Ithaca College main campus road and the construction of a new automobile parking lot . Ithaca College is located at 953 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Ithaca College , Appellant , HOLT Architects , Agent , requesting the Special Approval of the Board of Appeals , under Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a new academic science building to be located on the Ithaca College Campus north of Williams Hall , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . In addition , a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 10 , of said Ordinance is requested , to permit a building height of 60 feet , as measured from the lowest point at exterior grade to the highest point on the roof line , 30 feet being the permitted height . ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING , under Article XIV , Section 77 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for an interpretation by the Board of Appeals of Article VII , Section 35 , of said Ordinance to determine if any uses permitted in Business Districts " A " , " B " , and " C " may be permitted in a Business District " D " . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273 - 1747 Dated : October 2 , 1990 Publish : October 5 , 1990 r . AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE' BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY 01' TOMPKINS ) Dani L . Holford , being duly sworn , deposes and says , that deponent is not a party to the actions , is over 21 years of age and resides at 2687 County Road 139 , Ovid , NY 14521 . That the 2nd day of October , 1990 , deponent served the within Notice upon : Judith Maclntire Ralph W . Nash , Esq . 217 Eastern Heights Drive 115 West Green Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Jay Bramhandkar Richard & Ann Schissel 2303 Triphammer Road 214 Tudor Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Rada Panic Miriam Seegar 221 Eastern Heights Drive 212 Tudor Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Roger & Kathryn Hubbs John & Marie Sanderson 106 Sky - vue Road 210 Tudor Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 John & Phyllis MacAulay Phyllis Moen 215 Eastern Heights Drive - 218 Eastern Heights Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Richard & Virginia Lovelace Patrick & Judith Hughes 213 Eastern Heights Drive 220 Eastern Heights Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Loren & Janelle Tauer Frank & Cheryl Smith 211 Eastern Heights Drive 104 Sky - vue Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Eric & J . Margo Grat John & Josephine Churey 216 Tudor Road 216 Eastern Heights Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Valentin & 'Tamara Boriakoff Robert & Roberta Kohut 219 'Tudor Road 214 Eastern Heights Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Town of Ithaca Jean & Yvonne Leroy Jean Swartwood , Clerk 212 Eastern Heights Drive 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 John E . Majeroni , CU Joseph Lalley III Real Estate Department Manager 20 Thornwood Drive , # 103 Humphreys Service Building Ithaca , NY 14850 Cornell University Ithaca , NY 14853 Shirley K . Egan , CU Lewis S . Roscoe , CU Assoc . Univ . Council Dir . / Campus Planning 500 Day Hall 102 Humphreys Service Bldg , Ithaca , NY 14853 Ithaca , NY 14853 't 4 Ati 2 Peggy Waldbridge Nancy Krook 1561 Ellis Hollow Road 113 Pine Tree Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Diane Welch Robin Seeley 407 Mitchell Street 332 Hurd Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Peggy Robinson Cindy Sherman 324 Mitchell Street 3 Snyder Heights Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 114850 Maurice Dusky Helen Griffin Ellis Hollow Road Apts . Ellis Hollow Road Apts . 1028 Ellis Hollow Road 1028 Ellis Hollow Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Town of Dryden Ronald Lane , PE Suzanne Lloyd , Clerk Dormitory Authority of NYS 65 East Main Street 161 Delaware Avenue Dryden , NY 13053 Delmar , NY 12054 - 1398 Tom Salm , Vice President Peter Trowbridge Business Affairs / Administration Trowbridge Associates Job Hall 1345 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca College Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Robert O ' Brian Ronald Lane , PE HOLT Architects Dormitory Authority of NYS 217 North Aurora Street 161 Delaware Avenue Ithaca , NY 14850 Delmar , NY 12054 - 1398 Ithaca College NYSEG Treasurer Real Estate Department Danby Road Rts 13 & 366 Ithaca , NY 14850 P . O . Box 287 Ithaca , NY 14851 S . & J . Reuning Ithaca College F . Butler Budget Office 929 Danby Road Danby Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Benjamin & Vivian Ellis Town of Ithaca 919 Danby Road Jean Swartwood , Clerk Ithaca , NY 14850 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 John Dix Wayman Vincent Giordano 91 `1 Dariby Road 602 Hancock Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Jane Ames Peter & Patricia Stage 915 Danby Road 923 Danby Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 Callista Paolangeli , Clerk Eric Datz , Bldg . Comm . City of Ithaca City of Ithaca 108 E . Green Street 108 East Green Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 James W . Hanson , Jr . Commissioner of Ping . Biggs Building A 301 Dates Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 3 - By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper , in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York . ' O G� Dani L . Holfor Sworn to before me this 9th day of October , 1990 Notary Public SW of Now YA Q TOmpktas Ca too. 447W" OORII"m E*ft ft 28. 19E � TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , OCTOBER 10 , 1990 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , October 10 , 1990 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters . APPEAL of Judith B . MacIntire , Appellant , Ralph W . Nash , Esq . , Agent , requesting variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the operation of a " Bed and Breakfast " facility for up to a maximum of four boarders and / or lodgers , proposed to be located in an existing single - family residence at 217 Eastern Heights Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 126 , Residence District R- 15 , Said Ordinance permits only one boarder in a single - family home . APPEAL of Cornell University , Appellant , Joseph M . Lalley , Agent , requesting a modification of the Special Approval granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on July 30 , 1985 , for the Cornell University Maintenance and Service Operations Garage . The requested modification is the installation of above - ground fuel storage tanks within the area of the Maintenance and Service Operations Garage located off NYS Rte . 366 on Cornell University ' s Palm Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 64 - 1 - 2 , Residence District R- 30 . The modification of the Special Approval is requested under Article V . Section 18 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . APPEAL of Ithaca College , Appellant , Trowbridge Associates , Agent , requesting the Special Approval of the Board of Appeals , under Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed relocation of a portion of the existing Ithaca College main campus road and the construction of a new automobile parking lot . Ithaca College is located at 953 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Ithaca College , Appellant , HOLT Architects , Agent , requesting the Special Approval of the Board of Appeals , under Article IV , Section 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed construction of a new academic science building to be located on the Ithaca College Campus north of Williams Hall , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . In addition , a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 10 , of said Ordinance is requested , to permit a building height of 60 feet , as measured from the lowest point at exterior grade to the highest point on the roof line , 30 feet being the permitted height . ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING , under Article XIV , Section 77 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for an interpretation by the Board of Appeals of Article VII , Section 35 , of said Ordinance to determine if any uses permitted in Business Districts " A " , " B " , and " C " may be permitted in a Business District " D " . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273 - 1747 Dated : October 2 , 1990 Publish : October 5 , 1990