Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1998-03-30 4� OFIr TOWN OF ITHACA 21 04� 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 OWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING March 30, 1998 5: 30 p.m. AGENDA 1 . Call to Order. 26 Pledge of Allegiance. 31 5 : 35 p.m. =PUBLIC HEARING : To consider a, "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO . 27-01 - 13. 12 , LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 a TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT ( MECKLENBURG HEIGHTS) ". 41 Consider enactment of a, "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO. 27-01 - 13. 12 , LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 TO j MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT ( MECKLENBURG HEIGHTS)". 5 ! Consider authorization for Supervisor to send comments to NYS DHCR, re: Conifer j Realty Corporation proposal for the " Biggs Senior Apartments". 6 , Consider approval of specifications, and authorization to received bids for the purchase of a Roller for the Highway Department. 7 , Consider schematic design for the new Town Hall . 8 ! Consider ADJOURNMENT. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING MARCH 30. 1998 5 :30 P.M. At a special meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, held at the Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, there were present : PRESENT: Catherine Valentino, Town Supervisor; David Klein (arrived at 7 :30 p. m . ) ; Ellen Harrison, Councilwoman ; Edward Conley, Councilman ; Mary Russell, Councilwoman (arrived at 5 : 35 p. m. ) ; John Wolff, Councilman. EXCUSED: Carolyn Grigorov, Councilwoman , ALSO PRESENT : Joan Lent Noteboom, Town Clerk; John Barney, Attorney for the Town ; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering ; Fred Noteboom , Highway Superintendent; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning. EXCUSED: Andrew Frost, Director of Building and Zoning ; Alfred Carvill , Budget Officer. OTHERS . John Fenessey, Principal for Conifer Realty; Becky Bilderback, Better Housing ; Daniel M . Winch, 310 Burdge Hill Road, Newfield ; Victoria Wishart, 170 Oakwood Lane ; John Wishart, 170 Oakwood Lane ; Steve Tomasik, Rochester; B. J . Colbert, 164 Oakwood Lane ; Stanley Shepardson, 125 Campbell Avenue ; Robert Flumerfelt, 115 Campbell Avenue; Lauren Stanforth, Ithaca Journal ; Maria Gamracome Coles, 502 Warren Place ; Jane Jones, 607 Warren Place; Ralph Jones, 607 Warren Place ; Pat Moran , 119 Oakwood Lane ; Richard Moran , 119 Oakwood Lane; Margaret Hobbie, 966 East State Street ; Phyllis McNeill , 139 Oakwood Lane; Jan Gordon, 130 Campbell Avenue; Glen Gordon, 130 Campbell Avenue; Nancy Tigner, 103 Campbell Avenue ; _ Sara Shenk, 816 South Meadow Street; Robert Finn , 107 Oakwood Lane ; Donna Benedict, 131 Oakwood Lane ; Fran Benedict, 131 Oakwood Lane ; Lynda Marshall, 1026 Hector Street ; Lisa MacBain, 1108 Hector Street; Elly Hartmanis, 324 Brookfield Road ; Don Crittenden , 123 Bundy Road ; Mary Slade, 176 Oakwood Lane; Nina Cummings, 125 Oakwood Lane; Nick Lambrou , 601 Warren Place ; Sharon Lambrou , 601 Warren Place ; Laura Fiore, 323 Warren Place ; Harry Weymer, 111 Oakwood Lane; Deb Traunstein, 163 Oakwood Lane ; John Vasse, Elm Street Extension ; Anthony Ceracche, 1107 Highland Road ; Kristin Bennett, 413 Hook Place ; Marilynn Rycroft, 541 Warren Place ; Paul Slade, 176 Oakwood Place; Jim Bilinski , 1209 Mecklenburg Road ; Deborah Bilinski, 1209 Mecklenburg Road ; R . Kingsley-Engstrom, 138 Campbell Avenue; Rick Eckstrom, 145 Oakwood Lane ; Matt Peterson, Ithaca Times ; Michael Thompson , 130 Oakwood Lane; Norman Watt, 116 Oakwood Lane; Joyce Hickes, 169 Oakwood Lane; Mick LoPinto, 531 Elm Street ; Janis Kelly, 143 Campbell Avenue ; Maureen Tischler, 152 Oakwood Lane ; Fred Johnson , 152 Oakwood Lane ; David Brown , 920 Hector Street; Mary Baker, 421 Warren Place ; John Baker, 421 Warren Place ; W. G . Hansen, M . D. , 1013 Hector Street; Janet Hansen , 1013 Hector Street; Marilynn Williams, 214 Fall View Terrace ; Sachiyo Fukiroka,' 2250 North Triphammer Road , CALL TO ORDER: Supervisor Valentino called the meeting to order at 5 : 30 p. m . , and led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 - CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZATION TO RECEIVED BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A ROLLER FOR THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT : i TOWN BOARD MEETING 2 MARCH 30, 1993 APPROVED - MAY 11, 1998 Superintendent Fred Noteboom - This is the same roller the Town Board discussed at the 3/9/98 Town oard meeting . The specifications are prepared and we are ready to advertise to receive bids. Bids can be received April 10th . RESOLUTION NO. 58: Motion made by Supervisor Valentino, seconded by Councilman Wolff that on the recommendation of the Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent, the specifications for the purchase of a 1985 or Newer 66" Double Drum Vibrator Compactor be accepted, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise and receive bids for the purchase of the said 1985 or Newer 66 " Double Drum Vibrator Compactor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows : Board Members present for the vote : Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Harrison, aye ; Councilman Conley, aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye. Motion carried unanimously. (Note : Formal adopted resolution is hereto attached. ) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 - PUBLIC HEARING : TO CONSIDER A, "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO. 27 001 -13. 12. LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15 TO 'MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT (MECKLENBURG HEIGHTS)" : Supervisor Valentino opened the public hearing at 5 : 35 p. m. . The Town Clerk had proof of publication and posting. Supervisor Valentino - The Town Board received twelve letters to be included in the official record as comments for the public hearing. Ten letters were from individuals opposing the rezoning, and two were from individuals in favor of the rezoning . Ralph Jones, 607 Warren Place - Concerns among the residents of West Hill about large, low, and middle income/rental property housing developments go back to last year with the application for a zoning variance of the property along Hector Street. That project proposed the construction of approximately 275 units. The company who proposed this development was from Portland , Maine and little was known about their reputation about the maintenance and management of the buildings. There were also major problems with the scale of the development proposal, the public transportation , water, and the environmental impact. I think the Town Board shared our concerns, even though the West Hill Civic Association , when I was president, did not take a stand. The issue at that time was whether there was a need for low and middle income housing in this area. It is my personal opinion that this should not be an issue in this application. The proposal now seems to resolve many of the issues that we had a year ago, including that there is a reputable developer who is proposing a much smaller scale project of only 52 units with concurrence and long term involvement by Better Housing assuring there will be local management. There is public transportation near by, and the environmental issues have been dealt with through the Town 's strict requirements. . Again , the West Hill Civic Association has not taken a stand on this Conifer Realty/Better Housing project. I look back to when the Special Children ' s Center sought to acquire an outpatient house. Many local neighbors were concerned about the potential for management of that project. Their concerns were TOWN BOARD MEETING 3 MARCH 30, 1999 APPROVED - MAY 11* 1999 resolved by creating a joint committee of neighbors and staff of the Special Children's Center to monitor hat project. The outcome has been harmonious. In that vein, I suggest a joint committee of neighbors, staff, and board members from the Conifer Realty and Better Housing to monitor developments on a regular basis. The West Hill Civic Association would happily participate in such an ongoing process. I would also suggest inclusion of an obligation in any permit to Conifer Realty that they either construct a fence along the backyards of adjoining residences, or plant a thick row of trees and shrubs along those property lines. John Fenessey, Conifer Realty - Conifer Realty is a real estate development company proposing to develop a 56 unit apartment project in the Town of Ithaca. We have been in the business since 1975 doing exactly what we are proposing. Over that time period we not only develop the housing , but we manage the housing . We are very concerned about having a first class development. We decided when coming to the Town of Ithaca, where we never developed a project before, to join forces with Better Housing for Tompkins County. Becky Bilderback of Better Housing is a partner with Conifer Realty in this development. Steven Feronta from SRF Association , a traffic consultant; and David Harding , Carl Jahn Associates, landscape architects are here tonight. I would like each of them to comment briefly prior to going on with the hearing. I have photographs showing housing projects that are similar to this proposal . They are somewhat different because they have the benefit of age. .These housing units have been built for many years. These photographs will show what we build and what we maintain. Becky Bilderback, Better Housing for Tompkins County - Better Housing is a not-for-profit agency that works in the rural areas of the County. We were incorporated in 1991 , and have done a wide variety of housing work. Our management and development work has been more in the area of senior housing. We have several small family projects. The Board of Directors and staff are working with the housing providers in the County as they have felt there is a need for additional affordable housing for families. We have always wanted to do this type of project, but felt we did not have the "in house" expertise to take on a larger project. That is why we felt working with Conifer Realty would be a good " marriage" . We did a lot of research on Conifer Realty before we were willing to put Better Housing 's name with a developer. I would like to address a few of the concerns and comments that have been raised. What is the target population of the residents for this project? Rents will be approximately $400 .00 , $480 : 00 , and $550 . 00 ,1 and will include most of the utilities for the one, two, and three bedroom units. Income levels to be eligible to live in these units would start at approximately $ 11 , 000 . 00 and go up to approximately $25 , 000 .;00 . The State mandates people cannot pay more than 48 percent of their income to housing, and they 'strongly recommend not more than 40 percent. There is a minimum income, unless someone has a Section 8 certificate. For example, those income ranges of $ 11 , 000 . 00 to $25 , 000 . 00 would include those people who work as clerical workers in the County, most of the service workers and hospital workers. Other individuals eligible as reported by Tompkins County Personnel would be airport operations technical staff, most clerical workers, heavy equipment operators, youth bureau workers, and department of motor vehicle staff members. This provides more definition as to who would be some of the typical residents of this development. Questions have been raised about the market. Phoenix Associates did the market study. They are the top company in the State that does this type of report. They have to be creditable or they would not be eligible for funding . They have to be insulated from the developer and from factors that may cloud their TOWN BOARD MEETING 4 MARCH 30, 1999 APPROVED - MAY 119 1998 udgmeht. Phoenix Associates is an unbiased company. Ms. Barbara Blanchard does these types of tudy's and she has mentioned this was an excellent study. The Phoenix Associates projected that there is currently a three to four percent vacancy in the County. They listed two pages of contacts they made locally in preparing the study. It has been pointed out that the West Village has 12 vacancies out of 234 units. That is less than five percent. Candlewyck also has approximately a five percent vacancy ratio. Paul Mazzarella from Ithaca Neighborhood Housing has mentioned they are operating with approximately a two percent vacancy ratio. People who rent would like to have no vacancies, but in reality there is a turn over rate. Generally, rental properties are considered full occupancy if their market is approximately three to four percent vacancy. I question some of the market rate rentals being looked at in comparison. They are looking at rents from $ 100 . 00 to $200 . 00 a month more than what Better Housing is proposing . My responsibility is to look out for my clients. People who cannot afford market value rents and are forced to pay more than 50 percent of their income to housing . I hate 'to think that is the only choice people have when the community is running full occupancy. The Tompkins County Planning Department is preparing a housing market study. That study includes the statement, "housing providers and Section 8 administrators work to find and maintain affordable, permanent housing , but unfortunately still have a long waiting list. " We believe this project is well planned . We are asking for a rezoning from R-15 to Multiple Residence, is means if the Town develops the R-15 to it's capacity it would go from 46 units on the 9 . 8 acres for hase I . That is approximately a 20 percent increase in density over what the current zoning would ill low. At the same time Multiple Residence allows up to 17 units per acre. Better Housing is proposing approximately 5. 7 units per acre. The adjacent City zoning would allow approximately 35 units on this same amount .of space, and one half mile away it is zoned R-2 in the City. I really think this project is well located , since there have been discussions about economic development in the County. , ,It is an attractive place to live. It is adjacent to the urban core where people work and spend money in - the City and the surrounding area. Public transportation is also available. , I have spoken with officials from T-Cat, and they are considering an extension of the line in the Enfield direction. They will also consider actually providing service in the development. I have also spoken with David Bacharach who is head of the Transportation Department for the City of Ithaca School District, and he sees no problems with the proposed bus stop at the driveway entrance. I also understand this project would fit in well with the Town 's long-term plans for the future road and proposed ', space. This project has also been coordinated with the City's Master Plan on that basis. The County's Market Study shows an under supply of affordable housing for the Section 8 people, and much of the affordable housing stock is inaccessible to public transportation or places of work. This project would help correct that problem . The total parcel currently is 92 acres . We are requesting that it be subdivided into four parcels. One parcel would be the Town park, half of the 92 acres would remain the Cerrache's property, 9 . 8 acres is the proposed project, and the other is available as an option to Conifer for future development. Future development depends on what is needed at some later date. Stephen Fernonta, Traffic Engineer - An extensive traffic study was performed as specified by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) . They are the review agency for this type of report. We have also been consulting with the Town Planner to determine the geographic limits of the study, areas of concern , the intersections ; and how to gain a better sense of the issues in the area. Some of TOWN BOARD MEETING 5 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 11, 1998 the issues identified related to site distances, safety, operation of getting in and out of the side street, nd traffic on residential streets. Those items were all addressed in the traffic report. We collected traffic information at the projected intersection area during a weekday morning and during afternoon peak times when traffic was highest on these roadways. . We then added the additional traffic expected from this development, Phase I and Phase II , to give the projected order of magnitude. We expect about 23 motorists to exit the site during the morning peak, and 24 motorists to enter the site during the evening peak times for Phase I . Phase II will add about 65 motorists entering and exiting during the morning and afternoon peak hours. We then looked at what those traffic volumes would mean in terms of safety, getting in and out of this site, and what impact this would have on motorists and residents on any adjacent streets. The traffic study shows in general that there would be good operating conditions or traffic conditions in and out of the existing roadways. We did see that in the future on Hopkins Road on Route 96 that motorists trying to exit will incur fairly significant delays. They probably intermittently do so now, but we see that this could be a potential concern , in the future. That is why a connector road to Bundy Road would alleviate some of those conditions. Site distances were looked at very closely with the NYSDOT to make sure that driveways are safe getting into and out of. David Harding, Carl Jahn Landscape Architect & Associates - I have displayed the overall subdivision map showing the entire Cerrache property, the project site, and the entrance drive on the west side of the Murray property. When these plans were originally developed the entrance road was located to the east side of the Murray property. Due to site distance concerns the developer agreed to develop the extended drive around the Murray property. This provides a suitable location for a potential extension across the street to facilitate development there. The developer is proposing seven apartment buildings. There will be a community building located to the west ; side of the site where office and laundry facilities will be located . The two units closest to the road are ',one bedroom units. The units in the central portion of the site are two bedroom units, and the building to the back of the site are three bedroom units. The site slopes steeply to the east where there will be a detention basin to intercept the increased water run off. The water collected in the detention basin will be sent through the existing storm system at a rate comparable to what is currently being discharged . There will be no increase in drainage for the down stream facilities. This detention basin area is essentially a green space where the developer is proposing to leave the dense brush along the easterly property as a visual screen . A berg of approximately four feet in height will be developed to contain the water in the detention basin. Additional plantings will occur through the site to help improve aesthetics. Because of the steep nature of the site it is difficult to save a lot of the native vegetation. Walnut trees will be preserved on the site. Nick Lambrou , 601 Warren Place - I submitted a letter to the Town Board previous to the meeting. (See attached letter. ) Are we going to hear answers to questions or are we asking them rhetorically? I have other questions to add , and I would like to know if the Board would be answering them tonight or at some other time. Supervisor Valentino - The Board is ready to hear your questions. Mr. Lambrou - The West Hill Civic Association sponsored a meeting on March 23rd , and there many concerns brought forward . Has the Town considered the effect of the additional housing to be constructed on the Fire Department coverage? I understand the West Hill Fire Station is only manned TOWN BOARD MEETING 6 MARCH 30, 1993 APPROVED - MAY 119 1998 at night, and served by other departments during the day. I think adding 56 apartment units is significant enough to take a serious look into that. What school would these children be going to? The property is zoned in the Cayuga Heights School District. Their PTA President has mentioned that the Cayuga Heights School enrollment is at the State maximum for attendance at this time. I spoke , to a representative of West Village this morning and they have 18 two-bedroom units vacant. That is the greatest number of units proposed in this construction . The West Village spokesman also said they have six one-bedroom and three three-bedroom units vacant. Other neighbors have discussed vacancies with the Chestnut Apartments and others around West Hill. Vacancies are an important issue and it should not be overlooked when you are looking at Town versus City. We are all one community. How does the Town plan to designate Mecklenburg Heights as a tax parcel? In the West Hill Civic Association's meeting we discovered that the Planning Board thought it was going to be a for profit project, but Ms. Bilderback explained that may not be the case. There are a great number of people who are interested who feel impacted by the project. We would have shown a presence and discussed our concerns if we had known about this project earlier. This project has reached the Town Board with a lot of our concerns never being addressed. In fact, one neighbor mentioned that he was jogging down the street last summer when he saw people in a pickup truck next to the site with maps spread out on the hood. When he tried to see what it was they rolled up the maps and would not talk to him . Those guys drove away without talking to him . It would have been better if this information were shared early on . Then maybe some of the concerns to be heard this evening would have been addressed earlier. I think it is important to think of Phase II and Phase III when considering this, because if you are thinkingof rezoning it will reflect that. The project speaks of development because the road they are building ', would be built for future development. It is important to take into consideration . Rezoning dictates that density, not the plans, just because a developer is planning only so many units zoning . dictates what the developer can put there. If the zoning is changed for the rest of the parcel it does not really matter what someone plans, most people would plan what the zoning will allow. We would like to see documentation of coordination between this development and the City Plan , and the Town Plan. Francis Benedict, 131 Oakwood Lane - The information I received is that in Phase II or Phase III there will be a road that will connect this project down to Oakwood Lane by the water tower. If that road will connect to Oakwood Lane in a residential area, there are no sidewalks and no place for people to walk. If there is another road used as a connector there will be traffic brought in from West Hill and this project onto a street that is not safe for pedestrian traffic. There will be more people going to the bus stop by Oakwood Lane. The Town should consider carefully bringing a street in to connect to the City, that is not a good idea . That would invite a potential hazard because children play on Oakwood Lane because of the small amount of traffic that exists now. Things would change with this new project. Mr. Lambrou has mentioned rentals and vacancies. The Town should keep in mind that Cornell University and other developers are planning on more development of rooms and apartments in the East Hill ;area. This would have a "snowball" effect on others once more apartments open up on East Hill . That will create more apartments in the middle of the City with vacancies in the Town . The rental properties in the future would be an over abundance of lower income properties, and some landlords in TOWN BOARD MEETING 7 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 11, 1999 e City 'of Ithaca would be greatly affected by this situation , more lower income apartments going up on t h n est Hill . The Town should consider what is going to happen in the total planning of apartments in and around this area. Mr. Lambrou has already mentioned the number of low income housing units that are available at West Village . Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter showed the Town Board and the public where the potential connector road would be located from the Cerrache property to Oakwood Lane as mentioned. Maria Gamracome-Coles, 502 Warren Place - I thought we had put a stop to some of this development that seems to be similar to last year's Saddlewood Project. Although, in appearance it seems to be a more beautiful development. I am a socially engaged person , and I care passionately about social justice matters. I care about equality in society, so why am I here speaking against this. Whatever the developer is now, or whatever company they are now, or whatever social conscious might motivate them now, may not be the same in the future. We do not know what will happen to this company. Consequently, we do not know what the maintenance on this will be, or how desirable the housing will be in the future. I am motivated because I lived for over 20 years in central New Jersey where apartments and developments like this run rampant. I am here to the Board that within ten years, regardless of the great commitment made by developers, these places will be dumps. In New Jersey, there was no way of convincing the people who owned the apartments to maintain them as they promised they would do. In addition , the company is not a non-for-profit organization . It is not an organization like the Ithaca Housing Authority which has a program that fosters saving a down payment on potential houses residents could buy in the future. This company does not do that. What else don't we know? We do not know who may buy up this company. We do not know will happen to this company if there is depreciation , law and taxation changes, and we do not know what the future for this company. In the interim we are being asked to sacrifice a very available resource for this area. Green spaces are at a premium . That is what attracted me to come to Ithaca five years ago, it was not the housing here. Again , back to what happened ten years ago in New Jersey. I wish the Board could see what was all around us there. Some of us moved to West Hill because it offers a variety of housing for a factor of income. It is not some upper class neighborhood . The residents have a wide spectrum of income. I would like this Board not to upset what that balance is . Janis Kelly, 143 Campbell Avenue - Mr. Lambrou has raised the issue as to. whether there is really a need for this kind of low income rental housing . The Town. Board may not be aware that many of us know about this project because there is a lot of rental housing in our neighborhood. Approximately two-thirds of the houses in my neighborhood have rental apartments, including mine. My apartment rents for $400 . 00 a month which is within the rental scope mentioned. We landlords have some sense as to how easy and difficult it is to find tenants in our area. I think the gentleman who spoke about T-Cat and the public transportation may have glossed over that a little too quickly. That is one of the problems in our area . People talk about there being bus service, but there is service once an hour at 6 : 00 p . m . , and the bus does not run on Sundays. This will be a major issue with the type of development being proposed . The 46 units in the Phase I part of this project will only generate 23 additional cars going to work? Do the other 23 people work swing shifts? Mr. Fenessey - Not everyone goes to work at the same time. TOWN BOARD MEETING 8 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 119 19" s. Kelly' - Those traffic numbers do not add up. This is an out of Town developer who may not know hat goes on here. I share my neighbors concern about how reliable this company is over the long lerm . I am concerned with the effect on the neighborhoods on West Hill . We have very quiet and comfortable mixed neighborhoods. Additional traffic would be a major problem . In my neighborhood , Campbell Avenue is . parallel to Oakwood Lane turning up to Hector Street, people routinely come to our neighborhood to walk. Elderly people and children play because there is controlled traffic. We had an adventure with the City last year because one of the stop signs was turned around. It took the whole neighborhood to get it turned back the other way. Once again we have a calm neighborhood , and I am extremely concerned because there are no sidewalks in this neighborhood and the streets are not particularly wide. This is a major issue if there are going to be children , and the additional need for transportation to the public schools. If T-Cat increases the bus runs it would add additional concern . I do not think this project is what is needed in our community, we need low income housing that people can buy and own . If this were a development like the mutual housing development by the P&C on Hancock Street I would feel totally differently about it because there is a dramatic difference in something that is designed for people to buy, and something that is designed to produce a high level transient population, i ado not know what could be done about this, but once this property is developed for rental housing it nnot be converted to something that could become owner occupied housing . Those buildings are wilt in different ways. There is a real risk of foreclosing on the potential of something better for a short rm gain . Pat Moran , 119 Oakwood Lane - Ms. Bilderback mentioned that the City and the Town 's long-term plans were in agreement. Ms. Bilderback - That was in reference to the proposed connector road. Ms. Moran - I understood from the West Hill School meeting last week that there was very little coordination between the City and Town . The landscape architecture is going to be great I do not question the quality of the development, I question whether we need the development at all . The Town Board was supplied with my letter, (see attached) . I am concerned about the access road to the park If the Town rezones Phase I you will be more apt to act favorably on rezoning Phase II and Phase III . Oakwood Lane is one block long , one end is Brookfield with a cul-de-sac. The proposed connector road would change the whole character of the street and neighborhood . I am also concerned with the additional 'security risks to the neighborhood with more people driving through it. Robert Flumerfelt, 115 Campbell Avenue - I am against the rezoning> When people are looking for a place to buy a home in the City of Ithaca or the Town of Ithaca they always look at the zoning in the area. I think the zoning should be considered a sacred contract between a municipality and the people who live in that area. I have lived in Ithaca , either the City or the Town for 57 years. I purchased my home on Campbell Avenue approximately 30 years ago and expected that the zoning would not hange. I am strongly against any changes in the zoning . he school issue was brought up before, as mentioned the Cayuga Heights School is at capacity when the central school is not very crowded . If there is an influx of children in this area there is a good possibility that the school attendance districts will be redrawn . A lot of the West Hill children may lend up in the central school . I know I probably sound selfish in these concerns, but I think I echo the TOWN BOARD MEETING 9 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 11 , 1998 oughts of a lot of people here. We want to see our property values remain . People who have lived in e area ' a long time who are approaching retirement want to have a good resale value for their homes. echo the concerns that these rental low income developments often turn into dumps. I for one would hate to see that in our area. Michael Thompson , 130 Oakwood Lane - I have the .distinction of owning the house that is right on the side of this new proposed road so I have a vested concern about the expansion in the development, particularly in Phase II . 1 have comments to make on both Phases of the development. First, again is this housing is really needed . There are a number of developments in the City that particularly impact that issue. Neither Cornell University or Ithaca College are expanding and they are the only significant industries in the area. In addition , the housing and the development of Collegetown has increased the number of students who are moving out of downtown neighborhoods which are traditionally low cost neighborhoods. Cornell is trying to move more students on campus into the north area. As these apartments are vacated in the City they become direct competition to the thoughts being addressed by this development on Mecklenburg Heights. In the long term , I do not see housing needs in this community increasing, but rather decreasing . There are already a number of homes for sale, particularly on West Hill. After the redevelopment of the octopus one would have thought it would have become a popular area, yet houses remain unsold on both Oakwood Lane and Campbell Street. A large number of houses not selling is indicative of a depressed market and a depressed need for housing . y second concern is the covenant to the community that was mentioned by the zoning . When I urchased my home I did look at the zoning in two areas. One was what the neighborhood would be ke in 20 ;years as my children grew up. I now have a son who is three, which poses a question as to what will happen for the next 15 years. What will happen to the school districts? This concerns me because we moved to West Hill for the Cayuga Heights School District, and the expectation that the Cerrache property was zoned for single house dwellings. T-Cat transportation is a problem for low rent, as the existing employees at Cornell cannot use T-Cat because it does not leave early enough in the morning . The second concern is that if this is rezoned for multiple residence, when Phase II comes forward it will be rezoned that as well . I would like to ask the Town Board to consider a covenant that the second development not be allowed to develop beyond single family dwellings. While zoning requirements allow a high density of housing , the reality is that the neighborhood of Oakwood Lane and Campbell Lane have typically two to three houses per acre. I purchased my property knowing the road existed , and that the Cerrache land would be developed into 40 to 50 new one family homes. I was very; happy to see the town 's Master Plan adding a park The original plans suggest there may be a walkingpath or a bike path through that existing road . There would be no complaints about that because that is the nature of our neighborhood . We have a lot people who walk through and it would be very nice to have a park in the back area accessible from a separate road within walking distance of the neighborhoods. I now hear plans of maintaining it as an egress to a large development that will more than likely have 130 plus family dwellings in Phase 11 . That would dramatically change the nature of the neighborhood. t ouven if half the access is the new road on the west side, and half is along the Oakwood Lane extension will increase traffic so that children will be unable to routinely play outside on the street. It will affect r safety and security. I would strongly recommend that the Board consider restricting the changes to the nature' of the neighborhood especially the Phase I I and Phase I I I developments, even if Phase I is ultimately approved and zoned from R -15 . TOWN BOARD MEETING 10 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 11, 1998 Nancy Tigner, 103 Campbell Avenue - My home is located on the corner of Campbell Avenue and ector Street on the down hill side. I know the. area quite well and have lived here for ten years. Currently the bus comes up Hector Street and turns onto Warren Place at the City line. That is a difficult turn for the bus, and the bus drivers have mentioned they are uncomfortable with it. They maneuver the bus safely, but cars coming down Mecklenburg Road tend to be traveling too fast. The bus drivers have expressed concerns about that particular area: I wonder if there would an access road through this area, otherwise unless the City bus line is changed people would need to get off at that point and walk to the access road unless there was path from that point. I would be worried about a bus stop at that location no matter what side of Hector Street it is on . My second concern I will express for the neighbors across the street who are out of town . They have expressed a lot of worries about water run off. There has been an indication there would be an impoundment basin on the site to take care of water run off. I can only say that when reconstruction was done on Hector Street my neighbors had water running through their basement and they still have water running through their garage. They live on the up hill side of Campbell Avenue and Hector Street. They have a deep concern that if the project is completed that there be a more than adequate facility for the collection of the water run off. Every car that goes around the corner from Hector Street onto Campbell Avenue in the winter has the potential of running into our house. We have had one car run into the spruce trees on the corner, and one car during a snowy night traveled the entire distance from Campbell Avenue to Fall View Terrace via the backyard. The car went down the hill and came along the border between my home and the McPherson 's. Then it went over some downed bushes into the backyard of someone on Fall View Terrace. : It is dangerous, and we have planted trees with the hope that cars will not hit the house. I am concerned about the increased traffic, particularly in the winter time. I have three concerns. Safety for us , a dry basement for my neighbors , and the safety for the people who would be using the bus. Margaret Hobbie, 966 East State Street - I am an associate broker at Audrey Eldelman Real Estate and I am representing Leon and Cynthia Harkleroad, 1111 Hector Street. The Town Board was supplied with a copy of a letter from the Harkleroads. (See attached letter. ) I am here tonight as a City resident who is concerned about the health of all of our neighborhoods. I am also here as a real estate professional who is concerned about property values in both the City and the Town . Zoning is one of the factors buyers take into consideration when they purchase a home. Like many of the people here tonight, my husband and I sought out a R-1 area when we purchased our city home. We wanted city life, but we wanted the lower density offered by R- 1 zoning . The residents of West Hill bordering the Town of Ithaca also chose a R-1 zone, and also chose West Hill for the wonderful views. The spot zoning proposed tonight would definitely effect property values, and it would be in violation of the trust they placed in the City and the Town when they purchased their homes. I think a change in the zoning proposed here would make Town residents nervous anywhere in the Town. Zoning and zoning changes are not to be taken lightly. Sarah Shank, Common Council Representative for the First Ward - I was unable to attend. the meeting on March 23rd to hear the concerns. My hope is that the Town Board pay attention to the concerns of community members. One issue is the access road . My understanding is the road location would require action by Common Council , so it is not hinging on the developers desires. I think Common Council would be reluctant to TOWN BOARD MEETING 11 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 119 1998 nstall a ' road that would have a great impact on Oakwood Lane. This location has single family housing nd drainage will be a concern . If the Town moves ahead with the rezoning , I echo the suggestion of having some neighbors on a Board to make sure future concerns that it remain a nice development are addressed . If the zoning goes through , I would also encourage the Town to join the City in petitioning the State for a lower speed limit on that part of Route 79 coming into the City. Supervisor Valentino - We are working with the State to reduce the speed limit. Nick LoPinto, 531 Elm Street - I am not really impacted by this project as I am far enough way. . My main concern is that I do not think there is a demand for more apartments in Ithaca because I own units on the West Hill . I am familiar with the housing market. I think this will be a beautiful project, but I think they will end up filling the development with relocated tenants from other apartments in the City. It will end up with the same amount of units empty some where else. There is not a bid enough population growth in Ithaca to have 50 new units. The rents charged would be excellent rates, but they would be stealing other tenants from other developments. I do not think that Ithaca needs any more apartment units, and I do not know where all these children will be going to school . Don Crittenden , Bundy Road - I was asked to read a letter to the Town Board from . Dr. Robert and Renate Ballard, 615 Warren Place in regards to the Mecklenburg Heights development, (see attached). I would also like to say a few words as a resident on Bundy Road and the Town of Ithaca. I think the Town is taking an apartment complex and dumping it into a residential zone. I do not think this project would be approved except that Better Housing is involved . I think the developer has used Better Housing to "pick the lock" to get the zoning changed . A change in zoning would have a dramatic impact. My heart goes out to the people who live along this area, their lives are going to be shattered. They are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars in property value when they go to sell their homes. It does not seem to be fair that it is zoned R-15 , and this apartment complex can be built at it will change. I am also concerned about future expansion . West Hill has been fairly dormant because the "octopus" was there. I would like to see its pastoral setting preserved . If the Town is going to put an apartment complex .there you will be looking at the City urban sprawl. People will not want to move into the area, and housing values will go down . We do not know what the future expansion will be, and it will grow once they have the apartment complex. There may be protection from the City if it has to go through , but if the road is shown on a public map the City may not have any authority over that. It may have to go into a public road. I am not sure that the Town could ask the City for protection there. I am mainly concerned with the road that the Town seems to want to build for fire. trucks to get to the other side. If all the apartment complexes are built then the fire trucks would need to get there. I am strongly opposed to the road through that area, and I wonder if1he Town Board members have gone to the site to seethe natural stream (Williams Creek) . Director of Engineering Daniel Walker - There is a water main that brings water from the Trumansburg Tank across the West Hill to West Haven Road . There are fire hydrants every 600 feet. TOWN BOARD MEETING 12 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 11, 1998 r. Crittenden - I see a road very close to Route 96 , and I am not sure we need to break up all the open pace to put a highway through what should be a protected area. It may be cheaper to build a fire station nearer things that are being developed . I would like to address the spot zoning which is illegal . It is the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of such property and the detriment of other owners. It is hard to see in the Comprehensive Plan where multiple residences are supposed to go or what they are supposed to be for. I do think the Town should get an opinion to protect themselves from potential law suits on the spot zoning issue. . Bill Hansen, 1013 Hector Street - My house is to the east of the proposed development. It is my land and many others whose property value would be adversely effected. I am prejudice in that regard. I think our property values are not the only ones that are going to be severely diminished by this development. It looks on paper like a very good development. I have been aware of similar developments in other Cities that also looked pretty good on paper, and looked good when they started but they did not stay very good for to long . I worry about that with this development. I am a person who questions the need , for all the reasons mentioned tonight. There are vacancies in other low income housing projects. There is a low income housing project going in at the old Biggs Building at the hospital . I also wonder about emptying out rental units from the downtown area. I am also convinced that a complete and adequate Environmental Impact Study has not been done. There are a lot of things which have not been adequately explained . I do not know about fire protection in that area, it seems like it is going to pretty tough . I do not know about police protection and other security measures. There are no sidewalks. There will be a dramatic increases in traffic. I believe that 23 cars, an hour or day is not even a close estimate. Currently, there is not adequate bus transportation . The speed limits are currently too high . There are a lot of serious question 's which have not been addressed adequately. Mr. Lambrou - I believe that Conifer Realty have the option on Phase II and Phase III , even though we are talking about Phase 1 . They are purchasing Phase II and Phase III as well . I think that the Town Board should consider rezoning very strongly. I also question what the Better Housing and Conifer Realty partnership is. They speak of a partnership, but my understanding is that Conifer Realty received ;a quarter of their funding from the government. They hoping to get half the money through tax credits, and the other quarter they borrowed . Until the meeting on March 23rd at the West Hill School , we were under the impression that Better Housing would be managing this property. That is not the case, Conifer Realty would be managing the property. : I find that interesting they would be borrowing from themselves, but yet they would be managing the property themselves. They may do a fine job, but the Town needs to consider all the points of concerns. I spoke some attorneys and they seem to agree with for these types of construction is the law to do an Environmental Impact Statement. Why has the Town come this far without that? The same issues were raised and they were defeated in Supreme Court with the Ithacare Project and the Weisburd project on Floral Avenue. I do not understand why we have gone this far without an Environmental Impact Statement. Lisa McB lain , 1108 Hector Street - I have not lived here for 20 years, but I grew up here years ago. My husband and I went to Cornell . We met here , we married here, and we have traveled all over the country. It was our dream always to come back to Ithaca . TOWN BOARD MEETING 13 MARCH 30, 1999 APPROVED - MAY 11, 1998 1 have heard a lot of factual arguments tonight, but I have been watching a lot of down cast faces of people who have already figured out where they are going and how they are getting there. When I grew 1up in Cayuga Heights I could not believe that the Town could decided to rezone Route 13 and take the prime property overlooking Cayuga Lake and put a highway through it. I want to tell the Town Board that there is some fantastic land for development with a future on West Hill . I thought when we purchased a home on West Hill it was like. a secret. I thought people did not realize that once the "octopus" was figured out this community was really going to come back. We invested everything we had into our house less than a year ago, and I am sitting here tonight trying to figure out how I could sell it because I cannot afford what you feel is so necessary. I was told by our rental agent they were going to get out of the rental business because Cornell was going to expand rentals. Is the Town sure that they need this? Paul Slade, 176 Oakwood Lane - I came here with a relatively open mind , but I am leaving with a completely closed mind . This is an ill conceived project. I ' hear that there is very little need for more apartments in the City and the Town . I hear that there . is very little need for more low income property in the City and the Town . . l hear that this neighborhood is going to be changed by this development. I think that the Town Board is being "suckered" into Phase I , and then into Phase II and Phase 111 . Why does the Town need to rezone the whole property? My personal opinion is that we should develop West Hill in the same way as the rest of it, with all classes of property with the original zoning of single family dwellings. We should have a mixture of high , medium , and low income properties, and in that way we could diversify our neighborhood . We could have a better life for everyone as we have. already witnessed on the West Hill properties. Ms. Kelly - Could someone explain to us what is likely to happen from now on? Supervisor Valentino - The Town Board is here tonight to discuss the issues of rezoning . Councilwoman Ellen Harrison - This was brought to the Board as a general concept, and it was clear under the concept there may be a need to rezone. That is a legislative decision that this Board must make. There have been other proposals before the Board in areas where this is no water and sewer, they were not near the City, bus service, etcetera so there were reasons to discouraged them . At that point the proposals went to the Planning Board to make a recommendation to the Town Board . The Planning Board has looked at this development and required certain submissions of environmental, traffic, and other studies. They have made a recommendation to the Town Board to consider the rezoning saying they are in support of the rezoning . The Town Board is considering whether or not to rezone. If the rezoning goes forward then final site plan proposal goes to the Planning Board for their action . We could act on this tonight as a Local Law rezoning this parcel . If we feel there are outstanding questions that are not answered then we may defer that decision to a future time. If the Town Board makes a decision in the affirmative to rezone then this proposal will go back to the Planning Board . Unknown; Identified Male : What is the Town Board actually considering to rezone tonight? How much of the 'Cerrache property will be rezoned? Attorney for the Town John Barney - Only the portion for this development, 9 . 