HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1980-11-04 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 41 1980
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , November 4 , 1980 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York ; at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Vice Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , James Baker ,
Bernard Stanton , Edward Mazza , Liese Bronfenbrenner , Carolyn
Grigorov , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Barbara Z .
Restaino ( Town Planner ) , Lewis D . Cartee ( Town Building
Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) , Nancy M . Fuller
( Secretary ) ,
ALSO PRESENT : Philip Winn , Esq . , Armand L . Adams , Esq . , Arnold J .
Albrecht , Stewart D . Knowlton ,
Vice Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 31 p . m .
and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on October 27 , 1980 and October 30 , 1980 , respectively .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR ADDITIONAL
BUILDING SPACE ( REMOVAL OF EXISTING SPACE AND REPLACEMENT THEREOF BY
. ATTACHED BUILDING OF 108 ' X 80 ' OF SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION )
ON LANDS OF THERM , INC . , TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 54 - 2 - 1 .
Vice Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 32 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr .
Arnold Albrecht , Engineer with Therm , Inc . , was present .
Mr . Albrecht appeared before the Board and appended two maps to
the bulletin board . Mr . Albrecht indicated the old warehouse building
which is to be demolished and noted that that building was separated
from and not parallel to the existing main Therm building . Mr .
Albrecht pointed out how the new 80 ' x 110 ' building will be attached
to the main building at its northeast corner . Mr . Albrecht
distributed photographs of a building similar to the one propsed and
noted that it will be an all steel , pre - engineered building , all one
• room . Mr . Albrecht stated that the building will be 17 ' high at the
ridge , and 12 ' at the eave , with an insulated roof and side walls and
with doors and windows . Mr . Albrecht stated that they do not have the
plans completely firmed up exactly at this point , however , it is
planned that the building will have a masonry floor , masonry
foundation , steel frame , roof , and walls , with glass insulation and
heat .
Mr . Mazza asked how tall the existing building was , with Mr .
• Albrecht responding , 914 " , and adding that they cannot do without the
space . Vice Chairman May asked if the plans were to tie the roof line
into the new existing building , that is , the one that is being worked
on , with Mr . Albrecht responding , yes . Mr . Mazza , referring to the
I
Planning Board - 2 - November 4 , 1980
• site plan , wondered what was going to happen to all the sanitary sewer
lines shown . Mr . Albrecht indicated on the drawing where the new
sanitary sewer runs , commenting that the old one became the new one
and adding that it is a large 6 " sewer line . Mr . Albrecht pointed out
that all they are doing is changing buildings and described how they
are going to :build the new one around the old one and then tear down
the old one . Mr . Stanton commented that the parking is not changed
essentially at all . Mr . Albrecht stated that they have been hiring
quite a few pE! ople and they have parking , however , it is more and more
of a problem . Mr . Stanton asked if the new building will take over
any existing parking spaces , with Mr . Albrecht answering , no . Mr .
Fabbroni stated that he wanted it to be clear that the storm drain
must not be hooked into the sanitary sewer . Mr . Albrecht stated that
it is not .
Vice Chairman May stated that it needed to be noted that a SEAF
was not required in view of the fact that the request involves the
removal of an existing building and the replacement of same with a
building occupying less than 50 % of the space . Vice Chairman May
asked if there were any further questions from the Board . Mrs .
Schultz asked if the buildings were going to be interconnected , with
Mr . Albrecht responding , yes , with a door cut in .
MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby
does grant Site Plan Approval for additional building space for Therm ,
Inc . , as shown on plan entitled " Therm Boundaries Showing Location of
Proposed Addition " , dated 3 - 30 - 75 , revised 2 - 80 , by H . E . Stabel , and
essentially as shown on sketch plan entitled " Therm Warehouse
Reconstruction. " , dated 9 - 23 - 80 , by A . J . A .
