Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1987-04-23 177 TOWN OF ITHACA SPECIAL BOARD MEETING April 23 , 1987 At a Special Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , held at the Town Offices at 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 12 : 00 noon , on the 23rd day of April , 1987 , there were : • PRESENT : Noel Desch , Supervisor Henry McPeak , Councilman Shirley Raffensperger , Councilwoman Marc Cramer , Councilman Gloria Howell , Councilwoman Robert Bartholf , Councilman ABSENT : Patricia Leary , Councilwoman ALSO PRESENT : Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer Robert Barney , Town Attorney Edward Hallbert , 310 West State Street Torn Niederkorn , 310 West State Street Norbert Schickel , 4B , Wildflower Drive Representatives of the Media : James Anderson , WITO PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Supervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance . LOCAL LAW NO . 8 - 1987 Motion by Councilman McPeak ; seconded by Councilwoman Howell , LOCAL LAW NO . 8 - 1987 ANNEXING CERTAIN PROPERTY ALONG EAST SHORE DRIVE FROM THE CITY OF ITHACA TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA SECTION 1 . There is hereby annexed to the Town of Ithaca from the City of Ithaca the property described below , which property shall , on and after the effective date of this section , be a part of and an addition to the territory presently contained within the boundaries of the Town of Ithaca . The property hereby annexed is described as • follows : ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL, OF LAND situate in the City of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , and being approximately described as follows : COMMENCING at the intersection of the east line of the Conrail right-of-way which east line is the boundary between the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca as presently located and which point of beginning is on or adjacent to the west line of East Shore Drive at a point approximately 1 , 320 feet northerly along said westerly line from its intersection with the northwesterly line of the Route 13 overpass ; running thence on a slight curve to l75 Town Board 2 April 23 , 1987 the right along the easterly line of said Conrail right-of-way ( formerly the Lehigh Valley Railroad) a total distance of approximately 1 , 135 feet to a point where the current boundary line between the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca turns directly southbound along the former west line of North Cayuga Street extended to the north , which point is also a westerly corner of premises shown as Tax Parcel No . 18-2-11 in the Town of Ithaca , and a northerly corner of Tax Parcel No . 2-2-4 in the City of Ithaca , running thence northerly across the aforementioned Conrail right-of-way and on a line sufficiently westerly to encompass all of the land areas adjacent to the Conrail line a distance of approximately 1 , 110 feet to the north line of the City of Ithaca and a south line of the Town of Ithaca in Cayuga Lake ; running • thence easterly along said boundary line a distance of approximately 110 feet to the point or place of beginning . It is the intention to annex those parperties shown generally as City of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos . 1-1-2 , 1-1-3 , 1-1-51 1 -1-71 1-1-81 1-1-9 , 1-1-10 , 1-1-11 , 1-1-12 , 1-1-13 , 1-1-14 , and adjacent areas of Cayuga Lake , Section 2 . The territory described in Section 1 of this Local Law is hereby annexed to the Town of Ithaca pursuant to the provisions of Section 714 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York , Section 3 . The description contained in Section 1 of this Local Law is subject to being corrected and being made more precise by an accurate survey and monumenting pursuant to Section 717 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York . Section 4 . This Local Law shall take effect upon the filing of the same in the Office of the Secretary of State . Supervisor Desch called for a roll call vote . Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye Councilman Cramer Voting Aye Councilwoman Howell Voting Aye Councilman McPeak Voting Aye Councilwoman Raffensperger Voting Aye Supervisor Desch Voting Aye Local Law No . 8 - 1987 , was thereupon declared duly adopted . • EASTWOOD COMMONS RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND BY-LAWS Supervisor Desch asked Town Attorney Barney to lead the Board through the Restrictive Covenants and By-Laws . Town Attorney Barney stated that he had a couple of questions to ask Mr . Schickel . He asked Mr . Schickel if the corporation (Eastwood Commons II Residence ) had been formed? Mr . Norbert Schickel responded no . 173 Town Board 3 April 23 , 1987 Town Attorney Barney asked if the name had been reserved , noting that Mr . Schickel has an Eastwood Commons Residence Corporation now? Mr . Schickel stated that they had talked to the Attorney General and the name will be slightly modified from this , it will be Eastwood Commons II Residents Association of Ithaca . This is acceptable . Town Attorney Barney questioned , to the Secretary of State ? Mr . Schickel responded , yes . • Town Attorney Barney noted the other question he had was , as he understood it , you plan on doing a lot by lot subdivision . Mr . Schickel remarked , building by building . Attorney Barney continued , in Phase I you had a plot plan for ten buildings , when you did your common areas in the declaration , you had common areas for all of the phase , exclusive of the ten buildings . Mr . Schickel explained that in Phase I and II we did it lot by lot . Attorney Barney questioned , in this you are planning on doing it lot by lot? Mr . Schickel responded that correct , basically lot by lot . Supervisor Desch remarked , not building by building? Mr . Schickel responded , building by building or lot by lot but not individual unit by unit . Mr . Barney is using the term lot and we use the term building . Attorney Barney went on to say , when you define , or your definitions here between Class I and Class II lots , will you have any Class II lots ? Mr . Schickel responded , if we build a six unit building , that will be six lots and if two of them were sold they would be Class I lots . John Barney remarked that Class II lots doesn ' t include the other 62 building or units that you have proposed . Mr . Schickel responded no , only to the extent that we have annexed , in other words when we annex a portion of ground with a say six unit building and the surrounding , before the first unit is conveyed we are going to annex that to the Residents Association that will be six units of the six if two of them were sold . Let ' s just take another example , if two were sold and one was occupied , rental or whatever , then those three would be Class I lots and the Class II lots would be the ones that we still own . He went on to • say that really , it ' s the same as what we have done all along . Town Attorney Barney responded , except there is an interplay here which he stated that he was not quite sure he followed . Number one I don ' t see anything here saying you are going to commit other areas