8 acres. TOWN BOARD MEETING 14 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 11, 1998 Councilwoman Harrison - The Town Board is only considering the portion for Phase I . At the present time we are considering a review, and revisions to the complete Zoning Ordinance. In this case, it is specific to that area and what is in the Local Law. A draft has been seen by the Town Board . Unidentified Male - Does Conifer Realty have a time frame they want to meet? Councilwoman Harrison - The Local Law will be passed out for the public to review. The Local Law calls for a maximum of 56 units located in a maximum number of seven buildings. The Local Law includes all the elements to hold the development to what is seen on the sketch plans. It would not simply say that this is now a multiple residence with whatever density in a multiple residence zone is allowed . If this is not developed in this fashion there is a time frame that would revert it back if this particular development does not take place in a certain time. Supervisor Valentino - A Multiple Residence District is allowed in the Zoning Ordinance anywhere where there is a R-15 residential zone. It is perfectly legal within the Zoning Ordinance to change this zoning . Attorney Barney - People have mentioned that this is spot zoning , but what has been recognized and what ; has been permitted over the years is what is called a floating zone. The highest court in the State of New York says it is a perfectly acceptable way to zone as long as they are doing it in accordance with the plan. If one reads the Comprehensive Plan that relates to the Town of Ithaca there is a lot of discussion about trying to keep higher density closer to the perimeter of the City where there are facilities available to service people better than if they were in more rural areas of the Town. This is a form of a floating zone that has been conceptualized in the Zoning Ordinance since 1954. This has been` a device in place for 43 years. Unidentified Female - Do they need to ' break ground" by a certain date? Supervisor Valentino - " No. " Unidentified Female - Is there a window where they can no longer do the project if they do not start by a certain date? Supervisor Valentino - No, I am not aware of that. It is up to the developers to answer that. Mr. Fenessey - When Federal funds are requested , there is a time frame when those funds need to be used. Supervisor Valentino closed the public hearing at 7 : 10 p. m . , and referred the matter to the Town Board for their comments. Councilman Wolff - I would like to have Mr. Kanter comment on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) . Director of Planning Kanter - When this proposal was referred by the Town Board to the Planning Board to consider the rezoning the Town Board asked them to be lead agency for the environmental review. There were also a number of other involved agencies> Agencies that would have to approve other related actions, such as the State Department of Transportation for the highway aspects and the Division for Housing and Community Renewal for the funding . TOWN BOARD MEETING 15 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 11 , 1998 he Planning Board announced they intended to be the lead agency for the environmental review and oordinate it with all other involved and interested agencies. The City was considered an interested 1gen cy as an adjacent municipality. The environmental notices by the Planning Board were sent to the City Clerk's office, the Mayor's office, and the City Planning Department. The Planning Board looked at the environmental concerns and required a complete traffic analysis, water management analysis, and a site wetland assessment. Those were all put together with a Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) . That was the basis for the determination by the Planning Board that there would be no significant environmental impacts. Before making that determination , the Planning Board coordinated that pending decision with all the involved and interested agencies and notifications were placed in the appropriate places. . That determination was made by the Planning Board with coordination of the Town Board , and in conjunction with the rezoning proposal . Why wasn 't an environmental impact statement not done, is the basic question being asked . It was not done because the Planning Board made a determination that the specifications that were required during the environmental review process were adequate to make a determination of no significant impact on the environment. That was not done in a vacuum , but in a coordinated effort with the other involved interested agencies. Councilwoman Harrison - Copies of those reports are available to the public to see? Director of Planning Kanter - Yes, the Housing Market Study submitted by the applicants is also in the Planning ; Department's files . They are public documents because they were part of the funding ppiication sent to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal . They are available for people who re interested in them . Councilman Wolff - Some people questioned what the role of the developers will be, and what is the relationship between Conifer Realty and Better Housing is? Mr. Fenessey - We have been in the development business since 1975 . The development proposed would serve people at the lower income spectrum . We typically create joint ventures, such as this one with Better Housing . We do that because we do not presently have a presence in this community. Since weiare going to part of this community we want to build a relationship with the community, so we formed a joint venture to be 50 - 50 partners with Better Housing for Tompkins County. Councilwoman Harrison - What does that mean to be a joint venture? Mr. Fenessey - The joint venture means that we are equal partners in the share of a development fee. Better Housing will help us deal with the community, the tenants, and selecting the tenants. An agency with long term experience in the community is helpful to us to make sure that we get a project up and running properly. They will be our partner forever. Councilman Edward Conley - Would Better Housing have ownership? Mr. Fenessey - This is formed as a limited partnership. They will be an equal owner. Supervisor Valentino - On a daily basis , who will make the decisions as to interviewing people and making decisions on who would be eligible? Ms. Bilde�back - Better Housing we will be working with Conifer Realty on marketing and interviewing . We have ,approvals on all contracts , such as the contractor that would be building the development. We would be hiring their management firm to do perform the daily management just like the TOWN BOARD MEETING 16 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 119 1998 umansburg Senior Project. They hire Better Housing to manage their project for them . As owners we tnto tain the right to approve budgets, expenditures, and receiving all annual reports. We also have built the agreement the right of first refusal if we determine that there is a management problem . At that point the State is actively involved in approving management. The State said we would have an option to assume it. We also have the option of first refusal to purchase the project at the end of the 20 year contract so that it would remain affordable low income housing long term. Councilwoman Harrison - People have raised the issue that ten years from now the development would deteriorate and become run down . What would Better Housing's role and option be if things were to deteriorate? Ms. Bilderback - We are going to be concerned because as an option of first refusal to purchase we are setting money aside for when that time comes. We would not want the property to deteriorate if we are going to buy it eventually. We can prevent that in the agreement we file through the State DHCR . We can request that Conifer Realty assume the management, or select someone else for manager. Councilwoman Harrison - Under the current arrangement Better Housing does not have the authority to ask that you be equal partners in terms of maintenance? Ms. Bilderback - We have the authority directly from them if there is a management problem . Councilwoman Harrison - Who defines that there is a management problem? Ms. Bilderback - We do. Councilwoman Harrison - You do jointly? Ms. Bilderback - We as a co-general partner. Director of Planning Kanter - The Town could ask to review the contracts Better Housing has with Conifer Realty before the Planning Board goes ahead to Final Site Plan Approval. Attorney Barney - Is this project heavily regulated by the State? Ms. Bilderback - Yes, we are heavily regulated now with our current development projects. Ellie Harfmanis, 324 Brookfield Road - Is Better Housing of Tompkins County a profit or non-profit organization? Councilwoman Harrison - Better Housing is a not-for-profit organization. Ms. Hartmanis - I do not understand why Better Housing is working with a profit organization . Conifer is a profit organization . Where do 50 percent of the profits go to a non-profit organization? Ms. Bilderback - Better Housing will be forming a subsidiary. If any profits are made from the development they would go to further other Better Housing missions. As a not-for-profit organization we can make, related income to off set other work i 1 Councilwoman Harrison - The money could be set aside for potential purchase in the future? TOWN BOARD MEETING 17 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 11, 1999 toard ouncilman Conley - I like the idea of creating some sort of unit that does involve members of the eighborhood . Maybe some representation from this board and representation from the Planning to help correlate information . Councilwoman Harrison - This project would be a fully taxable and would not be a tax exempt use? Ms. Bilderback - "Yes. " Mr. Fenessey - This application was submitted to DHCR in January 1997 , and it was predicated on an assessment based on the assessment placed by the County Assessor. We have determined what the taxes would be based on that assessment. Mr. Kanter has explained that when developing Government Assisted Housing we have the right to request of the municipality in which the project is located to develop a project under a New York State Housing Law, Private Financing Law. This would be known as Article V Housing Company or an Article XI Housing Company. Both of those requirements could yield some sort of tax abatement, not tax free, if the Town agrees to it. This is something that we have the legal right to do as a developer of this type of housing but it does not mean that we will do it, nor does it mean if we did do it if it would be approved by the Town . Councilwoman Harrison - The Comprehensive Plan outlines the opportunity to provide affordable housing in the Town . We have made a commitment to do so where we will not have to extend infrastructures, such as water and sewer. We want to try to preserve agricultural uses further out on West Hill . It is likely where the City abuts the Town that the City zoning in that area would be at least as dense because the City is moving out from the down town area towards the more rural Town areas. Would the Town always be facing this issue when we are looking at what we might consider appropriate for this kind of use when it will be abutting R-1 City zone, which is by nature a single family residential? Director of Planning Kanter - The answer for most parts of the West Hill is yes. I want to expand on the question of density because that is something that needs to be clarified. The summary from the Planningi Department dated March 30 , 1998 , entitled " Mecklenburg Heights Proposed Rezoning Fact Sheet Regarding Density, Town . of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan and More Zoning in the Town of Ithaca' deals with calculations showing the proposed Mecklenburg Heights density compared with allowable densities - in the R1 A (City District) . Some numbers were done with the Mecklenburg Heights density because of the total of 11 . 5 acres, which is the whole site including the road way. The Town asked the applicants to put the whole portion of the proposal together with the road coming in , but the actual gross density of the Mecklenburg Heights proposal is 4. 89 dwelling units per acre based on' that calculation . The allowable density in the City's R-1 A zoning district, which is the adjacent area in the City of Ithaca allows minimum lots of 10 , 000 square feet. This may be surprising to some I heard people saying that we have half acre lots and we have three quarter acre lots, but in fact the zoning in the City allows 10 , 000 square foot lot sizes, which is approximately a quarter acre. If a calculation was based on the net density where 20 percent of land area was subtracted out, that is a typical factor when you do not really know what the land is like. In R-1 A there can be an affected density of 3 . 5 lots per acre. The City's Zoning Ordinance is similar to the Town ' s in that accessory apartments are allowed in this and many other areas of the City. We heard some comments that probably in a range of one half to two-thirds of the houses in these areas do have accessory apartments. I did a conservative estimate TOWN BOARD MEETING 18 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED — MAY 110 1998 nd 30 percent of the lots in R-1 A have an accessory apartment. The comparable density in R-1 A ould be approximately 4. 55 dwelling units per acre. Comparing that with the density of Mecklenburg eights at 4. 89 dwelling units per acre , it is not as big a difference as we heard people saying . I also want to clarify the R 715 density allowed in the Town of Ithaca is not that different from the proposed Mecklenburg Heights density. The Mecklenburg Heights proposal is 4. 89 dwelling units per acre. In the Town 's R-15 zoning district, 15 , 000 square foot minimum lots are allowed . Taking a 20 percent net reduction for road , utilities, etcetera out of that calculation there will be 4. 56 dwelling units per acre in R- 15 . We are not talking about significant changes in the zoning densities. Councilwoman Harrison - One of the questions that the public raised had to do with the needs and vacancies, and changes Cornell is planning . Cornell is tearing down some apartments, but they are going to build some additional dormitory facilities. Could someone from Conifer Realty address the question of how or whether the potential changes in student housing would have an impact on this project and the needs assessment that was done? Mr. Fenessey - We are required , as part . of the application process, to conduct a housing market analysis for the area. We engaged a housing consultant from Rochester to do that study. The publication is available to the public. It is unequivocally proved there is a demand for what we are proposing contrary to the comments tonight. I have heard those comments at every public hearing I have been to in the past 25 years when a zone change is proposed . We have documented evidence done by an impartial party that there is a sufficient demand for this housing . The market study did not include the entire area, it included a relatively a small geographic area of the Town . he New', York State Department of Housing and Community Renewal is a source of funding for part of his project. They are underwriting criteria that demand there be sufficient need for the project in the community before they would agree to give us money. They also have a policy called " build and fill" . If they have units in this area that are not legitimate, then there is another article used for denying an application and not underwriting the project. The State looked at the building code requirements, the growth , and the population . They concluded that there was sufficient demand for this proposal . I do not have any information on what Cornell University will be doing. Ms. Bilde:rback - The typical student population will not be eligible to live in this building . Tax credit laws forbid a single undergraduate student to live in this project. The market study did not include that population , it included the downtown , western , and southern part of Tompkins County. Ripple effects will occur in any situation , people could build whatever or wherever, but this project does not include any student housing . Supervisor Valentino - When I worked at Cornell University most of the employees lived outside the Town and the City. I feel very strongly that this is a need that needs to be met. People that would be living in this development would be people working full time jobs. Councilwoman Harrison - This project would not preclude graduate student families. I have heard a few things about the Phase 11 and Phase III development, but the Town Board is only taking action on rP lase 1 6nigi L. i i iei8 i lave ueel 11 some discussions and thought about Phase 11 because the traffic engineer talked about how many additional trips Phase I I may generate. Director of Planning Kanter - The Planning Board asked for a conceptual description of the Phase 11 development for several reasons . One is that an overall traffic impact evaluation could be done. That was included in the traffic study. TOWN BOARD MEETING 19 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 119 1999 The Planning Board could look at some of the issues related to the future road and park area. The Planning Board likes to plan ahead , especially if there are other vacant properties such as the Perry site north of the Ceracche parcel located off of Bundy Road . The Perry property is entirely zoned R-15 . It is quite similar in terms of future discussions as the Ceracche property. Many years ago there was a . sketch plan for possible development on the Perry site showing a layout for the future connector road . This is 'something that the Town Board , has been thinking about and requesting that the Planning Board look at. Phase II development on this part of the Ceracche property allowed the Planning Board to take a more specific look at that these issues . Councilwoman Harrison - What was discussed in terms of the Phase II to come up with a traffic plan? What type of development is being discussed? Director of Planning Kanter - In terms of planning it is not binding . It is the same level of detail that would be asked in any sketch plan that goes to the Planning Board. The Planning Board never gives any binding opinion on those sketch plans, but simply uses them for planning purposes. Councilwoman Harrison - Until a rezoning application is made that requires rezoning , we will not have that type of commitment? Director of Planning Kanter - That is correct. Phase II numbers were consistent with the current R-15 zoning that the number of housing units would not necessarily require a rezoning but could fit in the R- 15 density if that was the type of development proposed . Councilwoman Harrison - Questions about fire protection have been raised . The Town Board was supplied with a memorandum from the Fire Chief. Has the Town thought through the fire issues? Mr. Fenessey. - The driveway would be built to accommodate the standard for emergency vehicles to travel . Councilwoman Harrison - There has been concern about the school districts for the children of this development. If the Cayuga Heights Schools enrollments are full, the school district authorities would need to look at those issues. What is the water draining plan for this property? Would water be draining into the stream without the benefit of going into the detention basin . Mr. Harding - Currently there is a water sheet flow on two-thirds of the site that would eventually drain north into the creek. The northerly portion drains directly to it, and the mid portion drains across some of these mid properties in the stream storm system in the creek. There is a slight swale from the last house to the south that would intercept the water draining. into the culvert under Route 79 . Under the original drainage concept, we are picking up all drainage with the exception a some that came off the last unit going towards the creek directing it to the detention basin . In subsequent discussions, concerns were expressed at the Planning Board public hearing that the approach to take was that it would not over load the detention basin and prolong the time it takes to drain into the culvert system even though they are releasing it more quickly. We are going to allow more of this site to drain back into the creek so it does not exceed the current capacity draining into it. Drainage would go into the drainagebasin and not be increase the amount of flow in either one of those areas. Councilwoman Harrison - I do not understand why some of the drainage does not go onto the other properties to the north? TOWN BOARD MEETING 20 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 119 1998 r. Harding - The grading plan illustrates a swale directing the water to the drainage system . louncilwoman Harrison - What is being done to ensure the integrity of that creek? Mr. Harding - An erosion and sedimentation 'control plan is required as part of the rfinal site plan approval ,, process during construction. Councilwoman Harrison - What about post-construction? Mr. Harding - The storm calculations have been worked out to show that no more will be directed into that creek. Councilwoman Harrison - What would be drained into the creek would go through the storm water culvert through what type of system? Mr. Harding - There is a swale that would go around the west end of the unit and broaden out to a flat sheet flow going to the existing undisturbed wooded area. There will be some drainage structures located throughout the yard picking up drainage on portions of the site to discharge into a culvert to pan out into a sheet flow. Richard Morano, 116 Oakwood Lane - I have concerns about the drainage. At the meeting on march 23rd , we were told that very little water would enter in the creek area. Now we hear two-thirds of the rainage on that one section would go into the creek area to the north . ouncilwoman Harrison - No, what Mr. Harding mentioned was the amount of water reaching that creek will be no; more than what is reaching there now. Mr. Morano - Mr. Harding also mentioned that the drainage off of that property going into that area would be two-thirds greater. Mr. Harding - The southerly two-thirds of the site would drain into the detention basins. Mr. Morano - How close are those detention basins to the property? Mr. Harding - They are approximately 40 feet from the property line. Mr. Morano - Those basins are approximately 40 feet from the Hansen , Wiener's, and the Mulveys? Mr. Harding - Yes. We would be improving the situation on all four lots adjacent to the proposed development site. If there is a drainage problem now, by virtue of this project it will be improved. Mr. Morano - After catching the water where would it drain to? Mr. Harding - The water would be discharged through a pipe that outlets in the road right-of-way before the 24 inch culvert on Route 79 . Mr. Morano - The Town Board just heard a person complain their neighbors basement was full of water nd now the garage is full of water. You want to run off some additional water into that area that they ever had before? TOWN BOARD MEETING 21 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 11 , 1998 r. Harding - The whole idea of a detention basin is to put a pipe on it that is small enough to keep the ischarge at the same rate or below the rate that currently exists.. Mr. Morano - Explain to me the direction the water would flow through that part of the creek? Mr. Harding - The swale would intercept the water that flows naturally through the woods and bring it around the outside of the development. It would broadly discharge over the land . Mr. Morano - The majority of this project would be on asphalt and concrete? This looks like a lot of asphalt and concrete, and those products do not soak water in , it drains off. Mr. Harding - Approximately 40 percent of this project would be concrete and asphalt. Mr. Morano - Has anyone on the Planning Board had an opportunity to look at the site to see these issues? Supervisor Valentino - "Yes. " Director of Planning Kanter - The Planning Board and the Town Board members visited the site. Mr. Morano - The comment was made that the City of Ithaca was aware of this project. The City might have been aware of this project in writing , but at the meeting on March 23rd the Mayor said that he ersonally felt that the City's Planning Board was not very knowledgeable about some of the factors iscussed that night. We are victims of City/Town complications. Supervisor Valentino - The Town has had ongoing and continuous communications with the Planning Board in the City of Ithaca. Mr. Lambrou - The City said they did not know anything about this project until just the other day. Supervisor Valentino - The Town has received letters from them . Director of Planning Kanter - I think the communication problem may be between the Mayor and the Plan ning ';Board . Councilwoman Harrison - The Town received a letter from the City of Ithaca, dated September 17 , 1997 , stating "Thank you for your memorandum of August 21 , 1997 regarding the Project No. 9708253 . 