There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Stanton , Mazza , Bronfenbrenner , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Vice Chairman May declared the matter of site plan approval for
the proposed additional building space at Therm duly closed at 7 : 43
p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A PLAN FOR THE SALE OF
1 - 1 / 2 ACRES OF LAND , BEING A PORTION OF THE REMAINING LANDS . OF JOHN
MARION , ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF SLATERVILLE ROAD , BEING A PART OF TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 2 .
Vice Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 44 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
. Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Attorney
Armand L . Adams , Attorney for Mr . John L . Marion , and Attorney Philip
S . Winn , Attorney for Professor Heinz Biesdorf , were present .
Planning Board - 3 - November 4 , 1980
• Attorney Adams appeared before the Board and stated that he was
not sure of what was being done tonight , but this approach appears to
be the best way to go . Attorney Adams stated that he is somewhat in
disagreement with Mr . Fabbroni as to whether this is or is not a
subdivision . [ Refer to Exhibits 1 , 2 , 3 , and 4 attached hereto . ]
[ Refer also to Exhibits 5 , 6 , 7 , and 8 attached hereto . ] Attorney
Adams referred to a map of the proposed subdivision showing the
proposed 1 = 1 / 2 acre parcel for which there is a contract for sale to
Biesdorf and commented that there were some questions as to what was
needed here because of previous sales by Mr . Marion , adding that ,
depending on the outcome of this , they are in the process of the
fourth or fifth lot . Attorney Adams recalled that at one time this
was a subdivision at the intersection of Pine Tree Road and
Slaterville Road , and noted that most of this has previously been sold
off and the subdivision extinguished . Attorney Adams noted that all
the lots have been sold on " these two sides " [ indicating on map ] ,
adding that the only remaining property is the back portion and
frontage across " here " [ indicating ] . Attorney Adams stated that about
one year ago " this " remaining parcel was sold to one person
[ indicating ] , noting that there were five lots sold to three different
people - - what: was formerly a " straight back line " to these people .
Attorney Adams: stated that he thought of this as one sale , however ,
Mr . Fabbroni sees it as three sales . Attorney Adams stated that next
came a sale to Zwerman and Mr . Marion is now selling two portions to
Biesdorf each :marked " A " on the map and containing 0 . 5 ± acres and 1 . 0 ±
acres , respectively , adding that that may be the only thing they are
interested in tonight . Attorney Adams noted that there are remaining
lands as noted in his letter of September 25 , 1980 [ attached hereto as
Exhibit 1 ] , some of which has water and sewer and some has not , adding
that " this " parcel which they are concerned with has water and sewer .
Attorney Adams offered that there were three sales from these
remaining lands , if you consider it a subdivision , divided into two
lots as proposed on the map .
Attorney :Philip Winn noted that Attorney Adams wanted approval of
two building lots for Biesdorf which he intended to describe as two
separate parcels which he will call " A " and " B " , adding that we are
talking about Biesdorf , and further adding that the only thing left
after that will be the area marked in yellow .