to the declaration . Your definition of land has no definition at all or description at all . He stated that he assumed Mr . Schickel was going to describe there the first six units lot or area around the first six unit building . The Town Attorney asked if there could be something put in that says that as additional 171 Town Board 4 April 23 , 1987 buildings are built , in accordance to the subdivision plans , those areas will be annexed? Mr . Schickel responded no it doesn ' t but it gives the right to do it , it doesn ' t obligate us to do it . Town Attorney Barney responded , that ' s now getting into a policy determination for enforcing it , but he stated that he thought that the understanding that had been through all the approval process is that the entire subdivision would be subject to these declarations . Mr . Schickel responded you don ' t apply the covenants to the whole property because there are uncertainties in life , in other words if • we were to make a change it has to come back to you but the fact is this property is approved for these units and this association and we have the right to annex them . Conceivably , although not likely , that changes totally unexpectedly and unforseen may happen and maybe you decide you don ' t want to build them . Or lets say that totally something different happens . Town Attorney Barney stated that he could see what Mr . Schickel was saying , but asked if there shouldn ' t be scene affirmative statement here as to as you build and in accordance with your present plans , that the Town Planning Board has said , there will be a dedication of each of the areas . Mr . Schickel responded , no question , as we build according to this plan , he stated that he felt it already said this . It says that we have the right to annex and what you want to do is to tie into this plan for modification . The Town Attorney stated that basically it was a promise . It ' s a pranise for the people who buy the first six units that you will continue as mare units are built that they will be subject to the same requirements and responsibilities that were imposed on the first six units . Mr . Schickel responded , only the part that has been annexed . We do not want to and the Attorney General might object if , for instance , we made a commitment and then didn ' t do that for sane reason . So he stated that what they can count on is that as this thing is developed they will be annexed to the property . There is a limitation , I think , as to how far we would want to go in say . Obviously we intend to do it . Take as an example in the original plan , J could not have perhaps forseen that we would want a second residence association . But the fact is , if we had put that kind of language in there it could have been a problem . The Town Attorney stated that he recommends that the Board do it in such a way that would permit a subsequent change if there is a subsequent change in circumstances that brings Mr . Schickel back to have the plan modified . He went on to say , but in absence of change what the assurance that seems to be there is that as these units are being built , in accordance with the plans that everyone has seen and followed there will be dedication . • Mr . Schickel stated that he felt this was implicit . The Town Attorney stated to Mr . Schickel that it may be implicit in his mind but it is not implicit in your document , The document is very clear that you have the option , it is not a requirement . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Schickel how the membership worked? When you are doing this lot by lot you have a Class A membership which is one vote per lot , for the owners , then you have a Class B membership which gives the Class B member three votes for each lot t69 Town Board 5 April 23 , 1987 owned . You have a six unit building that is all sold out , you now have six owners and that ' s annexed , at that juncture you have no Class B members at all . Mr . Schickel , responded that ' s right . Just to take history , we have never exercised more than one vote in the whole time of Eastwood Cmmns , we have that power and if there was a reason to do so we could do it but we never have . Fran day one , we have only exercised one vote because we are trying to get the people involved and make it there own . But it does , in the early stages , permit the developer to control the project . Town Attorney Barney replied that he guesses he understands , but • when you look at page 8 when you talk about the time that Class B membership ends , it ' s when the total number of votes outstanding in the Class A membership equal the total votes outstanding in the Class B membership , if you have one six unit building that building is sold out and you haven ' t at that point started or annexed anything else , from that point on there is no longer any Class B membership . Mr . Schickel responded that he did not read it that way . He stated that he read it to say that unless you annex same more than there is Class B membership . In other words , if you are at that moment , at that moment there aren ' t any Class B but it cones back into play again . The Town Attorney stated that it reads " shall be converted to Class A on the happening of either of the following events , which ever occurs earlier , when the total votes outstanding in Class A membership equal the total outstanding votes in Class B membership , he stated that he presumed that would happen when once half of your units --- Supervisor Desch remarked , that ' s half of sixty-six and your -- Town Attorney Barney replied , no . That ' s the way this is set up , it ' s half of six . Mr . Schickel remarked , we can clarify the language a little bit . My intention would be that it doesn ' t extinguish it at that point , in other words the Class B membership would be extinguished if the time frame elapsed or if in the given situation the relationship was ended . Town Attorney Barney remarked , you are contemplating kind of a death and revival of the Class B membership , as time passes ? Mr . Schickel responded , that ' s it . He stated that he was saying that the developer has a very important financial and otherwise stake in the total development and he has to have the ability to have some control as the thing is developed . So he stated that he wouldn ' t want that extinguished after the first building and it is not the intention . He went on to say that if the Town Attorney felt that the language did not say this then we will revise the • language so that it doesn ' t say that . Town Attorney Barney replied okay . Mr . Schickel replied , then you would want to revise the language to say , Class B membership shall cease and be converted to Class A membership at any time when the total votes outstanding in the Class A membership , equal the total votes outstanding in the Class B membership . He went on to say that he had to make it so that the Class B is revised when we annex . The advise that I get and incidentially it ' s provided in the FHA documents and I don ' t want 167 Town Board 6 April 23 , 1987 to reinvent the wheel and he stated that he felt we should be sure to have the proper control during the development stage . Town Attorney Barney asked if there had been a determination made of the base amount per lot , there is a blank on page 2 . Mr . Schickel replied no , that he did not have that amount yet . Supervisor Desch stated that he felt the number should be filled in before the Board approves it . Mr . Schickel stated that he did not see why the Town Board should approve the maintenance fee . He stated that he had no objections • and that if he had the number he would be glad to put it in . A lot of things are in sequence . The Town Attorney asked Mr . Schickel if he had a ballpark figure . Supervisor Desch suggested a not to exceed figure . Mr . Schickel responded , the base fee will be around $ 115 . 