1 appreciate your early notification regarding the proposed construction of low income housing near the City and Town boundary with the Town of Ithaca." Mr. Lambrou - Is that the only letter the Town received from the City? Councilwoman Harrison - I am not sure of that, but there was an awareness in September 1997 about this project. Director of Planning Kanter - Correspondence throughout every stage of the environmental review went to the City Clerk's office , the Mayor, and the City Planning Department. What more can the Town 's Planning Department do? TOWN BOARD MEETING 22 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED — MAY 11s 1998 r. Morano - The concerns I have include the neighbors who live 40 feet away from detention drains, Iuxtensive n off,ff 'and creek complications. A woman spoke on behalf of her ten neighbors who have had water problems during normal rain storms. Would this project be considered spot zoning? Attorney Barney - No, for example spot zoning is where there is a lot in the middle of a residential zone and a business such as a gas station is put there. This project would consist of 9 . 8 acres, which is a considerable amount of land for this project. This would less likely to be spot zoning. The Comprehensive Plan has an expressed desired to provide for affordable housing , and an expressed desire to provide for more extensive development where infrastructure already exists to support the development. Mr. Flumerfelt - Would there be more water run off directed towards Linderman Creek? Mr. Harding - No, there would be no more water directed to the creek. There is an increase of run off in the greater paved area, but we are reducing that by intercepting a major portion of it and draining it to the detention basin . Mr. Flumerfelt - If there is more water added to the creek at this point there is a lot of land up hill which would flow further down hill . Supervisor Valentino - The Town is taking those concerns into consideration . t Mr. Lambrou - Mr. Harding mentioned since the Planning Board 's last meeting that they made a hange in the flow around Linderman Creek? r. Harding - Based on the foot, print from the Planning Board public and the concerns that were expressed about property owners who live down stream from that culvert the Town Engineer feels that would be imore advantageous. It does not make a difference either way, I can handle it either way, it is up to the :staff recommendations. Mr. Lambrou - The Planning Board decided on a certain depth survey which seems undated now. I am not trying to make this a big issue because there was a slight change in the drainage, but your point still does not make sense. Director of Engineering Walker - The developer is directed to minimize changes in watersheds, and that has been done. The Planning Board directed the developer to do that as part of the decision making process. The Planning Board made their decision assuming that this change was made to equalize flows so things are not changed from one watershed to the other. The Planning Board had the full information , and they knew what they were doing . Councilwoman Harrison - There were a few things that the Board may want to change or include in the local law. Attorney Barney has mentioned that there is confidential income information which also raises the yI issue of looking at a management plan and the contract between Better Homes and Conifer Realty. Clarification of that needs to be made in some way. Was there a desire to add something for member of the community to be on a committee to oversee management of the project? Supervisor Valentino - The community committee should be handled through the Planning Board . Mr. Fenessey - We need to maintain confidentially with our tenants about their income. We are subject to State review and evaluation on an annual basis to confirm our tenants income. We would be the ultimate fools if we try to let someone occupy an apartment that did not meet regulations because we TOWN BOARD MEETING 23 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 119 1998 ould loose our tax credits. The tax credits are the basis of us being able to build this project. There re a lot; of safe guards that assure compliance with the State requirements for serving lower income tiouseholds. We would be happy to work with the community and the neighbors. We want to make sure that we maintain confidentially with each tenant. Attorney Barney - If there are changes made to this local law it cannot be adopted tonight, it would need to be referred to another public hearing . One of the attractive aspects of this proposal is the affordable housing . I am not sure that the Town wants to totally surrender to other entities the responsibilities for assuring the development does indeed meet the affordable housing standards. Is there some way that we would be able to work out how to protect the confidentially concerns, and the Town 's concerns? Mr. Fenessey - This is not a unique concern , there has been these concerns in other communities. I am sure we can work out things. Councilwoman Harrison - How would the issue of dealing with the management plan and the contract be incorporated in what the Board is doing? Director of Planning Kanter - I would suggest that be done as part of the final site plan approval because it would be something that would not be written until after the site plan is done prior to the issuance of building permits. A recommendation could be attached to the resolution to ask that of the Planning Board . t or. Fenessey - There is no federal money for this development project, we are only raising tax credits. is State money, our money, and the tax credit money we are raising . We have to demonstrate to HCR and the State that we are moving in good faith to construction . If we are stalled in construction r reasons beyond our capability to control , the State recognizes this. We are not under any special date to built this project. Councilman Wolff - I am going to vote " no" on this project. I will be voting " no" not because I am against this project because it has had unanimous support through all the Boards of the Town of Ithaca. We have seen this issue for a while. I want the towns people to know that there is a time when we need to rezone regardless of the covalence we make. There is a time when it is necessary. We also have; to acknowledge that the West Hill will be changing , as much as we would like to preserve the good parts of the neighborhood. I think it is good that we as citizens be part of the process of that change because we need to hear from people about what needs to be changed and what should not be changed . ' There is a time when development is needed we need to acknowledge that as well . I think there is a need for housing , but I said I was going to vote " no" , and the reason is that I am very impressed by the fact that there are so many people here tonight with unanimous feelings that this project should not go forward yet. I agree with the public that they did not know what was going on, and I feel very uncomfortable supporting something at this late stage when I am not convinced the people who are going be effected have not have some input. I want the " no" vote to stand for the fact that people need to be involved in the process. I suspect that my colleagues may not vote " no" they may vote for the zoning change, which does not mean that the public's battle is lost or won . It is only just the beginning , and I would encourage those that have been involved to remain involved . Your 11or nvolvement can make sure that whatever development takes place, whether it is this project or others, re consistent with your values and enrichment for the neighborhood . I would like to thank the public their time and input. Supervisor Valentino - I am a little upset with Councilman Wolff s concern that this project has not had a lot of discussion . This project has been advertised in the newspaper and brought before the TOWN BOARD MEETING 24 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 119 1998 pplicable boards several times. We tried to do a good job in letting the community know what has een happening here. If we failed in that we need to think of other ways to do that better, but as far as lis process has been , it has received thorough discussions. Councilwoman Harrison - This project was advertised in the newspaper many months ago. Councilman Wolff - There has been ample opportunity for support on this project. I do not think the Town has done a poor job in reaching out to the community, but my " no" vote is a symbol that there is some concern in the community. The process is only beginning , and my colleagues . are voting to change the law. I agree with them in terms of the substance of what that change is, but the public needs to be involved more. I hope the public stays involved. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 = CONSIDER ENACTMENT OF As "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO, 27-01 =13. 12, LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-1S TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT (MECKLENBURG HEIGHTS)' : RESOLUTION NO. 59: Motion made by Supervisor Valentino, seconded by Councilwoman Harrison that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO. 27-01 - 13. 12 LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 TO MULTIPLE ESIDENCE DISTRICT'; and it is further ESOLVED, that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed to enter said local law in the minutes f this meeting and in the Local Law book of the Town of Ithaca, and to give due notice of the adoption of said local law publication of such local law or an abstract or summary thereof in the Ithaca Journal and by filing a copy of said local law with the Secretary of State of the State of New York, and, it is further RESOLVED, that prior to the review of the final site plan by the Planning Board the Town Board recommends that the Planning Board review and approve the management and other arrangements between Conifer Realty Corporation and Better Housing for Tompkins County to assure continued involvement of Better Housing of Tompkins County in the project, and the possible creation of a community group to provide input regarding the process of construction and operation of the proposed!project. A roll vote on the resolution resulted as follows : Supervisor Valentino, aye ; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye , Councilman Wolff, nay. Motion carried . (NOTE : Formal adopted resolution is hereto attached . ) , AGENDA ITEM NO. S = CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION FOR SUPERVISOR TO SEND COMMENTS TO NYS DHCR, RE : COMFIER REALTY CORPORATION PROPOSAL FOR THE " BIGGS SENIOR APARTMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 60: Motion made by Councilman Conley, seconded by Councilman Wolff that fehe Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to write a letter to the New York State Division Housing and Community Renewal expressing the Town Board's support of the concept of development of the Biggs "A " Building into 81 apartments in a supportive living complex for seniors. vote on the resolution resulted as follows : TOWN BOARD MEETING 25 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 119 1998 oard Members Present for Vote : Supervisor Valentino, aye , Councilman Klein , abstain ; Councilman onley, aye ; Councilwoman Russell , aye ; Councilman Wolff, aye: Motion carried . (NOTE : Formal 11clopted resolution is hereto attached . ) AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 - CONSIDER SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR THE NEW TOWN HALL . Director of Engineering Walker - The basic design preserves the lobby as the public access point. The large room of 300 square feet, 135 spaces would be a configuration for a Town Board room , but the furniture could be moved to configure for a court room . The adjoining conference room will serve as an executive session space or a jury room . The court offices will be at the south side of the building . The Town Clerk's office will join the lobby on the north side of the building that will have a handicapped ramp off of Buffalo Street. The hallway was changed to one side of the Town Clerk's office to lead back to the secretaries of the Planning and Zoning Departments. I discussed with the architects bumping the counter of the Town Clerk's office out further into the lobby for four work stations, plus a window counter. It was shown there before, but now there is more space behind the counter right now. Town Clerk Noteboom -' What is the difference between the vault door and where the chair is directly across from it? How many feet? Director of Engineering Walker - That is approximately six feet. What type of vault does the Town Clerk's office need? Do you need a large vault or a safe type situation? The Town Clerk' s office wanted the vault located in this position because they want it to be accessible without having to leave their work tations. own Clerk Noteboom - This plan shows more square footage space for the Town Clerk's private space than there was in the last design , that is not necessary and gives the wrong perception . It was 134 square feet before, and now it is up to 150 square feet. We made comments about moving the Town Clerk's department space back out to the hallway where it was in design one. I would like to have the whole space for the Town Clerk's office open as much as possible. We do confidential things such as marriage ilicenses, and we need a space where we can take people into a private space near a computer! terminal to receive the confidential information . We shouldn 't have anyone giving that information over the counter or in the lobby where it could be overheard . I am also concerned that the copier rooms are farther back. There is going to be a need to have a way for Town Clerk staff to use a copier closer to their work stations. I am more concerned with having more space for staff to spread out work and do their work. Security is another issue, we need to make sure staff in the front are not left alone. The vault needs to be located in that area. Councilman Klein - Previous designs showed more hall space. Director of Engineering Walker - More hall space, and the Town Clerk's office space was shortened. What complicates this situation is that there is a window. Councilman Klein - The Town Clerk's office could be windowless with a glass front. t irector of Engineering Walker - It would be down to 90 to 100 square feet, but shallow. own Clerk Noteboom - I do not understand the architect' s reluctance in moving the front service ounter farther out into the hallway in a half moon fashion so it would lend itself well aesthetically. Then if people don 't need to go to the Town Clerk' s office they could more easily go down the hallway to other departments. TOWN BOARD MEETING 26 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 11, 1998 Director, of Engineering Walker - There is an aesthetic problem with breaking the lobby up in that manner. Klein - Where the Town Clerk is planned to be, there are no walls now. The whole side lobby parallel to Buffalo Street is partly wide open . What is the Town Clerk's concept again? Town Clerk Noteboom - There would be a half mooned shape counter that would wind around to the hallway. I have seen places with glass going up eight to ten feet with molding at the top. That would allow security and the pleasing look of being open , and allow the counter to wind into the hallway towards the back offices. Councilman Klein - The plans look like a solid glass wall and a door, so from the lobby people are fully restricted from getting into the Clerk's office unless someone allows them in . This space has not been fully worked out yet. Supervisor Valentino - There are difficulties, and we need to review that area again. Councilman Klein - The entire space is pretty large, so it seems there should be enough space to do what we want. Supervisor Valentino - If there is a counter space towards in the lobby a receptionist could meet the people, it could be secured at night and it would not be necessary to worry about items being left out. Councilman Klein - A two foot counter could be pulled into the space. Town Clerk Noteboom - This would also provide better service by providing a welcome to the public. Supervisor Valentino - There needs to be space where people will not be working over another persons work space when waiting on the public. Director of Engineering Walker - Do the Town Justice's have any comments on the front of the building? Town Justice, Raymond Bordoni - We went from a configuration that had this space as a Town meeting space with a small channel as court room space which would be awkward . There would be no place for jury executive sessions. When we last spoke our was around where the business would be conducted in this room . Mr. Walker has explained that when the Town Board , Planning Board, etcetera meet they will have this configuration so they can face the public as they do now. However, when it comes to court nights this area will be reconfigured for the courts to be held . Someone from Town Hall will have to be moving the tables each time there is court or a board meeting . We do not want to sit as the boards do with all the empty chairs on the platform. Supervisor Valentino - The chair configuration could be done anyway the Town Justice's want. Director of Engineering Walker - The center table will be raised at least one step higher up . The Town will have options with the furniture. Councilman Klein - The Justice bench will need to be kept in a permanent position, and then the other tables will ' need to be moved around . TOWN BOARD MEETING 27 MARCH '30, 1998 APPROVED - MAY 11j 1998 irector of Engineering Walker - The center section would be raised on a platform that would be ermanently mounted . Councilman Klein - That is not the way the Town Board wants to sit. Director 'of Engineering Walker - The Town Supervisor, clerk, and the Deputy Supervisor could sit at the center bench raised above everyone else. Supervisor Valentino - In the Town of Groton they have the whole area raised, which is where the combined court rooms are. Town Justice Bordoni = We do not need an open table up front, and you do not need a table without a rail on it , because everyone wants to lean on the rail. We do not like to have leaning that close to us. We need to restore the court room atmosphere. Councilman Klein - That is a furniture detail that can be worked out. Attorney Barney - Would all the seats be raised up at the front tables? Supervisor Valentino - Yes, because when the Town Board meets we do not want to sit at separate tables. There is no reason why the furniture could be done so the Justices could be on a higher portion . ouncilman Klein - There is a lot of space in the Town Board/Court Room . Director of Engineering Walker - We reviewed the schedule of use for the meeting room . There does not seem to be a big problem of scheduling all the various meetings. Councilman Klein - Does the scheduling really work? Supervisor Valentino - "Yes. " Director of Engineering Walker - There is a conference room in the back of the building that could be sealed off,, with access from the rear of the building for those nights there is more than one meeting. Supervisor Valentino - There are a lot of meetings that could be held in the conference room. Scheduling will work. Attorney Barney - There are some nights these Boards will need more room than what the conference room will hold . Town Clerk Noteboom - With communication and cooperation within all departments we could possibly change the nights certain Boards meet. We do have options for meeting time frames that could be used instead . a t own Justice Bordoni - The two court nights should be one night after the other. upervisor Valentino - That could be done. The scheduling would need to be worked out further. TOWN BOARD MEETING 28 MARCH 30, 1998 APPROVED — MAY 11s 1998 irector of Engineering Walker - We designed this configuration so the Clerk's office is close to the ain meeting room and the court offices are close to the meeting room . The court clerks will be vailable during the day from the main lobby. Supervisor Valentino - Having the board room and court room off the main lobby is the presence the Town wants to have for the public. Councilman Klein - I think these schematic designs have improved . The Justices may be able to hold arraignments in their offices during the day. The Town Board and the Town Justices had a brief conversation about the arraignments the Justices make during the day or at night times. Justice Bordoni how defendants could act and how they might be difficult to handle. Supervisor Valentino - There have been discussions about moving the employee lounge into the basement to make the conference room in the back of the building bigger for night meetings. Director of Engineering Walker - The conference room/library will have a phone and work table so Board Members can use them . There will be 19 staff workstations. Clerical staff will be in one area to deal with the public before they are sent on to a department head . The work stations have not been assigned to any particular person . The back offices and work stations will have locked doors for security purposes. he Town Board had a brief discussion about the workstations, and how the layout of those work tations enable department heads to have contact with staff. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 - ADJOURNMENT : As there was no further business to come before the Town Board a motion was made by Councilman Klein , seconded by Councilman Wolff to adjourn . Motion carried unanimously. Supervisor Valentino adjourned the meeting at 9 : 38 p. m . Respectfully submitted , Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk "`*Next Regular Monthly Meeting - April 13, 1998 at 5 : 30 p. m . "***Minutes Transcribed by Deborah Kelley. Town Board Meeting 3/30/98 Agenda Item No. 6 Authorization to Receive Bids for a 1985 or Newer 66" Double Drum Vibratory Compactor Resolution No. 58 WHEREAS , the 1998 Highway Fund Budget included appropriations for the purchase of ( 1 ) one Used Roller ( Double Drum Vibratory Compactor) ; and WHEREAS , the money has been budgeted, specifications have been researched and written ; now, therefore be it RESOLVED , that on the recommendation of the Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent, the specifications for the purchase of a 1985 or Newer 66" Double Drum Vibratory Compactor be accepted ; and , be it further RESOLVED , that . the Town of Ithaca Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise and receive bids for the purchase of the said 1985 or Newer 66" Double Drum Vibratory Compactor. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Wolff Board Members Present for Vote: Supervisor Valentino , aye; Councilwoman Harrison , aye ; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilman Wolff, aye. Motion carried . DATED: March 30 , 1998 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town . Clerk Town Board Meeting 3/30/98 Agenda Item No, 4 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE LOCAL LAW REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO . 27-01 - 13 . 12 LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT (MECKLENBURG HEIGHTS APARTMENTS) Resolution No . 59 WHEREAS, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of . the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town on March 30, 1998 to hear all interested parties on a proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO. 27-01 - 13 . 12 LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT"; and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the . lthaca Journal ; and WHEREAS , said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted. an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof; and WHEREAS , pursuant to part 16 of the Implementing Regulations pertaining to Article . 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) the Town of Ithaca Planning Board was determined to be lead agency in considering the environmental significance of the proposed Mecklenburg Heights Project including the environmental effects of the proposed site plan and rezoning ; and WHEREAS , the Town Planning Board , after consideration of the various application materials made a determination of negative environmental significance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 617. 6(b) (3) (iii) such determination of significance is binding on the Town Board ; and WHEREAS , the proposed project is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board finds it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens to effect the request rezoning , particularly as it provides an . opportunity to as availability of affordable housing in the Town ; and TB Mtg . 3/30/98 Agenda No. 4 , Res. No. 59 Page 2 . NOW, THEREFORE , be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO . 27=01 - 13. 12 LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed to enter said local law in the minutes of this meeting and in the Local Law book of the Town of Ithaca, and to give due notice of the adoption of said local law publication of such local law or an abstract or summary thereof in the Ithaca Journal and by filing a copy of said local law with the Secretary of State of the State of New York; and , it is further RESOLVED , that prior to the review of the final site plan by the Planning Board the Town Board recommends that the Planning Board review and approve the management and other arrangements between Conifer Realty Corporation and Better Housing for Tompkins County to assure continued involvement of Better Housing of Tompkins County in the project, and the possible creation of a community group to provide input regarding the process of construction and operation of the proposed project . MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilwoman Harrison VOTE: Catherine Valentino Ave Motion carried . John P . Wolff Nav Edward Conley Ave Ellen Harrison Ave Mary Russell ,Ave DATED: March 30 , 1998 In Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk Town Board Meeting 3/30/98 Agenda Item No. 5 SUPPORT FOR CONCEPT OF REDEVELOPMENT OF BIGGS "A" BUILDING , TRUMANSBURG ROAD, FOR 81 APARTMENTS FOR SENIORS Resolution No . 