Vice Chairman May stated that he was not sure what the Planning
Board ' s action should be here tonight , adding that if the Board
declares this a subdivision , it should look at the other lands .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Town has always considered a
subdivision to be the third lot that anybody subdivided , commenting
that the definition of a subdivision can be looked at in the
subdivision regulations . Mr . Fabbroni commented on someone claiming
any amount of frontage along a road and subdividing ad infinitum
without coming to the Planning Board , noting that Mr . Marion has been
in to subdivide ; Mr . Biesdorf has been in to subdivide ; he , himself ,
• has been in to subdivide beyond three lots . Mr . Fabbroni stated that
the actions of the Board have been pretty consistent as to what
establishes a subdivision and what does not , adding that in this
particular case , certain actions have eliminated rights of way for
Planning Board - 4 - November 4 , 1980
. roadways , and the matter involves a major pond and rights of way as
well as environmental constraints since the matter is an Unlisted
action that :involves some environmental assessment . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that there have been a lot of charges that have been put upon
the Planning :Board over and above the subdivision regulations , that
is , things the Board can review both under SEQR and the subdivision
regulations . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he had suggested a preliminary
subdivision hearing with respect to all those lots about which we are
talking , adding that , as to Biesdorf and Zwerman , surveys have been
done and we have those survey maps so he did not see the need for a
separate survey map since they are the whole and parts of the whole ,
and further adding that it is just as simple as reviewing a
subdivision . Mr . Fabbroni , commenting that he then received the
September 25th letter , stated that he got the impression that the
applicant thought you could subdivide the larger parcel as long as
there is frontage along a roadway . Mr . Fabbroni stated that if you
were to take that stance and were to insist upon definition - - the
only right of a Planning Board under master planning laws has to do
with a roadway system only - - he really could not follow the logic
even on six acres when there is a sale to two people and those two
people split off a portion and then a third is split off and so on ,
adding that this is not standard business when it can be as simple as
taking parts of the whole and the whole . Mr . Fabbroni noted that
drainage courses need to be considered , commenting on water spilling
on to other properties . Mr . Fabbroni wondered again what happened to
• " this " [ indicating ] right of way and asked if it were a conscious
decision and if it was supposed to connect into the south end of
" this " [ indicating ] property , and noted that that option is gone now
by a prior sale , adding that it is not that every little sale you make
is subject to the subdivision regulations . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out
that Mr . Marion has been very friendly to the Town in past years ,
commenting that he wanted to continue that , and adding that he has
been very cooperative with the Town as far as informal drainage
easements are concerned . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that matters like
park drainage easements need to be worked out , however , those are
later items . Mr . Fabbroni offered that he saw it as a simple thing
and it has gone on for two - and - a - half months .
Attorney Adams responded that he thought we were doing this
exactly , adding that at some time Mr . Marion is going to sell " Parcel
4 " and " Parcel 3 " over time [ Exhibit 51 , and asking whether he has to
have subdivision approval . Attorney Adams stated that , just as Mr .
Fabbroni suggested , they are limiting themselves to just one area , and
spoke of the Tavelli and Zwerman transactions and the one - and -one - half
acres at present . Mr . Fabbroni stated that some of his comments
referred to "' Parcel 3 " which was in Attorney Adams ' letter of
September 25 , 1980 . Attorney Adams stated that at some stage Mr .
Marion wants -to sell lots marked " 3 " and " 411 , however , tonight he
wants approval of the Biesdorf lots . It was noted that there are also
two more little " yellow " lots as part of an approval of subdivision .
• Vice Chairman May stated that he was having a little difficulty
in seeing how the Board can separate a parcel and relate that to the
balance of the lots . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that this should have
been a preliminary subdivision hearing , adding that the Planning Board
Planning Board - 5 - November 4 , 1980
• always has the prerogative to waive the second subdivision hearing .
Mr . Fabbroni ,suggested that the Board may want to discuss the whole
thing at this time and then have a preliminary hearing and waive the
final hearing and grant final approval .
Attorney Adams noted that the drainage from the pond goes over
the Zwerman lands . Vice Chairman May stated that the pond is of very
great concern and if that is filled up we could have real problems .
Mr . Fabbroni offered that the drainage courses would have to be
checked out . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner commented that , if it is sold as an
individual lot , the Board has no control . Mr . Fabbroni noted that all
the copies of the maps the Board has constitute survey maps and they
could serve as the record of the subdivision plat . Mr . Stanton spoke
of subdivision maps which he referred to a maps 1 , 2 , and 3 . Attorney
Adams pointed out that what Mr . Stanton was referring to was not a
subdivision map and stated that the only one is " McCurdy ' s " map . Mr .
Fabbroni commented that we are talking beyond that . Mrs .