00 , lets say not to exceed $ 150 . 00 . Town Attorney Barney stated that he had a few more technical comments but he stated that he would pass them on to Mr . Schickel ' s attorney . However , he noted that he did have one more question , you do anticipate Federal Housing Administration financing? Mr . Schickel responded no . We left the provision in there because the markets change and we want to be prepared . We don ' t aniticipate using it , however . The Town Attorney remarked , it ' s limited to single family occupancy , but there is no definition of what a single family is . Mr . Schickel replied , you define single family in the ordinance . Town Attorney Barney replied , if you spell it out in a declaration of private document then therefore probably it ' s more forceable . Supervisor Desch suggested it should say in accordance with our current ordinance is how it should be spelled out . Mr . Schickel remarked , let ' s say we came up with a different definition then what you came up . Supervisor Desch remarked , these probably wouldn ' t be pass . Mr . Schickel stated that originally he was told the definition of a single family was no more than two unrelated people . He went on to say that then he was told that that had been changed but as far as he was concerned that is what he would like to see . our buyers want to know that the units will not become a roaming house . Town Attorney Barney replied that Mr . Schickel could be more • restrictive than the Town . Town Attorney Barney noted that in some of the other multiple residence situations there is a limitation on the number of years that the property can be rented out as opposed to occupancy by the owner in a given period of time . Mr . Schickel stated that he wouldn ' t like to put that in . This is a private home and you should be able to do what you would do in a private hare . Certainly we have had scans units that have been rented but it has never been an issue . First of all , it ' s not X65 Town Board 7 April 23 , 1987 economically feasible as a rental property . He stated that to take away peoples right to use their property would be a mistake . Supervisor Desch questioned if these units were generally two bedroan? Mr . Schickel responded , generally two bedrooms with a study . There are a few that have a third bedroom . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she had a question about the conversation that took place about page 8 and the Class B memberships , she stated that she was not sure she understood what exactly was intended . Is the intent that the Class A membership • would equal the total votes outstanding in the Class B potential membership? In other words , there is approved a lot more units approved than will be built in the first one , when six are completed , there are six Class A but out there potentially are thirty-six Class B , potentially approved , is that the intent? Town Attorney Barney responded that what he understood Mr . Schickel to be saying , what he would like to have operate , you see the problem of these covenants apply only initially a very small portion of that subdivision , so that definition of lots only relates to units in that small area . For example , if we are dealing with the first building which is six units there are six lots in there and initially because Eastwood Commons are building it those lots are all Class B lots , they haven ' t been sold yet . Sell one you now have one Class A and five Class B and that continues under this formula so long as two of the six units are still unsold since each unit has three votes as a Class B membership they would have more votes than the other four units that had been sold to owners . But if the building sells out , and no additional land has been made subject to these declarations at that point you no longer have a Class B membership , for the moment . Fran what Mr . Schickel is saying , under those circumstances , when he builds his next building which may be eight unit , six or four , whatever is permitted , again you count the numbers at that point which include the first six plus now , four more units which are under construction , four times three is twelve so again now you would have a Class B membership which would have a majority . If they have an election for their directors when there are not Class B members they may not have have the control they want . Mr . Schickel remarked that they have very little incentive to maintain a big Class B membership , first of all because we don ' t use it normally and secondly because we pay more like in the initial stage where we annexed the whole forty and started paying maintenance fees on lots that didn ' t have any buildings on them or anything . We were paying lots of money and it was killing us so there isn ' t a lot of incentive but it does give you the safety that if for some reason there was need to retain control you could do it . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that now that she understands what Mr . Schickel means to do , it was very unclear . • Supervisor Desch questioned , when you speak of annexation you are referring to annexing only units within Phase III , is that right? Mr . Schickel responded , that is correct . There is an area that is defined that is eligible for annexation . It includes the area of Phase III and the other lots between Eastwood Commons and the houses on Honness Lane which are not approved by you . We would need to get this approved , but it is a possible future area which could be incorporated . It is important if it might be annexed to X63 Town Board 8 April 23 , 1987 include it . Once the thing is launched you really can ' t cane back and do it . Supervisor Desch asked about the annexation of lands in the original development , the way I read this it doesn ' t prohibit the annexation of land already covered by the existing association . Mr . Schickel replied that it does prohibit this . The Town Attorney remarked that technically it probably does not preclude this . There should be a sentence excluding lands already covered by the covenants of Eastwood Commons , The Town Attorney noted that there was no provision for enforcement by the Town . Mr . Schickel agreed to this . Supervisor Desch stated that he had a problem with Section C , the definition of declarant , he stated that he had gotten confused after the first use of the word assigned and wondered why a period wouldn ' t be better and leave out the last clause . It