60 BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to write a letter to the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal expressing the Town Board's support of the concept of redevelopment of the Biggs "A" Building into 81 apartments in a supportive living complex for seniors . MOVED: Councilman Conley SECONDED: Councilman Wolff Board Members Present for Vote: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Klein , abstain ; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilman Wolff, aye; Councilwoman Russell , aye. Motion carried . DATED : March 30, 1998 Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk �1y OF I r TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850. OWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Joan Lent Noteboom , being duly sworn , 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 the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, (Ithaca Journal : LEGAL NOTICE : SPECIAL TOWN ' BOARD MEETING DATE/PUBLIC HEARING - To consider a, " LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO. 27-01 -13.12, LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT (MECKENLENBURG HEIGHTS)." Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Town Clerk' s Office 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT Date of Posting : Friday, March 13, 1998 Date of Publication : Monday, March 16 , 1998 Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF. TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this i day of '14 r c , 19 . No Public Saxton Notary Public, State of New York Registration #01SA5044003 Qualified in Tioga Coln y My Commission Expires 4� OF ITry TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA . STREET, ITHACA, N . Y. 14850 i WN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE TOWN OF ITHACA PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a Special Town Board meeting on March 30, 1998, at 5 : 30 p . m . , in order that they may conduct a public hearing at the said meeting at 5 : 35 p. m . , to consider, a "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO. 27-01 - 13 . 12 LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT (MECKLENBURG HEIGHTS)" . , and PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, all citizens at the aforementioned time. and place shall be afforded the opportunity to voice their approval or opposition to the said local law, and PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE , individuals with visual impairments , hearing impairments or other special needs , will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Joan Lent Noteboom Town Clerk March 13, 1998 PUBLISH : Monday, March16, 1998 AA ONIFER REALTY CORPORATION 3 0199 An affiliated company of Home Properties TOWN OF ITHACA t'!ANNING. ZONING ENGINEERING FAX 1 -607-273 - 1704 March 26, 1998 Mr. Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street . Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Drat Zone Change 'Law Dear Jon: Our legal department in Rochester has reviewed the draft legislation for the Mecklenburg Heights Apartments and have the following concerns based on tenant confidentiality. This project is required to conform to Section 42 of the IRS Code with New York State project oversight carried out by the N.Y. S . Department of Housing and Community . Renewal to assure conformance. Section 1 , Paragraph 2, Additional Conditions, (IV), (VI) of the draft local law is requiring us to disclose tenant income to town officials which would, we believe, be a breach of confidentiality between the tenant and landlord. Since the state carries out this certification conformation as part of their oversight we question why the town would also want duplicate this function. Please call me so we can discuss this issue and see if there is some other way to satisfy the town ' s needs without sacrificing tenant confidentiality. iilcerely, H. nness Vice President JHF/snt Suite 101 / 890 Seventh North Street/ Liverpool, New York 13088/ (315) 451-8876/FAX (315) 451-8983 TB Mtg . 3 / 30 / 98 Agenda # 3 FINAL ; MAR 2 01998 12 Past a Ld - - Poughke p9iKeh. March 1 914462 000646 (H) 914 4334921 (W) Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. Valentino : We wish to register the following objections to the proposed Site Plan, Subdivision, and Rezoning of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27- 1 - 13 . 12, in conjunction with the proposed Mecklenburg Heights Apartments. ( 1 ) The proposed siting of the apartments adjoins a single-family residential area with lot sizes of around 0. 8 acres. Thus an apartment complex would be totally out of keeping with the neighborhood. The current zoning is quite appropriate. (2) Such a change would constitute an undue financial burden on the residents of the adjoining properties. We have had our house at 1111 Hector Street on the market since last summer. Our asking price is $ 15,000 below what we paid for it in 1992, despite our extensive improvements to the property. The proposed siting would seriously damage our prospects for selling the house and our ability to obtain any kind of reasonable return on our investment in a dwelling. Others in the neighborhood will be likewise affected. (3) The apartment complex would have a strong negative impact on the wildlife community in that area. Currently, the land in question houses a wide variety, of animal life, including wild turkeys and coyotes. High density human residency would greatly disturb the ecological balance that now exists. (4) Such a large-scale alteration of the land use would also pose water run-off problems for the residents of adjoining properties. A long hill slopes down towards the City of Ithaca across the land in question. The natural ground cover and topsoil now present on the land serve to take up the water that comes from spring melts, downpours, etc. Should that vegetation be cleared to any significant extent, as would happen with the siting of an apartment complex, the properties located downhill can expect to suffer the consequences of excessive, even damaging, water flow. (5) Hector Street already has traffic problems in that area The high-speed traffic proceeding down the hill at 55 mph rarely slows to the designated 30 mph on entering the city Emits. This results in frequent property damage and deer collision accidents on the curve. Vehicles pulling into traffic out in the 55 mph zone and adding to the traffic volume entering the city at that point would exacerbate these problems. Sincerely, Leon Harkleroad Cynthia Pitts Harkleroad TB Mtg . 3 / 30 / 98 I� n Agenda # 3 � I � LIAR 2 31998 +,.:' Robert and Renata Ballard 615 Warren Place Ithaca, New York .14850 607-272-0135 March 23, 1998 Town of Ithaca Town Board 126 E Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Town of Ithaca. Board Member, We're sending you this letter since we' ll be out of town on Monday, March 30' when you' ll be conducting the Public Hearing to consider "Rezoning a portion of Tax Parcel No. 27-01 - 13. 12 located on NYS Route 79 from Residence District R . 15 to Multiple Residence District (Mecklenburg Heights) . Although we had heard about the Mecklenburg Heights project it was not clear until several weeks ago that the Town Board had to authorize a zoning change to allow the project to go forward The Mecklenburg Heights project has not received much publicity in the Ithaca Journal, Ithaca Times or the local Cable TV news channel. It is apparent that both the Town Board and Planning Board have been working diligently to make the Mecklenburg Heights project a fait accompli. Conifer Realty Corp formerly requested the zoning change for 9 acres of the 95 acres owned by Mr. Anthony Cerrache in their letter dated August 20, 1997. Conifer Realty Corp must have had strong encouragement from the Town Board at the January 1997 in order to have gone forward with the funding process as described in the August 20, 1997 letter, We object to this proposed zoning change from Single Family and Single Family with Accessory Apartment to Multiple Residence District. The parcel in question has a common border with a City of Ithaca. zoned Single Family and Single Family with Accessory Apartment. The character of the West Hill neighborhoods in closest proximity to the Mecklenburg Heights project is clearly single family in nature. In the Town of Ithaca it includes West Haven Road, Mecklenburg Road, Bundy Road and Perry Lane. In the City of Ithaca it includes Fall View Terrace, Campbell Avenue, Oakwood Lane, Hector Street, Taylor Place, Westwood Knoll and Warren Place. These neighborhoods in the Town and City have a right to expect this zoning to remain Single Family. Mecklenburg Heights "does not fit in" with the already established neighborhoods or the geographic landscape of this sloping hillside. The Comprehensive Master Plan for the Town of Ithaca was just adopted in 1993 . This proposed "spot rezoning" throws out the "contract" the Town made with it's residents as well as it' s neighbors in the City of Ithaca. There is no compelling reason to change the zoning. The rental market has sufficient units available throughout the County. Specifically on West Hill there are numerous vacancies in West Village Apartments including 12 two bedroom units as well as numerous vacancies in Chestnut Hill Apartments including 7 one bedroom units, 11 two bedroom units and 1 three bedroom unit. We are very concerned about the negative impact the Mecklenburg Heights project will have on the surrounding areas. There are very serious issues involving drainage and traffic safety on Mecklenburg Road and Hector Street, downhill for 2 miles to the Route 79 Bridge. Everyone who uses Route 79 is aware of the present difficulties experienced from time to time along this route. Property values are another major concern. Currently there are two single family homes on Hector Street downhill from and abutting the Mecklenburg Heights project. Home owners have the right to a fair market price. Undoubtedly the project will have a negative impact on the expected price and saleability of these homes and any other future homes sales in the immediate area. In addition it will have a negative impact on the assessments and the tax base of city properties in proximity to the project. In conclusion we urge the Town Board to rethink their apparent enthusiasm for the Mecklenburg Heights project and that you will not go forward with this rezoning proposal. Sincerely, Robe, rt Ballard and Renata Ballard I ; „ A L TB Mt: 3 / 30 / 98 IME OWE ". 1 . Agenda #3 W 2 MB . Nick & Sharon Lambrou 601 Warren Place ^ Ithaca, NY 14850 ITF!""4-cf. 607-273 -0553 3/20/98 Dear Town of Ithaca Board Member: Eight years ago, my wife and I found our perfect home in Enfield. A beautiful Greek Revival situated on three acres. Our Realtor, however, told us that the only thing tough about Enfield is that there was no zoning enforcement at the time: someone could buy the land next to us and put in a used car lot. Hence, we found our house on Warren Place. We checked out the zoning all around us, including the Cerrache land in the Town, and we were satisfied that any development in our new neighborhood would at least match our own property, as well as the rest of the neighborhood. In a way, we perceived Zoning as a "contract" between a Municipality and the residents within the zoning area. We only learned about the Mecklenburg Heights Project two weeks ago. Since that time we have met with many of our neighbors and they too only heard scant details of the project, and all were alarmed that the Town would have to change the zoning to allow this project to begin. Many of us in the neighborhood do not understand how the Planning Board, as Lead Agency, could pass this project on to you without requiring a Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It seems like common sense that the an EIS was written for projects of this size, particularly since we understand that we are only dealing with Phase I at this time, and plans call for a Phase II and III down the road, where future environmental ramifications should be examined thoroughly. It seems logical that Mecklenburg Heights, a project that could eventually influence the entire Cerrache site of 98 acres, a project that seems to deviate from the Town' s Master Plan, a project that definitely deviates from the general character of the neighborhood (single or two family housing compared to cluster housing zoned as multiple family dwellings), a project that requires re-zoning from an original zone classification that held the standard for many years, would be the "poster-child" for a EIS . From research, we have determined that our logic is supported not by hearsay or subjective neighborly opinion, but by the New York State Supreme Court, as the Ithacare project was subject to similar review, and developers were ordered to complete a EIS for that project by decision dated 9/30/94. In effect, the Planning Board was ordered to (a) issue a positive declaration, (b) require the preparation and circulation of an EIS, and (c) comply with such other procedures as may be mandated by SEQRA in the consideration of the site plan. Some pertinent excerpts from Judge Relihan' s decision are listed below: ". . . Section 8-0109(2) mandates an EIS when an agency action "may" have a significant effect on the environment. Under the New York statute, it is not necessary to find that a project "will" have an adverse effect or is "likely" to have such an effect. Indeed, it has been repeatedly held that the statutory. requirement for the submission of an EIS is triggered at a "low threshold." (page 14) " . . .The EIS process guarantees comprehensive review of a project' s adverse environmental effects, consideration of less intrusive alternatives to the proposed action. . ." (page 15 ) " . . . It may be argued that an insistence upon the procedural steps laid down by SEQRA, when talk enough has been heard, is an elevation of form over substance. So be it. The statute is also wholly concerned with form. The end in view, however, is not the performance of empty ritual but the formation of a sound judgment, built upon the fully developed facts and conclusions defined in an EIS which has been exposed to public scrutiny and informed comment. " (page 17) For the record, we believe that low to moderate income housing is a noble idea and should be pursued if there truly is a need for such housing. And it is interesting to note that at the last Town Planning Board hearing, Ms. Becky Bilderback of Better Housing of Tompkins County noted that a true community enjoys residential diversification. With respect to that opinion, West Hill has it all: Large, single family housing on Mecklenburg road; more modest, primarily single family and two family homes on Warren Place, Hector St. , and Oakwood Lane, and multiple residential units on Floral Ave., at Chestnut Hill Apartments, and . West Village. Because of this, we feel our neighborhood meets this "criteria," and we are interested in examining data, if any was provided, that discusses the "need ' for further diversification on West Hill. The West Hill Civic Association is sponsoring a meeting on March 23 to discuss the issues mentioned above, as well as some other issues brought to our attention by other concerned neighbors. We believe that before you even can consider changing the zoning on the Cerrache site, you all owe it yourselves, and the neighbors that will be directly impacted by your decision, to require a EIS for this project, or any project this size that drastically changes a neighborhood and an environment entrenched in like-Zoning. Sincerely, Nick Lambrou and Sharon Lam rou TB Mtge 3 / 30 / 98 ?at Cdiaxhi . Agenda Item No . 3 F1 L MR 2 T EN s=ue TO'JVN OF ITHACA KANNINa ZONIN Gh ENGINEERING oolp AZ cs f L /X- !� - - • - - - - _ — • _ _ . .... vv . . vv -s -T . . VV j• 11�91LIZ I � Or / Town Board Mtg . 3 / 30 / 98 UAWAgenda Item No . 3 1`� LOCAL 2300-rrHACA OFFICE 109 W- State SL Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 2724108 NONE 27 March 1998 D ( 6 YU [ Cathy Valentino, Supervisor W2 710 Town of Ithaca Fax: 273 4704 L TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING ZONINGe ENGINEERING To the members of the Town Board: I am writing to support the zoning changes to allow the construction of the proposed Mecklenburg Heights housing complex. Moderately-priced housing in the area is inadequate at this time. Local 2300 of the United Auto Workers represents the 1 , 100 service and maintenance workers at Cornell University, as well as employees at a dozen other area places of business. With the starting wage for permanent Cornell bargaining unit workers at just over $7 an hour and the average hourly wage between $9 and $10, each full-time worker's income is in the $ 14,000 to $20,000 per year range. Where do ComellIs dining, custodial and other service and maintenance employees live? The breakdown by zip code is instructive. In a January mailing to our ' active members, the tally was as follows: Ithaca !!! ' .. (city and town) ....... .... .... .. .... .... ., »........ . . .3142 Newfield .... . . ....... .. .......... ..N......N.. ...... ..........NN993 Groton .........»........N........N...... ...... .......... ........... . .$ 1 Spencer ......... ......N.... ....................N....................57 FreevilleN........N........N.......... ..............M...... »......�6 Tn(a\maan(�sbur1g� ... .... ......... »........N.. .......... ......N.......56 Brooktondale . I . . ....moves ..N........N.......... .......... .. .......49 TY + ALNN........ ..NP......NN.u...... ...w.... . .Nw.... .. .. 1909 9 (Not included in the above count were substantial bundles to Corftad9 Genoa, Horseheads, Interlaken, Owego, Watkins Glen and all points in between.) These employees' already-stretched budgets have to include major amounts for gas and automobile upkeep, as only a small percentage of these workers can juggle child-c m and second job constraints to fit the limited public transportation schedules. When more than two of the lowest-paid employees at the area' s largest employer must travel eight or more miles to get to work, something' s out of whack. Please help correct the imbalance by making affordable housing accessible within the town of Ithaca. Sincerely ours, Sit Kris Finley Financial Secretary w i TB Agenda Item No . AgeFINAL i FINAL MAR 2 7 N8 nda Item No . 3 J ' David B. Cook 1 Perry Lane TOWN ® F ITHACA Ithaca, NY 14850 March 24, 1998 Ithaca Town Board 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Sirs: I want to go on record as being opposed to the following three projects in the Town of Ithaca: 1 . The proposed 56 unit Mecklenburg Heights affordable housing units, 2. The proposed road between the Mecklenburg Road and Bundy Road, and 3 the development of a nursing care unit on the property of Dick Perry, When I moved to the Shalebrook development, I mistakenly assumed that the land below Perry Lane belonging to Dick Perry was zoned as agricultural. Silly me in assuming that planted and harvested fields were not zoned for agricultural purposes. I want to go on record as being strongly opposed to his proposed project. As a taxpayer, I am somewhat bewildered why I have not been notified by the Town to whom I pay taxes, that there is a proposed road to be built less than 500 feet from my property. I paid top dollar for this property and more importantly I pay top dollar in taxes. I feel that this new connecting road will have a detrimental affect on the value of my property. In addition I am opposed to the request for a zoning change from single family to multi residential for the proposed Mecklenburg Heights project. Zoning regulations are passed to protect the value of existing properties, and should not be changed to line the pockets of developers. I am. given to understand that the developer of this Heights project has agreed to "bribe" the Town by providing an access road and a park. I am song that I can not offer you a park or a road, the only thing that I offer is property taxes, the money that pays your salaries. I have read with interest the Towns grandiose ideas of buying land to protect the rural feeling. It appears the Town is willing to do this in some cases but when they can be influenced by the prospect of a free park and road, they are willing to sacrifice that neighborhood. I am currently working in Schenectady, NY, and as such am unable to attend any meetings on these projects. I am requesting that this letter be read into any formal meetings that are held on any of the above three projects. I would also request copies of the minutes of any meetings and further request a copy of the proposed development of all three sights. Please send them to my home address, if this can not be done please notify me of this as soon as possible. �cerely: David B. Cook TB Mtg . 3 / 30 / 98. \VJ Agenda Item No * 3 . °°�" ' ` MAR 2 71998 A NAL 12 Pasture Lane ° '�' Poughkeepsie, �` 126 (�L �-a-- _ March 24, 1998 914-462-0646 (H) 914 4334921 (W) Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. Valentino : We wish to register an additional objection to the proposed Site Plan, Subdivision, and Rezoning of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27- 1 - 13 . 12, in conjunction with the proposed Mecklenburg Heights Apartments. Our earlier letter is enclosed for your convenience. Now that we have had a chance to view the plans, it is quite clear to us that they do not include any kind of adequate screening between the apartment complex and our house at 1111 Hector Street. The indicated existing vegetation line consists of low plants and will provide no shield between a single-family home and this vastly different proposed usage. The large volume of noise to be expected, not to mention the loss of privacy, would be most disturbing. Developers planning projects such as this really should be required to plant tree lines along their boundaries with adjoining homes. Sincerely, Leon Harkleroad Cynthia Pitts Harkleroad � L MAR 3 01998 James and Deborah Bi ' ' 1209 Mecklenburg Roa `� `�!�"`� Ithaca, New York March 28 , 1998 Dear Town of Ithaca Board Member. We have owned our home for 16 years. Prior to this we owned a home in the east hill area of the city of Ithaca. We decided on the west side in the town to get away from the noise and . congestion where we were living . We looked at many homes in the city but you never knew for sure when you might suddenly have a houseful of tenants living next door to you . Therefore, when we found our much loved home on Mecklenburg , Road , which is on approximately 2 acres , we were thrilled . We knew that the empty land directly across the street from us was owned by Anthony Cerrache but was zoned R- 15 . . We knew that some day other homes might be built on that land but never did we expect rezoning to be a possiblility with 7 apartment buildings consisting of 56 units, and this is only stage 1 of this project. We feel this is totally out of character with the neigborhood . We also know that this would mean a value loss in our home which we have done many improvements to over the years . Please consider the following . 1 ) This area is zoned R45 and is the reason many people bought homes around here even when the " Octopus " was a problem. 2 ) Consider the tremendous increase in traffic , noise , and trash on Rt. 79 , a road which has already gotten_ considerably busier in the 16 years we have been here . 3 ) Is there truly a need for such a project? Currently the other apartment complexes on West Hill have vacancies . How can you support rezoning to build more apartments . 4 ) The town can expect to lose tax revenues because the existing homes would lose value . 5 ) At a recent West Hill Civic Association meeting that we attended ty it was implied that . Conifer Corporation would be getting proper tax breaks by building this type of project. I do not know if there is any truth to this , but I would certainly be upset if it was true . 6) West Hill is much more accessible since the completion of the new bridges and road work done at the "Octopus " making this area an even more desirable location . Thus , why the hurry to settle for this type of project? ? ? This is the first proposal for major building since the improvement in the roads . Why not wait a while . 