seems to causes a conflict in the definition . Town Attorney Barney stated that it was a little vague but he thought what was intended was that right now Eastwood Commons Development Company or Eastwood Commons Building Corporation own all of these lots , if they chose to sell out the entire subdivision to another entity for the purpose of continuing the development , that entity would become the declarant . Supervisor Desch asked if this could not be dealt with in a separate sentence ? Town Attorney Barney responded , yes . Mr . Schickel asked the Supervisor what the problem was . Supervisor Desch stated that his concern was with the words if such successors or assigns should acquire more than one undeveloped lot from the declarant for the purpose of development . Town Attorney Barney suggested that a period be placed after Eastwood Commons Building Corporation and then start a new sentence . Mr . Schickel agreed to this . Supervisor Desch stated that he re timbered during the modifications to the local law that there were discussions about the plans for the use of the pavilion by members of the current association , he asked how that was provided for in the declaration ? Mr . Schickel replied that it was their intention to make a membership use available . He went on to say that he did not think they had spelled it out as that would cane in the Offering Plan . These people are buying the pavilion , in effect , the financing of • the pavilion is happening in Phase III so it ' s in their interest to also make it available to the Phase I people . He stated that he was very anxious to do that . Supervisor Desch remarked that if he were a potential buyer of a unit he would want to know that there will be others , other than myself . Mr . Schickel stated that he did not want to say that because he does not know . We have to be very careful not to misrepresent them that there will be others . He stated that what he wanted to do was 161 Town Board 9 April 23 , 1987 make it possible for the Phase I people to use it but that he could not promise the Phase II people that the Phase I people will use it . Mr . Schickel stated that the Offering Plan will have language about that , but he stated that he would not like to have it in the declaration . This is actually going to belong to Phase III . Town Attorney Barney asked if it is not included in the declaration , are you saying you are limiting it to the owners ? Mr . Schickel responded that it belonges to the owners of Phase III . Town Attorney John Barney responded , it belongs to the owners and the way the declaration in section 4 on page 4 reads , it basically says each owner shall have the right to use the pavilion . You are not providing any mechanism or even any possibility that it may be used by anybody else . Mr . Schickel responded that he thought they had included wording somewhere in the declaration . He went on to say that it really was their option , when you get right down to it , but it ' s in their interest to do it . Town Attorney Barney asked if a sentence could not be added , noting that the Association shall have the authority to permit others to use the pavilion under such rules and regulations in terms that the Association may determine . Supervisor Desch noted that there was no time limit in turning the pavilion over to the association . Mr . Schickel stated that he was not in a position to put a time on that . Supervisor Desch suggested that it be put on a time limit in regard to the number of units built . Mr . Schickel responded that the pavilion was a difficult thing to finance and so he needed to keep flexibility on that . He stated that he thought it was something that is really worth accomplishing and that he intended to accomplish it . Supervisor Desch asked the Town Planner is she had any comments as to when she felt the pavilion should be built? Town Planner Susan Beeners responded , no . Supervisor Desch noted that section 7 talks about property tax assessments and reads "unless such taxes are included in the individual residents tax assessment by the assessing authority , the State . . . . . Supervisor asked what the State referred to as there are only local taxes ? Mr . Schickel responded that he guessed it was just broad enough if the State ever had one . Supervisor Desch noting page 14 stated there was a reference to delinquency and the maximum prevailing rate of interest to be charged , what does that mean? Town Attorney Barney stated that he too had a question on this but assumed it would be considered a technical question . He stated that he assumed it was the judgement rate of interest . Prevailing rate can be something in excess of what usary would normally permit . 159 Town Board 10 April 23 , 1987 Mr . Schickel replied , that he did not think you would want it at the judgement rate because the judgement rate may be a lower rate than you can go to a bank for . Town Attorney Barney asked what prevailing rate was ? He stated that he could get banks today to quote you six different prevailing rates . Mr . Schickel responded , that maximmn legal rate of interest . Town Attorney Barney stated that he felt Mr . Schickel probably wanted to use the judgement rate which is 9 % now, it ' s not the highest but your purpose here is to breakeven , not make money . Supervisor Desch noted that page 15 , section 12 make reference to local public authority , he asked the Town Attorney if this encompasses local government? Town Attorney Barney responded , it wouldn ' t hurt to add the word municipality . Supervisor Desch questioned page 25 , section 1 under easements , he noted that it talked about encroachments in the case of a structure which is totally or partially destroyed and then rebuilt . He noted that there were a couple of things mixed in there but it makes reference to the owners of the residences so effected agree that minor encroachments on parts of the adjacents residents units or comnonland . . . . . . . . . . . . . shouldn ' t that read so effected agree that minor temporary encroachments . Town Attorney Barney replied that he thought , because you are using the building as the lot line , that if the building is burnt down you have a very small lot line to deal with and you put your new building up and it get moved over a foot by the contractor , or six inches , you have created a technical encroachment as a result of the construction and what he felt this was aimed to protect against somebody saying coming in and saying now move your building . He stated that he would like to suggest that the word units be changed to lots . Supervisor Desch went on to note page 26 , it talks about an easement which says "an easement is further granted to all police , fire protection , ambulances and all similar persons to enter upon the streets and common areas in the performance of their duties " . He stated that Town of Ithaca officials should also be added . Mr . Schickel agreed to this . Supervisor Desch remarked that that the next step was for the Town Attorney and Mr . Schickel to get together and redraft the declaration and covenants to include the changes in the language noted today . Town Attorney Barney asked if the Board wished to see the documents again , after the changes were made and did they wish to approve it subject to changes in the Class I and Class II lot definitions and any other technical changes ? Supervisor Desch asked the Board for their feelings . RESOLUTION NO , 96 Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger ; seconded by Councilman Bartholf , l57 Town Board 11 April 23 , 1987 RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve the Declaration of Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions and By-Law for Eastwood Commons subject to modifications to the Class I and Class II lot definitions and any other technical changes deemed necessary by the Town Attorney . (Desch , McPeak , Raffensperger , Cramer , Howell and Bartholf voting Aye . Nays - none ) . INTERSECTION LIGHTS RESOLUTION NO . 97 Motion by Supervisor Desch ; seconded by Councilman Cramer , WHEREAS , street lights are needed to sufficiently illuminate the following road intersections within the Town of Ithaca : 1 ) Pine Tree Road/N . Y . S . Rt . 79 2 ) Towerview Drive /N . Y . S . Rt . 79 3 ) Abbey Road/N . Y . S . Rt . 79 4 ) Terraceview Drive/Honness Lane 5 ) Fairway Drive/Warren Road 6 ) Sand Bank Road/N . Y . S . Rt . 13 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , to authorize the installation of the above six street lights as part of the Townwide intersection lighting policy , the locations to be determined by mutual consent of the Town , NYSDOT , and NYSEG . (Desch , McPeak , Raffensperger , Cramer , Howell and Bartholf voting Aye . Nays - none ) . - DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR DEER RUN SUBDIVISION Town Attorney Barney stated that Eastwood Commons and Deer Run Covenants and Restrictions were similar in contents , therefore , the same concerns he had with Eastwood Commons he now has with Deer Run . He went on to question the definition of a family , he asked if it was okay with them if a definition was included? Mr . Hallberg responded , this is okay . Town Planner Susan Bee ners asked if then , the occupancy would be restricted to what the Town considers is the definition of a family or what the Town permits in single family dwelling which is more than what is defined in a family . She noted that a family is still blood , marriage or adoption , at this time and a single family dwelling in an R-15 allows a family plus no more than two boarders or roomers or other occupants . Supervisor Desch stated that he felt the Board was looking at the • definition of a single family dwelling . Mr . Hallberg agreed . Town Attorney Barney stated that he had a question on phasing . He ` -- went on to say the Mr . Hallberg was talking about phasing this in several phases and whether the phasing and the definition of Class Be t53 Town Board 13 April 23 , 1987 that any improvements would pretty much be seeding and plantings . That work would commence even before the first unit is sold . In terms of completion , it would be completed , weather permitting , within the course of the 16 units . Town Attorney Barney wondered if it could be tied to a time frame after the sale of the first unit in each phase , that the common area in each phase will be completed in six months or a year . Mr . Hallberg replied , or tie it to the fact that the first unit in Phase III cannot be sold until the common area in Phase II is finished . He stated that he would rather not be stuck time wise , unless you make it very liberal like two years . He stated that he • would rather use weather , if he sells a unit in October then no , the grass will not be completed until the next April . If you want to make it a year , then fine . Town Attorney Barney remarked , wouldn ' t a year work? There should be same sort of an outside limit and make in within a year of the sale of the first unit in that phase and prior to the sale of a unit in any subsequent phase . Mr . Hallberg agreed . The Town Attorney stated that on page 12 , toward the bottom , the punctuation threw him a bit , " annual assessments or charges and two special assessments for special assessments for capital such assessments together with interest thereon and cost of collecting . . . . it looks like it only relates to the special assessments and stated that he thought that language probably was intended to relate to both kinds of assessments . Mr . Hallberg replied , together with interest thereon? Mr . Barney replied , the word such assessments . Supervisor Desch suggested a period after capital improvements . Town Attorney Barney went on to say that he had a little trouble with what an unreasonable increase in an annual assessment might be . What is fairly common is some sort of a percentage cap , without a vote of usually two-thirds or three-quarters of the members . Mr . Hallberg asked the Town Attorney what he would like to see it tied to ? The Town Attorney stated that he did not want to tell Mr . Hallberg how to run his business , but he felt it should say that it couldn ' t go up by more than 7% or 10 % in a given year without the vote of both classes of members and without your consent . Mr . Hallberg stated that he had veto power for five years on any capital expenditure and he believed that would be the impedus for any reasonable increase in the assessement . If inflation get way • out of line , that why he stated he was nervous about tying it to 7% or some number . Town Attorney Barney replied that what he was concerned about was that there was a low ball figure given on the assessments to sell the units and then next year all of a sudden the assessments go up 50 or 600 . The objective here is to try to limit that unless there is a real justification for it , in which event the people paying the assessment under they will be paying 10 % or some kind of a flat percentage . 151 Town Board 14 April 23 , 1987 Supervisor Desch remarked that the other one talks about the rate of inflation . Mr . Hallberg replied that one of the protections in there is of course that it states that he was responsible for all costs not covered in that budget for the year of the uncompleted phasing . The Town Attorney remarked , that is a disincentive in scene respects because that ' s all the more reason to increase the assessments three times what they are because that would reduce the amount you would have to pay . Mr . Hallberg replied , if I triple the assessments , who am I going • to sell them to ? In terms of logic for business , that doesn ' t make any sense . Yes , I could probably save myself a few dollars compared to costing myself a lot . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Hallberg if he would want to tie it to the rate of inflation? Mr . Hallberg replied , no more than two CPI or something? The Town Attorney replied , would you like to say no more than the cost of living plus 5 % ? You always have the right to go back and adjust this if approved by the Homeowners Association , Mr . Hallberg agreed this would be okay as there was an escape valve . We could say it couldn ' t be increase more than 10 % without a 60 day notice to all Class A members . Then the Class A members within that 60 days could call for a vote . Town Attorney Barney responded , actually you cando it that way if you want to structure it that way if you say they can have a vote and they have the right to approve or disapprove . Supervisor Desch recapped the conversation saying , a maximum of 10 % per year without 60 or 90 days notice to all members . Town Attorney Barney added , and all Class A members have an opportunity to vote " and if they vote it down , it does not go into effect . Town Attorney Barney noting page 15 regarding veto powers for capital expenditures , he stated that again in the context of phasing this development , is this five years from the date of the closing of the first unit apply to all of the phases ? Mr . Hallberg responded , the first unit , first phase . Town Attorney Barney then noted page 16 , stating that it references back to section 7 , he stated that he did not quite understand this , he noted that it referred to reserve fund payments to be used solely for the purpose specified in section 3b . 3b didn ' t seem to be clear . • Mr . Hallberg replied , it says that he can use the reserve to pay his expenses . Town Attorney Barney replied , right . Also , he noted that he felt this was intended as a deposit , he went to to say , I move in , and it ' s really a security for the payment of my assessment . He asked , if I move out shouldn ' t I get my $ 100 back? Mr . Hallberg replied the intention of that was that it ' s almost an entry fee . What that guards against is , if we have building maintenance expense that comes up and everybody has put into that 149 Town Board 15 April 23 , 1987 and that account has gained interest , in order to offset that . In otherwords , you sell your unit in the 9th month of the 4th year the guy moving in after three months has to pay for five years worth of wear and tear on your building and you get your $ 100 . 00 back , that is not right . The $ 100 . 00 goes against the amount of wear and tear that has happened during the time you lived there . Town Attorney Barney asked , doesn ' t it then make it sort of a hap- hazzard arrangement . Mr . Hallberg replied , otherwise why would we need the $ 100 . 00 deposit if we couldn ' t use the money . • Town Attorney Barney responded , stating that he was puzzled what it was for . He went on to ask if this applied only to the first sale ? Mr . Hallberg replied , yes . The Town Attorney questioned , if you sell to me I pay $ 100 . 00 and then I turn around and sell it to someone else , the person I sell it to does not pay me $ 100 . 00 nor does this person pay you $ 100 . 00 . It ' s just on the initial sale to the owner . Mr . Hallberg replied , it ' s up to the seller of that unit to get his $ 100 . 00 back from the purchaser . Town Attorney Barney wondered if it would make sense to build this into the capital reserve fund as part of your on going assessments . Mr . Hallberg replied that there was a capital reserve fund in the going assessments . What that fund is for is if you have an unusual expense . What that saves you fron is everytime you have an expense that is outside of the norm of scheduled budget you don ' t have to go put an assessment of $ 42 . 00 on everybody . You use that fund until that fund is exausted . That is for the wear and tear stuff that you can ' t anticipate in the budget but you don ' t want to assess everybody every time a board falls off a building or something . Supervisor Desch asked the Board if anyone had any problems with this section . No one voiced any opposition . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that it still was unclear to her what that orignial reference to 3b wasn ' t want it meant because it talks about reserves . Mr . Hallberg responded , if you take that sentence and put "c " instead of "b " it make perfect sense . With "b " it is absolutely wrong . He went on to say that with "b" it says he can use that $ 100 . 00 fron everybody to pay his expenses on unsold lots out of the $ 100 . 00 and that is not right . Town Attorney asked if on page 17 , can we add the judgement .> Mr . Hallberg responded , yes . You want it to say legal judgement • rate ? Town Attorney Barney responded , yes . He went on to say , the other thing in the Eastwood Commons Covenants , Eastwood Commons provides that you can forclose a lien in the same manner that you would forclose a mortgage , which in effect sets forth the procedures that you would apply in forclosing . Here you just simply say , may enforce forclosure of a lien against a lot and there isn ' t any real reference as to how one goes about forclosing a lien . He stated that from the Town ' s standpoint it didn ' t make a great deal of difference but you may want to check this with your attorney . 147 Town Board 16 April 23 , 1987 The Town Attorney noted a blank on page 20 regarding insurance . Mr . Hallberg replied in the Offering Plan is says broadest coverage available and what it is , is it ' s based on replacement cost and we won ' t know that number until the actual , as built , costs are in for the insurance company . Town Attorney replied , may be you should modify this to say that then , a declaration filed with a blank has really no meaning at all . He went on to say his other question on insurance , on the top of page 21 , it has a 90 % co-insurance clause , he stated this was a little troublesome from an owners standpoint if it turns out that the property is not insured for at least 90 % of the value . He • asked who was going to monitor and make sure that insurance is at least 90 % of the value ? Mr . Hallberg replied , again I think that ' s covered in the Offering Plan for the Homeowners Association , one of the exhibits , there is a statement of the coverage specifically . He stated that what he thought the insurance company was saying was that if the building burns down and is worth $ 100 , 000 . 00 , they don ' t give you $ 100 , 000 . 00 they say the building burned down but the foundation is still good . Town Attorney Barney replied that this is a different issue . The co-insurance is what I have indicated . For example , the . banks will not generally accept a 90 % co-insurance clause , they want what they call a flat rate which is basically that the insurance coipany will pay anything on a partial loss up to the face amount of the policy . He stated that it was not unusual to have it in a project of this nature but then you want to set up a mechanism to monitor that the replacement costs have not escalated over the three years with inflation and your insurance is still back three years old . Town Attorney Barney responded that if the Town should see some language comparable to the language in the Offering Plan in this document this would make more sense . The Town Attorney went on to question page 23 , section 1 , on the restrictions , which he stated as he read it , require anyone who wants to put anything up on the exterior has to get design approval , does this by submitting it to the Board . He stated that the language down about the fourth line up talks about after you submit it the same shall be deemed disapproved if the Board has not acted in 60 days . But then it goes on to say that this article shall be deemed to be fully complied with , the