7 ) It is also our understanding that if this rezoning goes through, the Conifer corporation will purchase the remaining 45 acres from Mr. Cerrache . If the first 9 .5 acres are rezoned to allow apartments to be built how can the town legally stop their petition to have the remainder of the land rezoned ? ? In conclusion, please give careful consideration to this application and we urge you to vote . no to the Mecklenburg Heights Project . Sincerely, ames and Deborah Bilinski i John G. Whitcomb 195 S. Hill Rd. Spencer, NY 14883 607) 589= 7911 March 30, 1998 Hon . Catherine Valentino Town of Ithaca Supervisor 126 E. Seneca St. Ithaca NY, 14850 Dear Cathy, I am pleased to learn the Town is considering an affordable housing project on the Cerrache parcel on West Hill . I understand the project is being proposed by Better Housing for Tompkins County (Better Housing) . I was a member of the Board of Directors of Better Housing for several years in the late 1980s and early 1990s , While I was on the Board, Better Housing completed senior citizen housing projects in Caroline and Trumansburg. Better Housing also constructed or renovated ten houses throughout the County for first-time home buyers. During that time, a partnership was forged with the County Planning Department for the administration of housing rehabilitation projects utilizing HUD monies. I have observed that while some neighbors may have initial concerns about development in their area, Better Housing has traditionally been mindful of the needs of not only its constituents but also those of the neighborhood and the environment. Their projects have been well constructed and well managed. As a member of the Town of Ithaca Town Board, I supported development of affordable housing in the Town. I had several discussions with Becky Bilderback, Executive Director of Better Housing about this possibility in the Town but the "right" project never materialized. As I recall, the Ceracche parcel was identified in the Town ' s comprehensive plan as being one of the few parcels in . the Town suitable for this type of development. . This was due primarily to its proximity to public utilities and transportation, and adjacency to the city and employment opportunities , without significantly altering the original planned (R- 15) density of the area. I assume the Town Planning Department and Planning Board have addressed the environmental considerations inherent in any project of this scope. If so, I urge the Town Board to enable this project to move forward, erely, hn G. Whitcomb C } March 30, 1998 Town of Ithaca Board : We submit this letter to support our negative vote for a change in the zoning for the proposed Mecklenburg Heights project. Although you are considering only changing the zoning of Phase I at this time, you cannot convince us that by changing the zoning of Phase I you will not alSor be more apt to change the zoning of Phases I I and III in the. future. We are particularly concerned regarding the proposed park and access road from Oakwood Lane . Have any of you board members personally visited: Oakwood Lane? If an access road is built, it will change the entire character of the street and neighborhood . Oakwood Lane is but one block long, bordered by Hector Street at one end . The other end is bordered by Brookfield , which has little traffic because it ends in a cul-de-sac. Another concern for us is that the additional traffic generated by the access road and park off Oakwood Lane would create a security risk for the neighborhood . We urge you to vote "no" on the rezoning of Phase I of the Mecklenburg Heights project. Sincerely, Pat and Richie Moran 119 Oakwood Lane NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Local Law Filing NEW AVENUE , ALBANY , NY 12231 (Use this form to file a local law with the Secretary of State.) Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter. ITHACA Townof .............................................................................:.......................................... x� 0000.... of the year 19 98 Local Law No . ............................................ A local law AMENDING,THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL ...................................................................................................................................0000...... NO . 27 -01 - 13 . 12 (Insert Title) LOCATED ON N eY e S e ROUTE 19 FROM , RESIDENCE . DISTRICT R-15 TO " MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . (Mecklenburg Heights- Apartments ) Be it enacted by the .TOWN...:: ... ... ..................................... of t .. ...............:.................:.:...............:................ 0000. ... he (Name of Legislative Body) x&W of � H#�C�a..:.....:...:.........................................:.....:...........:....................:.:....................:..:.. Town as follows: ( SEE ATTACHED ) (If additional space is needed, attach pages the same size as this sheet, and number each .). Inc - �T� row.. prom TB Mtge 3 / 30 / 98 Agenda # 3 TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO , 3 FOR THE YEAR 1998 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO . 27-01 43 . 12 LOCATED ON N . Y . S . ROUTE 79 . FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R45 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . (Mecklenburg Heights Apartments) Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows : Section 1 . Amendment to Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as adopted , amended and revised effective February 26 , 1968 , and subsequently amended, is further amended as follows : 1 . Rezoning . The zoning map dated April 11 , 1988 , as amended to date , is hereby further amended by rezoning the lands described on Schedule A incorporated into this local law from Residence District R45 to Multiple Residence District. 2 . Additional Conditions . The area being so rezoned to Multiple Residence is subject, in addition to the conditions , restrictions , and limitations set forth in the zoning law relating to Multiple Residence Districts generally and any other limitations and restrictions , to the following additional conditions : a. Maximum Number of Units . A maximum of 56 dwelling units shall be located in the district to be contained in no more than seven buildings . b . Conformance to Plan. The construction in the rezoned area shall be substantially in accordance with the plan entitled " Mecklenburg Heights Apartments , Preliminary Layout and Planting Plan L-2 " dated 3 February 1998 with only such changes therein as may be approved by the Planning Board , such construction to consist essentially of the construction of seven buildings containing in the aggregate approximately 16 one-bedroom apartments , 32 two bedroom apartments , and 8 three-bedroom apartments . C , Low Income Housing . In accordance with the application seeking rezoning of the property , the proposed dwelling units will be limited in the amount of rent charged for same in accordance with the following provisions : (i) Income Restrictions and Duration. For a period of fifteen years from the date a permanent certificate of occupancy is issued for the last building in the project all of the units shall be made available solely to low income tenants in accordance with the terms of this local law . This restriction shall terminate at the end of such fifteen year period . (ii) Definition. For the purpose of this local law a " low income tenant " shall Mecklenb. rez, Wp51 filth Eocallaw, , 03118198 4:05pm be a tenant (either individual or family as the case may be) whose income is not more than 60 % of the median family income in Tompkins County at the time of rental . The determination of 60 % of median . family income shall be based upon incomes published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the area in which the project is located , or if not published by said Department, shall be based upon other similarly recognized sources of median income information as determined by the Town. (iii) Maximum Rent . The maximum rent to be charged for the units shall not exceed the lesser of: (A) The maximum rents authorized by the Low Income Tax Credit Program applicable to the project and as administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and/or the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal ; or (B) On an annualized basis (determined at the time of execution of a lease or upon occupancv , whichever is earlier) , 35 % of 60 % of the applicable median family income in Tompkins County published as set forth above (e . g . if the median family income for a family of two in Tompkins County is $36 , 600 . 00, the maximum annual rental chargeable to two people shall be $7686 , or $640 . 50 per month ($36 , 600 . 00 times 60 % times 35 % )) . The maximum rent set forth above shall include costs of heat, water, gas , electricity , and sewer, if any . The owner shall have the option of requiring tenants to pay directly to the provider the costs of any or all of such utilities provided that the basic annual rent charge is reduced by the reasonably anticipated annualized costs of such utilities (e . g . if the maximum annual rent is $7 , 686 . 00 , and if the tenant is required to pay New York State Electric & Gas Corp . or other public utility directly for his or her own gas and electricity , and if the reasonably anticipated annual cost of gas and electricity so payable is $ 1 , 200 . 00 , the basic annual rent shall be no more than $6 . 486 . 00 or $540 . 50 per month) . (iv) Income Information. The owner of the units shall obtain, at the time of rental , such information as the owner may reasonably determine to be necessary to establish the total income of the person or persons occupying 2 Mecklenb. rez, Wp51 11th lLocallaw, , 03118198 4:05pm the rental units . At a minimum , such information shall include copies of the tenant ' s most recent income tax return including copies of W-2 forms ; if the tenant is working , copies of the tenant' s four most recent pay stubs ; and an affidavit sworn to by the tenant under the penalties of perjury stating the total amount of tenant' s income and the sources thereof including names and addresses of payees of such income . The tenant shall also provide a signed authorization allowing both the owner and the Town of Ithaca to verify Tenant' s income with the payees of such income and shall also sign a written agreement agreeing to notify the owner of any increases in tenant' s income occurring after submission of the foregoing affidavit. Such records , authorization and agreement shall be kept by the owner with any leases and shall be disclosed to the Town' s zoning enforcement officer and other officials of the Town of Ithaca at any time upon request for the purposes of confirming that the units have been rented to low income tenants . (v) Loss of Eligibility . Subject to any other provisions regulating the occupancy of the project, any person who is an eligible low income tenant at the time of rental but who becomes ineligible by reason of increased income after assuming possession of a rental unit may be permitted to stay for the duration of such tenant' s lease . Leases shall be limited to one year in duration, and may be renewed upon demonstration that the tenant continues to meet the income limitations . (vi) Certification to Town. Every three years and more frequently if requested by the Town, for so long as the project is required to provide housing for low income tenants , the owner shall provide to the Town a certification of compliance with the requirements of this local law , which certification shall be in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Town and which may include a rent roll indicating for each apartment name(s) of the tenant(s) , duration of lease , period of occupancy , tenant' s income , utility cost and rent paid . (vii) Audit. For so long as the project is required to provide housing for low income tenants , the Town shall have authority (but not the obligation) to audit the certifications of the owner to determine compliance with the provisions of this local law . Such audit may be conducted by Town personnel or by consultants or others selected by the Town. If the audit discloses a material breach of the provisions of this local law , without limiting any other remedies available to the Town, the reasonable expense 3 Meddenb. rez, Wp51I1thV ocallaw, , 03118198 4:05pm of the audit shall be paid by the owner to the Town within ten days of demand for same by the Town. d . Subdivision Prohibited . The area being rezoned to multiple residence shall be owned, in its entirety , by the same individual or entity and shall not be subdivided or converted to condominium units , cooperative units , or any other . form of multiple ownership without approval of the Town Board and approval . of any related site plan by the Town Planning Board . e . Retention Area Maintenance . The owner of the project shall maintain at its own expense any drainage and/or storm water retention area shown on any final site plan approved by the Planning Board . Such maintenance shall be in accordance with generally accepted standards for such maintenance and shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of the Town Engineer. f. Incorporation into Deed Restrictions . The provisions in this local law set forth above and such additional covenants and restrictions as the Town may reasonably require shall be incorporated into restrictive covenants which shall be in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Town Board and the attorney for the Town which restrictive covenants shall be recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office and shall specifically cover the premises being rezoned to Multiple Residence District pursuant to this local law . Such recording shall occur prior to the issuance of any building permit for any building construction in the project. g . Final Site Plan. After adoption of this local law , and prior to the issuance of any building permits , a final site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Board , such plan to include appropriate planting plans , buffering to adjoining properties , and other items required by the site plan sections of the Zoning Ordinance and by the Planning Board regarding site plan approval . h. Revisions to Site Plan. Any significant revisions to the preliminary site plan submitted to the Town Board in connection with the adoption of this local law shall be submitted to and be approved by the Town Board before issuance of any building permits for the Multiple Residence District are issued . Section 2 . Reversion . Unless work has materially commenced in accordance with a final site plan within one year from the issuance of the building permit authorizing such work, or within thirty-six months of the date the Planning Board gave final site plan approval , or within four years of the effective date of this local law , whichever is earlier, any building permit shall lapse , the site plan approval (both final and preliminary , if any) shall expire , and the 4 Mecklenb. rez, Wp51INlocallaw, , 03118198 4:05pm zoning change effected by this local law shall terminate and the zoning shall revert to that in effect prior to the adoption of this local law , unless in the interim there has been a general rezoning of the area surrounding the area being rezoned by this local law , in which event the zoning shall revert to the same zoning as then in effect along a majority of the perimeter of the land being rezoned as a Multiple Residence District by this local law . The Planning Board, upon request of the applicant, after a public hearing , and upon a finding that the imposition of the time limits set forth above would create an undue hardship on the applicant, may extend the time limits for such additional periods as the Planning Board may reasonably determine . An application for such extension may be made at the time of filing of the original application for site plan approval or at any time thereafter up to , but no later than, six months after the expiration of the time limits set forth above . For the purposes of this section, work will not have " materially commenced " unless , at a minimum, (i) a building permit, if required, has been obtained, (ii) construction equipment and tools consistent with the size of the proposed work have been brought to and been used on the site ; and (iii) substantial excavation (where excavation is required) or significant framing , erection, or construction (where excavation is not required) has been started and is being diligently pursued . Section 3 . Violations . Any violations of the terms of this local law shall constitute a violation of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and shall be punishable as set forth in said Ordinance and in Section 268 of the Town Law of the State of New York. Each week' s continued violation shall constitute a separate offense . Notwithstanding the foregoing , the Town reserves for itself, its agencies and all other persons having an interest, all remedies and rights to enforce the provisions of this law , including , without limitation, actions for any injunction or other equitable remedy , or action and damages , in the event the owner of the parcels covered by this law fails to comply with any of the provisions hereof. Section 4 . Partial Invalidity . In the event that any portion of this law is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration. Section 5 . Effective Date . Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law this local law shall take effect ten days after its publication (or publication of a summary or abstract as permitted by law) in the Ithaca Journal or upon its filing with the Secretary of State , whichever is later. 5 Mecklenb. rez, Wp5111th ILocallaw, , 03118198 4:05pm SCHEDULE A DESCRIPTION OF LANDS TO BE ZONED MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (Mecklenburg Heights Apartments) ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LANDS situated in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County , New York, being a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Map No . 27-01 - 13 . 12 and being more particularly described as follows : COMMENCING in the northwesterly line of New York State Route 79 where it intersects the westerly line of the City of Ithaca ; running thence substantially westerly along the northwesterly line of Route 79 on a slight curve to the right with a radius of 300 . 72 feet a distance of 158 . 48 feet to a point; running thence north 79 degrees 32 minutes 57 seconds west along said highway north line a distance of 62 . 83 feet to a point; running thence north 75 degrees 5 minutes 7 seconds west continuing along the northerly line of Route 79 a distance of 351 . 76 feet to a point in an easterly line of lands now . or formerly of Edward M . Murray (Tompkins County Clerk' s Office Book. 571 of Deeds at Page 563) ; running thence north 14 degrees 54 minutes 53 seconds east passing through an iron pipe at 8 feet a total distance of 297 feet to a point . 3 feet east of an iron pipe ; running thence north 75 degrees 5 minutes 7 seconds west along the north line of Murray ' s premises a total distance of 460 feet to a point , which point is a northwesterly corner of said Murray premises ; running thence south 14 degrees 54 minutes 53 seconds west along a westerly line of said Murray premises a distance of 297 feet to ; the north line of Route 79 ; running. thence westerly along the north line of Route 79 a distance of 100 feet to a point; running thence north 14 degrees 54 minutes , 53 seconds east a distance of, 397 feet to a point; running thence south 75 degrees 5 minutes 7 seconds east a distance of 415 feet to a point; running thence north 14 degrees 54 minutes 53 seconds east a distance of 265 . 49 feet to a point in the centerline of a creek; running thence easterly along the center of the creek as it bends and turns approximately 536 feet to the northwest corner of lands now or formerly of W . G . and J . L. Hansen (Book 505 of Deeds at Page 789) which point is located south 87 degrees 9 minutes 49 seconds east a distance of 507 . 96 feet from the immediately preceding point; running thence south 14 degrees 5 minutes 7 seconds west along the west line of said Hansen premises and premises now or formerly of Marta Weiner (Book 732 of Deeds at _Page 202) a distance of approximately 240 . 79 feet to the southwest comer of said Weiner premises ; running thence south 74 degrees 47 minutes 53 seconds east along the south line of said Weiner premises 200 feet to an iron pipe which pipe is located in the boundary line between the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca ; running thence south 14 degrees 5 minutes 7 seconds west along said boundary line a distance of 469 . 71 feet to the point or place of beginning . The above description is based upon a map entitled " Preliminary Plan Mecklenburg Heights Lands Now or Formerly Anthony Ceracche Part of Military Lot 56 " prepared by C . T . Male Associates , P . C . dated 12/31 / 1997 , a copy of which is file in the Town of Ithaca Planning 6 Afeckienb. rez, Wp5111th ILocallaw, , 03118198 4:05pm Department. The above described premises are shown on said map as "Phase 1 Area = 9 . 818 + /- Acres " plus a 100 foot wide strip leading from the westerly side of the Phase 1 area westerly and then southerly along the north and westerly perimeters of the Murray property to . Route 79 . 7 (Complete the certification in the paragraph that applies to the filing of this Iocal law and strike out that which is not applicable.) (Final adoption by local legislative body only.) hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. 3 of 1998 of the O(Town)( l ) of ITHACA was duly passed by the TOWN BOARD on March 30 , 1998 , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. (Name of Legislative Body) 2 . (Passage by local legislative body with approval , no disapproval or repassage after disapproval by the Elective Chief Executive Officer%) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto , designated as local . law No. of 19 of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 19_, and was (approved)(not disapproved)(repassed after (Name of Legislative Body) disapproval) by the and was deemed duly adopted on 19_, (Elective Chief Executive Officer in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 3 . (Final adoption by referendum .) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto , designated as local law' No. of 19 the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 19 was (approved)(not disapproved)(repassed after ame of Legislative Body disapproval) by the on 19 Such local law was Elective Chief Executive Officer submitted to the people by reason of a (mandatory)(permissive) referendum, and received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon at the (general)(special)(annual) election held on . 19_, in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 4 . (Subject to permissive referendum and final adoption because no valid petition was filed requesting referndum .) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. of 19 of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 19 _, and was (approved)(not disapproved)(repassed after Name of Legislative Body disapproval) by the on 19 Such local law was subject to Elective Chief. Executive Officer' permissive referendum and no valid petition requesting such referendum was filed as of 19 , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. flTective Chief Executive Officer means or includes the chief executive officer of a county elected on a - wide basis or, if there be' none , the chairman of the county legislative body, the mayor of a city village, or the supervisor of a town where such officer is vested with the power to approve or veto . local laws or ordinances . (2) 5 . (City local law concerning Charter revision proposed by petition .) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto , designated as local law No. of 19 the City of having been submitted to referendum pursuant to f te provisions of section (36)(37) of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote a majority of the qualified electors of such city voting thereon at the (special)(general) election held on 19_, became operative. 6 . (County local law concerning adoption of Charter.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto , designated as local law No. of 19 of the County of , State of New York, having been submitted to the electors at the General Election of November 19_, pursuant to subdivisions 5 and 7 of section 33 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of the cities of said county as a unit and of a majority of the qualified electors of the towns of said county considered as a unit voting at said general election, became operative. (If any other authorized form of final adoption has been followed, please provide an appropritate certification .) I further certify that I have compared the preceding local . law with the original on file in this office and that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original local law, and was finally adopted in the manner indicated in paragraph 1 , above . Clerk of We County legislative body, City, Town or Village Clerk or officer designated by local legilsative body (Seal) Date: March 31 , 1998 0 (Certification to be executed by County Attorney, Corporation Counsel , Town Attorney, Village Attorney or other authorized Attorney of locality.) STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS I, the undersigned , hereby certify that the foregoing local law contains the correct text and that all proper proceedings have been had or taken for the enactment of the local law annexed hereto. Icsi`gnat A RNEY FOR THE TOWN_ Title of ITHACA Town Date: —V ( 3 ) Revised January 14 , 1998 1416-2 (9195 ) - 7c 617.20 S EO R Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in . an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1 : Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists 'a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3 . Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range or possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impac' is likely to be considered. small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. I I DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE — Type 1 . and Unlisted Actions Identify the Poitions of EAF completed for this project: ] Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: 91 A. The project will not result in any large and important impacts) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. I C3 B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* 13 C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. i • A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Mecklenburg Heights Name of Action ITown of Ithaca Planning Board Name of Lead Agency ' Fred Wilcox Chairman PH Type ame of esp�n i le Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Off1cer in Lead Agency Signa�Wure of Preparer ( If different from responsible officer) f o 0Off Date 1 12 / 1 % 97 1 / 12 / 98 REVISED PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION JAIN I v i� �iJ , a Prepared by Project Sponsor LNg 0r tg cuPment designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effec P, app, �( fttiitit! complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considers- -- ' par o t e application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additions information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 31 It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. if information requiring such additional work . is unavailable, so indicate and specie each instance. NAME OF ACTION Mecklenburg Heights / Lymestone Hill Apartments LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address. Municipality and County) Mecklenburg Road / Town of Ithaca /Tompkins County NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE Conifer Realty Corporation ( 315 ) 451- 8876 ADDRESS i 890 Seventh North Street , Suite 101 CITY/Po STATE LP CODE t . Liverpool , New York NY 13088 f NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE Anthony Ceracche ( ) ADDRESS I 522 West State Street CnY1P0 STATE ZI P CODE I Ithaca NY 14850 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Local approval actions include >? eioning of the property from R- 15- to MR (Multiple * Residence ) , site plan approval and subdivision approval . See attached description . Please Complete Each Question — Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project both developed and undeveloped areas. 1 . Present land use. OUrban ❑ Industrial OCommerciai ❑Residential (suburban) Mural (non-farm) ❑ Forest ❑Agriculture . ❑Other 2. Total acreage of project area: 11 . 43 acres. ( Phase I only ) APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) 6 . 0 acres 1 . 0 acres Forested 5933 _ acres 2 . 70 acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres 0 acres Wetland (Freshwater or . tidal as per Articled 24, 25 of ECL) . 10 acres • 10 acres Water Surface Area 0 acres 0 acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres 0 acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 0 acres 3 . 33 acres Other (Indicate type) 0 acres 4 . 30 acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Rhinebeck Silt Loam -,a. Soil drainage: C]Well drained % of site ZSModerately well drained 100 % of site ❑ Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System ? 11 . 43 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ❑Yes )MNo a. What is depth to bedrock? no bedrock11 (in feet) -T ) 2 12 / 1 / 97 .111219 $ Revised 5 . Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: ®0110 % 100 % 01045 % % 015 % or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places ? OYes ENO 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks ? DYes X.M. No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 10- 15 ' (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? OYes X$Nci 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area ? X2Yes ONO 11 . Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? OYes EIo According to The Environmental Co llaborative . Favetteville . N . Y . Identify each species Barbara Reuter , Pres . ( see page 1 and page 13 of weclana Ueiineation Report an en um 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i. e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) OYes Mlo Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? Oyes (LINO If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? DYes ENO 15 . Streams within or contiguous to project area: Yes a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary Linderman Creek Cayuga Lake 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name wetland b. Size (In acres) less than 1 acre 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities ? DYes ONo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow donnection? XlYes ONo b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection ? DYes ONO 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ®Yes ONo 19. Is the; site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? DYes ONo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? OYes KlNci B . Project Description 1 . Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage ownedP�r controlled gy project sp2nsor. 42 . 263 acres, e inc a u i.ng roa s 42 . 27 max . ; acres ultimately. b. Project acreage to be developed: 11 . 43 acres initially, c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N / A (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N / A °r6 ; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing . 0 ; proposed 81 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 37 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing unitsphase I One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially 56 Ultimately 74 0 40 = 96 Total i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 31 � height; 60 width; 90 length. J . Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 560 ft 3 12 / 1 / 97 1 / 12/ 98 Revised 2. How much natural material (i. e.. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 0 tons/cubic . yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed ? U1fes ONO ON/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? for lawn area b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation ? MYes ONO c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation ? Wes ONo Phase I 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 7 . 63 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other local ly4m portant vegetation be removed by this project? ❑Yes UNo 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 12 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. TotaLnumber of phases anticipated 2 (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 May month 1998 year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase Dec month 2002 year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases ? DYes ZINO 8. Will blasting occur during construction ? ❑ Yes )MNo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction S0 ; after project is complete 2 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11 . Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities ? OYes ENO If . yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes Mo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes X] No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? DYes $$No Explain Storm detention ' on site 10 + 100 yr . storm 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain ? ❑Yes 43No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? )MYes ONO a. If yes, what is the amount per month 59000 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? JaYes ONo c. If yes, give name Tompkins County Solid Waste ; location City of Ithaca d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Mes ONO e. If Yes, explain local recycling of specified products 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes X$] No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? n / a tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? n / a years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides ? MYes ONo for fertilization & extermination by an outside contractor 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Oyes ENO 20, Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ❑Yes ENO 21 . Will project result in an increase in energy use? MYes ONo If yes , indicate type(s) gas and electric 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity n / a gallons/minute. 23 . Total anticipated water usage per day 18 , 000 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding ? $] Yes ONO If Yes, explain DHCR LOAN AND FEDERAL TAX CREDITS 4 j 1271 /97 •. 1 / 12 / 98 Revised ' 25. Approvals Required: Submittal Type Date City, Town, Village Board 0Yes ONO rezoning 9 / 97 City, Town, Village Planning Board Wes O, No site plan / subdivision 10 / 97 City, Town Zoning Board QYes ClNO City, County Health Department $Yes ONo water / sewer plan 12 / 97 Other Local Agencies C 3Yes • MNo i Other Regional Agencies (] Yes Mo I NYS Div . o sgg & Community Renewal 2 / 97 ' State Agencies Dyes ONo NYS n Det . of Transportation i I Federal Agencies C3Yes S)No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does- proposed action involve a planning or zoning . decision ? Mes ONo If Yes, indicate decision required: XXMzoning amendment ❑zoning variance Ospecial use permit X13subdivision Mite plan Onew/revision of master plan Oresource management plan Cother. 2 . What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? 11- 15 Residential 3 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 18 building lots with 36 units on a 9 . 81 acre site 4 . What is the proposed zoning of the site? MR-Multiyle Residential ( 9 . 81 acres only ) S . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 166+ dwelling units , but will be restricted by town board to 56 dwelling units 6 . Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? UYes ON( 7 . What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 114 mile radius of proposed action? R- 15 Residential and R- 30 Agricultural / also residential in City of Ithaca 8 . Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/4 mile? X$Yes C]Nc 9 . If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? 3 lots a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 9 . 47 acres - dedicated nark site 100 Wilt proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? OYes X®Nc 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police fire protection)? =Yes ONo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? XXYes E3No 12 . Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? Oyes AgNo a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle. the additional traffic? DYes ONc I D. Info i Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify hat the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Spons Na a Conifer Realty Corporation Date 1 / 12 / c) R Signature Title Vice President If the act is in the Co - staff Are are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessor 5 PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION Description of Action - The applicant is subdividing a 94 . 728 parcel with the current land owner retaining 42 . 992 acres. Of the remaining 51 . 726 acre 9 .473 acres will be dedicated by the owner and the applicant to the Town of Ithaca for park purposes. The remaining acreage totaling 42. 263 acres will be further subdivided into two parcels. The Phase I parcel will consist of 11 .43 acres which includes 1. 62 acres of road right of way leading to the site from N. Y. S. Route 79. This will leave 30. 833 acres for future development by the applicant. Acreage Summary: 42 . 992 to be Retained by Seller 9 .473 to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca 9 . 81 Phase I - 56 apartments 30. 833 Phase H development 1 . 62 Road access to total parcel 94. 728 Total Parcel to be Subdivided A. Site Description 2 , Phase I of the above overall development will consist of 56 apartments developed on 11 . 43 acres of land which includes 1 . 62 acres of road access. 11 . Wetland Report notes there are no threatened or endangered species . Applicant has sough DEC confirmation of this conclusion. 14 . Photographs or site and surrounding area have been submitted to Ithaca Planning Board, B . Project Description l . g. Traffic consultant estimates the peak hour trips to be generated by Phase I to be 24 entering and 13 exiting trips during the PM peak hours. C . Zoning and Planning Information 11 . The full component of community services will be required for this 56 apartment unit project. The applicant has no knowledge of insufficient capacity in the current community service system that would diminish the service level for the community. T —�7 Revised . January 14 , 1998 Part 2 — PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE 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 reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • 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 . I I • 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 20 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 threshold is lower than example, check column 1 . d. 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 simply asks that it be looked at further. e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. f. 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. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential . Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By ` IMPACT ON LAND Impact Impact Project Change ` . 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the projects e?f ONO KYYES ! Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15 % or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ 1:1 ❑ Yes ❑ No foot of !length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10 % . • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ 1:1 ❑ Yes ❑ No 3 feet. I • Construction of paved parking area for 1 ,000 or more vehicles. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ❑ Yes ONO than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1 ,000 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No tons of natural material (i . e. , rock or soil) per year. I • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes El No • Other impacts ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO 2 . Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? ( i . e . , cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.A0 OYES • Specific land forms : ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N f 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be IMPACT ON WATER Moderate Large Mitigated By 3 . Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected ? Impact Impact Project Change (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) KNO 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 ❑ No protected stream . • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No . • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts : ❑ ❑ C3 Yes ❑ No 4 . Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing pr new body of water? XVO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10 % increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ 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 5 . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ONO XES Examples that would apply to column 2 ' • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. r�(` El ❑ 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 ❑ Cl Dyes ❑ No 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 . • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No products greater than 1 ,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ C3 ❑ Yes ❑ No and/or sewer services . • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities . • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ [] Yes ❑ No 6 . Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surf ce water runoff ? . ONO YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows . 7 ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No li 1 2 3 j Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion . ❑ C3 Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated flood% ay. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No s IMPACT ON AIR XN 7 . Will proposed action affect air quality ? O 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 ❑ No refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a C3 ❑ 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 ❑ No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 . Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endang ed species ? XO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ CD Yes 0 N 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 ? XNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑ C1 Yes ❑ 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 ? ONO YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No land ( includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc .) 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 ❑ 01 Yes ❑ No agricultural land . Ct� r�„��— �gl^f �C, lAkd — C lass 2d'1L'prii..� sor' ls) • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No . of agricultural I d or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more 1cu than 2 .5 acres ofrural 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 : ❑ ❑ F1 Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources ? ❑ NO YES ( if necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B .) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ED Yes ❑ No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether mari-made or natural . • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ [1 Yes C1 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 0 N IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 . Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure o_ f � istoric, pre- historic or paleontological importance? 0 OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 ` • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes C3 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 ❑ 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: ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑ No I 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 )<N0 OYES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ C3 Yes ❑ No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 9 r 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change r IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14 Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique character- istics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617 .14(8) ? X NO DYES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA . ..L, s � Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action to locate within the CEA ? ❑ ❑ 13 Yes ❑ No ; • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource ? ❑ ❑ Dyes C] No • Proposed ;Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource? ❑ Cl ❑ Yes [] No - Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No >: resource? Other impacts : ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No = ` IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION y b 15 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems ? ❑ NO �YE5 Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alterationoof present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. �. 11 Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems . ❑ ❑ C1 Yes ❑ No • Other impacts : ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No IMPACT ON ENERGY 16 Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply ? A4 OYES Example 's that would apply to column 2 roposed Action will cause a greater than 5 % increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No ny form of energy in the municipality. roposed 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 : ❑ ❑ Dyes [] No 10 1 2 3 NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS Small to Potential Can Impact Be 17 . Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result Moderate Large Mitigated By of the Proposed Action ? ), 10 OYES Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1 ,500 feet of a hospital , school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ Cl ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ C3 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 . ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No • Other impacts : IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18 . Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety ? )KN0 OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N 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 C3 No form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No gas .or other flammable liquids . • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N0 within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [] No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND .CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19 . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing commu ty? ONO YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The, permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ Cl ❑ Yes C1 No project is located is likely to grow by more than 5 % . • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ C3 ❑ Yes ❑ 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 C1 No • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ Dyes ❑ No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ Cl Dyes ❑ No or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ Yes C3 No (e. g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects . ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 11 No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. Cl ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 20 . Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? XNO 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 11 14. 14. 11 (9195)-9c 617620 SEQR Appendix B State Environmental Quality Review Visual EAF Addendum This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 of Part 2 of the Full EAF. (To be completed by Lead Agency) Distance Between Visibility Project and Resource (in Miles) 1 . Would the project be visible from : 0- 1/4 1/4 . 1/a 1/2 -3 3 .5 5 + • A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available ❑ ❑ Cl ❑ ❑ to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man- made scenic qualities? • An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ observation , enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? • A site or structure listed on the National or State ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Registers of Historic Places? • State Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • The State Forest Preserve? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ natural features? • National Park Service lands? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • Rivers designated as . National or State Wild, Scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or Recreational? • Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak? • A governmentally established or designated interstate , ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or inter•county foot trail , or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? • A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic? • Municipal park , or designated open space? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • County road? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • State? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • Local road? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (Ile. , screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ❑ Yes *o 3 . Are any of the resources checked in question 1 used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be visible? XYes ❑ No 1 i t DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT F 4 . From each item checked in question 1 , check those which generally describe the surrounding environment. Within * '/a m 'le * I mile Essentially undeveloped ❑ Forested Ill"❑--��^ Agricultural ❑ Suburban residential ❑ Industrial ❑ ❑ Commercial ❑ Urban ❑ River, Lake, Pond ❑ Cliffs, Overlooks ❑ ❑ Designated Open Space ❑ ❑ Flat ❑ ❑ Hilly ❑ Mountainous ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ NOTE: add attachments as needed 5 . Are there visually similar projects VN in : ' '/z mile 13 es 0 ' 1 miles Yes ❑ No ' 2 miles es ❑ No ' 3 miles Yes ❑ No Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate EXPOSURE 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is 3 073 VA� ' NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate. AAAT = Ah AA � %vti&( a b-Pufy Tel;P, vc . to Al oT r q tbow, %) LearotZac4 CONTEXT r G 1 ' "d 0►1 Mal !Rq 7 "a-4 •rQ C&U00V oh &'o 7c? . 