two are a little inconsistent . He stated that he thought actually the normal way to state that is the other way around , it would be approved if the Board did not take action . The Town Attorney went on to note that the architectural control does not apply to the developer , he wondered if there should be sane kind of a time frame . Mr . Hallberg responded that he would hope not . Supervisor Desch asked if there were any comments on the time frame . Councilwoman Raffensperger asked Mr . Hallberg why he said he hoped not , so firmly? Mr . Hallberg replied , if you look at the changes in just the building codes that have brought on changes in the architecture in the last five years , all you have to do is change the egress requirements on windows it can dramatically change the look in the building . He went on to say that if he has to change something that is outside of his control he does not want to wait 60 and 90 145 Town Board 17 April 23 , 1987 days to get all Class A members together and vote on scmething to that effect , eventhough it ' s out of my control and my decision making . He went on to say that also he could see limiting architectural changes within a phase , if I have started a phase , say Phase III , I will finish Phase III in the same architectural mode but Phase IV , if it needs to be dramatically different because of a code change , then he stated that he needed to be able to do that . Councilwanan Raffensperger asked Mr . Hallberg if he was willing to have some restriction in there to say that it does not apply to the developer except for code changes within one phase . Town Attorney Barney remarked you could word it , expect as to changes within each phase not required by building code except as to alterations . Mr . Hallberg asked if building code could be left out and just say beyond developers control . Town Attorney Barney remarked , we have talked about the family definition . He went on to say that he would suggest that on page 24 , section 1 , a sentence be added " for this purpose , one family is defined as . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . Mr . Hallberg noted there were sort of two definitions of a family , are you using the one in R-15 ? Town Attorney Barney responded , yes . Town Attorney Barnes remarked that he thought the enforcement by the Town , at the end of the document , has been addressed . Mr . Hallberg remarked , the Town did not want to be subjected to the 60 day notice? Town Attorney Barney replied , that is correct . Supervisor Desch , noting page 3 , definition of a lot shall mean or refer to any plot of land intended for subdivised for residential use , he stated that he thought it should say as shown on the approved subdivision maps or the final site plan , sane word that makes it specific as to what took place . He went on to say , on page 8 on the bottan , it refers to the rights of the developer as far as easements go . You refer to fuel oil , is there any intention to have a fuel oil system? Mr . Hallberg replied , no . Supervisor Desch remarked good , can we take this out? Mr . Hallberg replied that he would like to leave it in in case the country runs out of gas . For instance , in ' 72 when everybody had to adjust fran oil to gas and back to oil again . There are no plans to have lines run in the ground . Supervisor Desch remarked that on page 13 under b last sentence , it might help if it said no association , add the word "association" . On page 14 second paragraph "each annual assessment shall be fully payable to the association" is that the intention? Mr . Hallberg replied , yes . Supervisor Desch continued , saying on page 24 , uses and structures , it says if such structures are permitted by the Town of Ithaca zoning , he stated that he was not sure this was inclusive enough . 143 Town Board 18 April 23 , 1987 Usually we have a statement that includes all Town laws , rules and regulations , zoning ordinance and whatever . Mr . Hallberg replied , okay . The Supervisor went on to say that on page 25 he was a little bit troubled about what happens if he wants to put a sign up after he had bought the unit and wanted to resell it . He stated that the way he reads it it doesn ' t make that possible . Mr . Hallberg responded , "a temporary sign of not more than two square feet advertising the property for sale or rent may be displayed in the window only , but only after one year after the • - last swelling constructed by the Developer or its successor is conveyed" . Town Attorney Barney stated that this may be the intention , that ' s why I didn ' t flag it , that ' s not an uncamon provision because the developer doesn ' t want other people competing with his sales . Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked , it doesn ' t say you can ' t sell it , it says you can ' t put a sign up . Supervisor Desch stated that he did not feel this was right . It ' s a Board decision , a policy question as to whether if for some reason I change jobs after I ' ve owned it a year and want to sell it it seems as though I should be able to have a relator put a sign up . Town Attorney Barney remarked , it could be five years . Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked , it ' s kind of unclear about the last dwelling constructed , it ' s sort of like the last snow of the year . Mr . Hallberg replied , Planning Board approval is limited . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Hallberg if he felt he would really have a problem if they put a 2 foot square sign in the window? Mr . Hallberg responded , no . Town Attorney Barney then suggested that "but only after one year after the last dwelling constructed by the Developer or its successor is conveyed" be deleted . Supervisor Desch remarked , the only other question is on page 33 , "Disrepair of Lots " , he asked the Town Attorney was was reasonable written notice? Town Attorney replied , that really didn ' t offend me because what ' s reasonable under one set of circumstances may be unreasonable under another . Occasionally you have to refer something to a judge to decide if it was reasonable or not . You could have a circumstance that might require almost immediate action , you have handwritten • notice to immediately move in and then again scnebody who has been there for five years , reasonable notice might say 10 or 20 days or something like that . RESOLUTION NO . 98 Motion by Councilman McPeak ,* seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger , 141 Town Board 19 April 23 , 1987 RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve the Declaration of Covenants , Restrictions , Easements , Charges and Liens , subject to amendments noted at this meeting . (Desch , McPeak , Raffensperger , Cramer , Howell and Bartholf voting Aye . Nays - none) . COPIER MACHINE RESOLUTION N0 . 99 Motion by Councilwoman Howell , seconded by Councilman McPeak , WHEREAS , advertisement for bids for two new copying machines was published in the Ithaca Journal on March 26 , 1987 , March 31 , 1987 , and April 2 , 1987 , and WHEREAS , staff review of the bids suggests the need to revise the specifications in order to meet the requirements of the Town , and WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca wishes to afford all potential bidders an opportunity to submit a bid in accordance with . the revised specifications , NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca that the bids received on the new copying machines and publicly . opened at 11 : 00 A . M . , on April 7 , 1987 , at the Town Offices , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , are hereby rejected , and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED , by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca that the readvertising of bids is hereby approved . (Desch , McPeak , Raffensperger , Cramer , Howell and Bartholf voting Aye . Nays - none ) . FOREST HOME Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she would briefly like to discuss an item if people had time . She went on to say that she had received a couple phone called from Forest Hone , yesterday and night , after the meeting in Forest Hone last night about the one-way experiment . She stated that she understood that there were about 60 or 70 people attending the meeting . They are united against us . They are displeased because we have publicized that the one-way experiment is going to be terminated as of May 15th , feeling first of all they were assured either a six or nine month trial period with no understanding that the experiment would be terminated before an analysis of its efficiency had cone about . She stated that it seems , there is on its way to the Town Hall , several resolutions from this meeting last night , one asking that Judd Falls Road remain one-way during the evaluation period , at lea The other one suggesting , of course a by-pass road but in least . e gg g , • the interim, there seems to be , this is hearsay , she stated that she had not seen these resolutions , a resolution asking that we try another experiment at the same time with the other leg of Forest Hone Drive one-way . Supervisor Desch remarked that if they really want to do something they should have asked that we leave it one-way until the by-pass it built . Councilwoman Raffensperger went on to say that there seems to be some confusion , and I am confused , about what we have scheduled for 139 Town Board 20 April 23 , 1987 Caldwell Road this summer . She stated that her understanding was that we were going to do some upgrading on Caldwell Road , no matter what , this summer , Supervisor Desch responded , we said that we would evaluate the results of the experiment immediately following the end of the experiment and would make a determination as to whether the one-way system would be made permanent or the two-way would be made permanent . He went on to say that in the recent newsletter he thought the Board said they would like to move forward with the plans to upgrade Caldwell Road . The question before the community is , do we wait for the completion of the County East Ithaca Circulation Study before we do that . He stated that his own personal view was that Caldwell Road is such a hazzard that we ought to move forward and get it done just as soon as we possibly can do it . He stated that he did not want to come out affirmatively with that prior to the end of the experiment for fear of getting accused that we were prejudging the outcome of the experiment and totally disregarding what the people in Forest Hone want . As a Board , you have to be the judge as how soon you want to do Caldwell Road . He went on to say that when we get the resolutions we will take a look at what the message is as to what they would like . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she went back and looked at the (Town Board) resolutions and some of the preceeding public hearings , etc . , and she stated that she could understand why there is some confusion about what the length of the experiment was going to be because at different times we said different things , and that ' s not unusual . She went on to say that she also really did not understand that we would discontinue the one-way pattern before we decided if we were going to discontinue it forever . I didn ' t know we were going to go back and forth . Supervisor Desch replied , we can do any number of things . Realistically , the problem is if you continue the one-way experiment there are three major influences that we have to take into account . One is , the closing of the Collegetown bridge , two is the closing of Forest Hone Drive for the major repaving that has yet to be done this summer and three is the contruction of Caldwell Road . He went on to say that he didn ' t think it would be wise to have Judd Falls Road one-way during the period of time that Caldwell Road was closed for construction . If we had in mind right now that we were ready to make a decision on making Judd Falls Road one-way permanent , he noted that he would have no trouble with that , providing that it becomes one-way permanent only after Caldwell Road is upgraded . Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that , to her , those three factors seem a very adequate explanation of why we are discontinuing the experiment before evaluation . However , she felt that an explanation badly needs to be made to the Forest Hone community . Councilwoman Howell asked Councilwoman Raffensperger if she was saying that out of that meeting last night there were some • favorable comments as to wanting it one-way? Councilwoman Raffensperger replied , absolutely . Town Engineer Flumerfelt added , almost unanimously . It suprised me to some extent because the letters , he stated , that he had received , are about three to one opposed to it . Last night ' s indications seems to be almost unanimous for the one-way . Councilwoman Howell and Councilman McPeak both stated that the letter they had received were all negative . 137 Town Board 21 April 23 , 1987 Supervisor Desch stated that the Board has a dileuma , and that is , if the County or somebody ends up being willing to fund this $ 25 , 000 . 000 study , will we have wished we had waited for the results of the study before we do any permanent improvements or would we , because of the safety urgency , feel that we have all of the answers and therefore do the first step . Councilwoman Raffensperger responded , that she did not think the Board needed all the answers to know that something should be done with Caldwell Road . She went on to say that if anybody is going to use it for any purpose whatsoever it needs to be done . Supervisor Desch stated that he agreed . He went on to say that it was a Board decision , just like any other road in the Town of Ithaca , if it ' s in bad shape you ought to do something about it . He went on to say that on the other hand , there will be those in Forest Home who will preceive that any upgrade would mean that Caldwell Road was intended to be the by-pass . Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if she was right that they actually passed a resolution asking the Board to look at making the otherside one-way also? Town Engineer Flumerfelt responded , yes . Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked that she never thought she would hear that . ADJOURl ENT The meeting was duly adjourned . �J Town Clerk