7 . The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is FREQUENCY Holidays/ Activity Dail Weekly Weekends Seasonally Travel to and from work � ❑ ❑ ❑ Involved in recreational activities ❑ ❑ ❑ Routine travel by residents x ❑ ❑ ❑ At a residence ❑ ❑ ❑ At worksite ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Other T Nr1% Sl;r p ❑ 2 Revised January 14 , 1998 State Environmental Quality Review Part III - Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts Action : Mecklenburg Heights Apartments - Rezoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval Location : Mecklenburg Road adjacent to Town of Ithaca/City of Ithaca boundary Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Planning Board 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? Proposed action would change flood water flows Proposed action may cause substantial erosion a. Briefly describe the, above impact(s) : Linderman Creek (P296-754 ) is a protected stream (Class D) which traverses this property and flows into the City of Ithaca under Route 96. A wetland delineation study was conducted by the applicant, which confirms the presence of associated wetland vegetation. The total wetland delineated area is 0. 14 acres . The Mecklenburg Heights Apts. Wetland Delineation Report, Oct. 1997 , is incorporated into this environmental assessment (a copy of a portion of that report is attached) . As a result of the proposed relocation of the entrance drive to the west side of the Murray property on Mecklenburg Road, an Addendum to the Wetland Report, dated December 29, 1997 , was prepared, and is incorporated into this environmental assessment. The Addendum indicates that there are no wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed entrance drive. Possible concerns include impacts during construction: increased runoff, loss of soil, and deposition of eroded soils along the stream path and Cayuga Lake, and impact after construction of increased flow due to more impervious surface area. A pr'elimary stormwater analysis has been submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the Town ' s Director of Engineering. The Stormwater Analysis and Conclusions, Oct. 8 , 1997 , is incorporated into this environmental assessment ( a copy of a portion of the stormwater analysis is attached, along with a report from the Director of Engineering). Based on the above, it appears that the proposed site plan and existing site conditions will allow adequate stormwater control for the site and that minimal adverse environmental impacts from stormwater runoff are anticipated. A detention basin is proposed on the east side of the site to control stormwater runoff. Details of drainage improvements will need to be addressed in the final site plan and construction drawings . In addition, a revised Stormwater Analysis, dated October 8 , 1997 - Revised January 5 , 1998, was prepared by the applicant and is attached and incorporated into this environmental assessment. The revised Stormwater Analysis modifies the original analysis to include drainage calculations and modifications to the proposed detention area to incorporate the relocated entrance drive and the additional site disturbance that will result, The revised calculations indicate that a detention basin with a storage volume of 1 .4 ac -ft, needs to be developed as part of the project. A preliminary sedimentation and erosion control plan has been submitted by the applicant which indicates that adequate erosion and sedimentation control measures can be established to minimize those impacts, both during and after construction. The preliminary site plan indicates that the closest developed area (a parking lot) will be ,within approximately 75 +/- feet of the delineated wetland/stream area. A silt fence is proposed between the developed area and the stream corridor. Existing vegetation is proposed to be retained as a buffer. This approach appears to minimize impacts of drainage and sedimentation on the delineated stream/wetland area. Based on the information above, impacts identified in this section can be considered to be small to moderate. 100 Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources ? Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land a. Briefly describe the impact: The project site is situated within New York State Agricultural District No. 2, pursuant to the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law, but the owner has not been receiving the agricultural tax abatement under the Agricultural District program. Additional lands to the north and west are in Agricultural District No . 2. Class I and H prime agricultural soils may exist on this site. The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (September 1993) recommends this site and adjacent areas to the north and south for "Suburban Residential " development. The site in question has not been actively farmed in recent years . Public water and sewer lines currently exist . to provide service to this site. Based on the above, it appears that commitment of the project site to non-agricultural use could be considered a small to moderate impact and should not adversely influence the continued agricultural use of nearby lands in the Agricultural District, 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources ? - Proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether natural or man-made . 2 Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. a. Briefly describe the impact: The character of the site and surrounding area is largely undeveloped, agricultural and low density residential. The proposed project, including 56 apartment units in seven buildings, appears to be an appropriate transitional use between the suburban residential development in the City to the east and less developed areas to the west. As indicated in the Visual EAF Addendum (Appendix B), the site is adjacent to Mecklenburg Road, NYS Route 79, a heavily travelled state highway. According to the Site Impact Traffic Evaluation submitted by the applicant, there was an average of 3 ,734 vehicle trips per day (both directions) on this portion of Route 79 in 1997 . Although this results in a relatively high number of travelers on the state highway, it does not appear that the proposed project would significantly affect views in this area. Photographs submitted by the applicant indicate that visibility of the site from Mecklenburg Road consists of foreground and mid-range views of predominantly old field and shrub upland area. The portion of Mecklenburg Road adjacent to the project site appears to be far enough down the hill so that there are no panoramic views from the road across to East Hill, although there are such panoramic . views from Route 79 farther west near West Haven Road and above. Photographs taken from East Hill and South Hill locations toward the project site indicate that potential views of the proposed development would be minimal. Residential development in the West Hill neighborhoods of the City already dominate the views, and the project site is below the crest of the hill, so it is not likely that proposed buildings would stand out more than others in the surrounding area. Careful attention to landscaping and buffering in the site plan nonetheless will be an important additional means to ensure that the visual impact of the project be kept to a minimum. In particular, a stronger buffer area around the perimeter of the developed portion of the site would help to prevent visual intrusion on the surrounding area. Additional landscaping and possibly berming along the road frontage could help to further reduce the visual impacts of this project on the 'state road. Additional landscaping within the developed portion of the project would further minurtize potential visual impacts. Based on the above information, impacts identified in this section can be considered 'small to moderate. 15 . ; Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems ? i Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods . a. Briefly describe the impact: i 3 The proposed project would add 56 apartment units on the project site . A single access for a private driveway is proposed for this Phase I project to connect with Mecklenburg Road. Based on recommendations from the New York State Department of Transportation and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the proposed project entrance drive has been relocated to the west side of the Murray property. This entrance drive will serve future phases of development on both the remaining portions of the Ceracche and Conifer Realty properties . A Site Impact Traffic Evaluation, October 1997, was submitted by the applicant and is incorporated into this assessment (a copy of a portion of that report is attached) . The Traffic Evaluation analyzes the impact of Phase I development, anticipated to be completed in one year, as well as potential future development on the remaining portion of the property being acquired by Conifer Realty, which is estimated over a ten year period, and could consist of approximately 114 additional dwelling units (74 single- family and 40 apartments). The analysis indicates that acceptable levels of service (LOS) will occur at the site entrance drive and that volumes generated by both phases of development will not significantly affect operating conditions for through traffic on the state highway. Volumes will continue to be well below the capacity of the two lane facility. The traffic evaluation recommends that no physical improvements will be required on Route 79 to accommodate the development, but stop sign controls for the access drive are recommended. The analysis of other existing intersections indicates that acceptable levels of service will continue to occur after both phases of development with the following exception. The Route 96/Hopkins- Campbell Road intersection will experience LOS "E" in the morning peak hour and LOS "F' in the afternoon peak hour over the next ten years as a result of anticipated background growth in the area. This will result in delays for motorists attempting to exit onto Route 96 from the side road. The analysis includes a study of future traffic levels on Campbell Road. The study estimates that 32 percent of site generated traffic may use the Campbell Drive/Hopkins Road route to get to Route 96. Based on this estimate, Phase I development could contribute 9 vehicle trips in the morning peak hour and 11 vehicle trips in the afternoon peak hour. Phase II development could contribute an additional 26 vehicle trips in the morning peak hour and 34 vehicle trips in the afternoon peak hour. The study concludes that site generated traffic contributed to the anticipated 1 ,000 vehicles per day that Campbell Road will carry by the year 2007 will not be a significant impact. The issue of sight distance discussed in the Traffic Evaluation and in correspondence from NYSDOT, and discussed with the Planning Board at the December 16, 1997 meeting, has been addressed by the applicant with the proposed relocation of the entrance driveway, as shown on the preliminary plans, Sheets L- 1 through L-4, dated January 5 , 1998, and on the preliminary plat, dated 12/31/97 . The applicant' s purchase agreement with Ceracche includes the additional property needed to accommodate the relocated entrance drive . The relocated entrance driveway will have adequate sight distances in both directions (900 +/- feet to the east, downhill , to the 4 beginning of the curve on Mecklenburg Road and over 1 ,000 +/- feet to the west, uphill, to the intersection of West Haven and Mecklenburg Roads) . According to NYSDOT, based on the State ' s standards for speeds of 45 m.p .h . , there should be a minimum sight distance of 699 feet from the entrance drive . The relocated entrance driveway is located in an appropriate location to serve future development phases on the remainder of the Ceracche and Conifer Realty properties. The relocated driveway also is located appropriately to be converted to a public road in the future to connect Mecklenburg Road with Bundy Road to the north , and to be offset with a future public road through the parcel to the south across Mecklenburg Road if such a road becomes necessary or desirable. Public transit is a related transportation issue that should be addressed. The possibility of extending the public bus route to this site should be investigated by the applicant as a means of providing an alternative mode of transportation to residents of the proposed apartments . This could be especially important because of the lower income levels targetted for occupancy of these units. If public transit can be extended to this site, then bus stops and bus shelters might need to be appropriately designed and located within the project. Based on the information above, impacts identified in this section can be considered small to moderate. However, the question of site distance at the Phase I entrance drive needs to be resolved. 1� Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? - j Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use Development will create a demand for additional community services . a. Briefly describe the impact: The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (September 1993) designates the project site and adjacent areas to the north and south as "Suburban Residential, " which anticipates additional residential growth that can be served by public water and sewer facilities. This area is also zoned R- 15 Residence, which can have a maximum residential density of 3 .5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Phase I development would have a density of approximately 5. 9 dwelling units per acre, which appears to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan . A rezoning from R- 15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence would be required. This site is on the edge of the anticipated growth area in the town . The proposed density appears to appropriate as a transition between the urban/suburban densities of the City to the east and the lower residential densities and agricultural use to the west in the town. Phase II development would have an estimated density of approximately 3. 3 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the permitted R- 15 Residence density and with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 5 The applicant indicates that the full component of community services (e. g., recreation, education, police, fire protection, etc .) will be required for the 56 apartment unit project. Although there are continuing pressures in municipal budgets to continue such services at acceptable levels and the resulting pressures on the local property tax base, there are no known capacity deficiencies in these service systems that would be impacted by the proposed development. The Town of Ithaca Town Board has just adopted the Park. Recreation and Open Space Plan, which identifies future park and recreation needs for the town. In particular, this Plan identifies the need for a community park on this area of West Hill. The proposed development (Phases I and II) will add up to 170 households on the West Hill. This will contribute to the need for additional park and recreation services as outlined in the Park. Recreation and Open Space Plan . It is anticipated that through the Planning Board' s subdivision approval authority, appropriate lands to accommodate those park and recreation needs will be set aside in conjunction with the project proposal. Based on the information above, impacts identified in this section can be considered small to moderate. Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of it, and the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed. Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Planning Board ,r Reviewer: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning ✓ `� Review Date : December 9, 1997 ; Revised January 14, 1998 ReName c:\17p1an\devrevc\meckpt3 .eaf 6 ENGINEERING REVIEW MEMO Date: 12/09/97 To: Jon Kanter From: Daniel R . Walker Subject: Mecklenburg Heights, Stormwater Management Plan The preliminary storm water analysis and conclusions prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates, October 8, 1997 adequately addresses the stormwater management preliminary planning for the project site. The TR55 method of analvsis was used and the results indicate that the proposed site plan and existing site conditions will allow adequate stormwater control for the site. Several items will need to be addressed as part of the final analysis and site plan including detailed design of the drainage facilities and final construction drawings. For the purpose of environmental significance, the submitted analysis indicates that the project can be constructed with no adverse environmental impact from stormwater runoff. DRW/drw oflr� TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N .Y. 14850 6 OWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Joan Lent Noteboom, being duly swom , 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 the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, (Ithaca Journal) : LEGAL NOTICE : SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING DATEIPUBLIC HEARING - To consider a, " LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO. 27=01 -13.12, LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT (MECKENLENBURG HEIGHTS)." Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Town Clerk' s Office 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT Date of Posting: Friday, March 13 , 1998 Date of Publication : Monday , March 16 , 1998 Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this i - day of ? r c k No Public Mary J. Saxton Notary Public, State of New York Registration #01SA5044003 Qualified in Tioga Cc my My Commission Expires qty OF 14% TOWN OF ITHACA �- 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N . Y. 14850 . Yo4 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 2734035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE TOWN OF ITHACA PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a Special Town Board meeting on March 30, 1998, at 5 :30 p . m . , in order that they may conduct a public hearing at the said meeting at 5 :35 p.m . , to consider, a "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION . OF TAX PARCEL NO . 27-01 - 13. 12 LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT (MECKLENBURG HEIGHTS)" . , and PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, all citizens at the aforementioned time and place shall be afforded the opportunity to voice their approval or opposition to the said local law, and PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE , individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make a request not less than 48 hou'rs prior to the time of the public hearing. Joan Lent Noteboom Town Clerk March 13 , 1998 PUBLISH : Monday, March16 . 1998 Town Board Meeting 3/30/98 Agenda Item No. 4 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE LOCAL LAW REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL N0. 27-01 - 13. 12 LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT (MECKLENBURG HEIGHTS APARTMENTS) Resolution No . 59 WHEREAS , a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town on March 30 , 1998 to hear all interested parties on a proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO. 27-01 - 13012 LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT"; and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly . advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS , said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof; and WHEREAS , pursuant to part 16 of the Implementing Regulations pertaining to Article, 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Was determined to be, lead agency in considering the environmental significance of the proposed Mecklenburg Heights Project including the environmental effects of the proposed site plan and rezoning ; and WHEREAS , the Town Planning Board , after consideration of the various application materials made a determination of negative environmental significance; and WHEREAS , pursuant to Section 617. 6 (b) (3) (iii) such determination of significance is Finding on the Town Board; and WHEREAS , the proposed project is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board finds it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens to effect the request rezoning , particularly as it provides an opportunity to assure availability of affordable housing in the Town ; and TB Mtg . 3/30/98 Agenda No , 4 , Res . No. 59 Page 2. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO. 27-01 - 1 3 . 12 LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT" ; and it is further RESOLVED , that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed to enter said local law in the minutes of this meeting and in the Local Law book of the Town of Ithaca, and to give due notice of the adoption of said local law publication of such local law or an abstract or summary thereof in the Ithaca Journal and by filing a copy of said local law with the Secretary of State of the State of New York; and, it is further RESOLVED , that prior to the review of the final site plan by the Planning Board the Town Board recommends that the Planning Board review and approve the management and other arrangements between Conifer Realty Corporation and Better Housing for Tompkins County to assure continued involvement of Better Housing of Tompkins County in the project, and the possible creation of a community group to provide input regarding the process of construction and operation of the proposed project. MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilwoman Harrison ' VOTE: Catherine Valentino Ave Motion carried. John P . Wolff Nav Edward Conley Ave Ellen Harrison Ave Mary Russell Ave DATED: March 30 , 1998 w i Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk 4� OF jr TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N . Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 TOWN OF ITHACA . AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Joan Lent Noteboom, being duly sworn , 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 the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, (Ithaca Journal) : LEGAL NOTICE: NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO. 27=01 - 13. 12 LOCATED ON N .Y.S. ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT. (Mecklenburg Heights Apartments) Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Clerk' s Office 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT Date of Posting : Thursday, April 2 , 1998 Date of Publication : Monday, April 6, 1998 Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this M�- day of 19q J (a No Wbb i? & n Notary Public, State of New York Registration #01SA5044003 Qualified in Tioga Cou y My Commission Expires TOWN OF ITHACA NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING MAP REZONING A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO. 27-01-13 . 12 LOCATED ON N.Y. S . ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT (Mecklenburg Heights Apartments) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that at a regular meeting held on the 30th day of March, 1998 , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca duly adopted a local law , an abstract of which follows : ABSTRACT OF LOCAL LAW Said local law : (a) Amended the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and the zoning map rezoning approximately eleven acres of land representing a portion of tax parcel 27-01 - 13 . 12 located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road adjacent to the west line of the City of Ithaca from Residence District R- 15 to Multiple Residence District; (b) Described by metes and bounds the area being rezoned ; (c) Adopted certain regulations , in addition to those normally applicable to a Multiple Residence Zone related to the specific project including (i) Limiting the total number of dwelling units to no more than 56 ; (ii; Requiring construction in accordance with the plans submitted to the Town related to the project; (iii) Limiting occupancy of the dwelling units for fifteen years to persons of low income defined in the local law as persons whose income does not exceed 60 % of the median family income in Tompkins County ; (iv) Limiting the rents of the units on an annualized basis to not more than 35 % of 60 % of the median family income in Tompkins . County ; (v) Establishing mechanisms for the implementation and enforcement of the income . and rental restrictions ; (vi) Prohibiting further subdivision of the project property ; (vii) Requiring the developer to maintain any drainage retention areas ; (viii) Requiring the terms of the local law to be incorporated into deed restrictions prior to issuance of any building permits ; and (ix) Requiring submission of final site plans and amended site plans to the Planning Board for approval and requiring any significant amendments to the preliminary site plan to be approved by the Town Board . (c) Provided for automatic reversion to R- 15 (or other zoning if the surrounding area is rezoned to a different zone) in certain circumstances of the project is not commenced . (d) Provided mechanisms for implementing the local law ; (e) Provided penalties for violation of the local law which included possible fines and imprisonment as set forth in Section 268 of the -Town Law , and also provided for the Town to pursue injunctive relief if so advised ; (f) Set forth certain additional procedural matters related to the adoption and interpretation of the local law . A complete copy of the Local Law is available for reading and inspection at the Town Clerk' s office , 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca , New York 14850 , Monday through Friday , between the hours of 8 : 00 a . m . and 4 : 00 p . m . Joan lent Noteboom Town Clerk April 2 , 1998 PUBLISH: MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1998 2