Bronfenbrenner asked about the status of the Blatchley land , wondering
what he was going to do with it . Attorney Adams referred to parcel
- 31 . 1 . Mr . Fabbroni lead the Board in a discussion using an aerial *
photograph , pointing out that it may be reasonable to assume that ,
because of the extent of the Blatchley lands , there is access from
Honness Lane or from Slaterville Road , so a re - subdivision of the
Marion lands would be reasonable without requiring a third access out .
Attorney Adams stated that Mr . Marion has no objection to giving the
• Town whatever it needs , adding that the Board can call it a
subdivision and have another hearing - - it makes no difference . Vice
Chairman May asked if there had been any ruling from Town Attorney
Buyoucos , with Mr . Fabbroni responding , no , only that he cannot get to
it right away , and adding that if # 3 were to be sold in total nothing
would be required , but , if Mr . Marion were to start selling in
five - acre chunks then it is a subdivision matter . Mr . Fabbroni noted
that the discussion tonight is with respect to # 1 , adding that # 3 is
another matter , as is # 4 . Vice Chairman May commented that all of # 1
should come in , adding that the Board will have to look at the total
lands in the section called # 1 . Vice Chairman May suggested that the
Board schedule this matter for November 18th - - Preliminary
Subdivision Hearing - - for review of the lands of Marion indicated as
Parcel # 1 on Schedule " X " [ Exhibit 51 . Mr . Stanton pointed out that
for almost all. of the recent subdivision hearings someone from the
Planning Board has gone to visit the site .
Vice Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 21 p . m .
MOTION by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board schedule and
hereby does schedule a Public Hearing for consideration of preliminary
subdivision approval for lands of John Marion , Pine Tree Road , former
Parcel No . 6 - 5) 8 - 2 - 22 , now 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 12 , 22 . 11 , 22 . 13 , and 22 . 2 on
Tuesday , November 18 , 1988 , at 7 : 30 p . m .
• There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a
vote .
Planning Boaro! - 6 - November 4 , 1980
• Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Stanton , Mazza , Bronfenbrenner , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
Vice Chairman May requested that Notice be sent to all property
owners involved with property in the area designated as " 1 " on the
exhibit . Vice Chairman May requested a new EAF from Attorney Adams to
include consideration of the pond .
Vice Chairman May declared the subject public hearing duly closed
at 8 : 34 p . m .
PRESENTATION BY MR . GARY EVANS , TOMPKINS COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,
TO EXPLAIN THE BENEFITS AND PURPOSE OF THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
LEGISLATION AND THE NEW PROPOSAL TO CONSOLIDATE AGRICULTRUAL DISTRICTS
IN TOMPKINS COUNTY ,
Mr . Evans appeared before the Board and appended a large colored
map to the bulletin board , in addition to which Ms . Restaino had
tacked a Town of Ithaca base map showing existing Ag District No . 6 ,
in brown , and certain proposed additional lands , in green. [ See also
Exhibit 9 . ] Mr . Evans , commenting that the law with respect to Ag
Districts was passed in 1971 , noted that Tompkins County Ag District
No . 1 was formed first as a result of a proposal for a road - - then
came No . 2 , then No . 3 , and stated that almost all of these became
effective at the same time in 1973 . Mr . Evans noted that there are
now eight Ag Districts covering over 50 % of the area in the County .
Mr . Evans spoke of the Ag District Advisory Committee which is a group
comprised of four farmers , four agri -business persons , and one County
representative ,, commenting that it feels it has done its work fairly
carefully and :in keeping with the Ag District law in order to keep Ag
District land viable . Mr . Evans stated that there is land for which
the owners do not want to be in a district , which has created some
peculiar holes , for example , there may have been an expansion of a
sewer or water district so the owner of any such land so served does
not want to be in an ag district , and so on . Mr . Evans commented that
some of the reasons for some owners opting to be in an ag district and
some not wanting to do that are that they are cautious or because of
misinformation , and so on . Mr . Evans stated that there is still some
viable agricultural land that is not in an ag district , but the Ag
District Advi :; ory Committee is faced with a requirement of an
eight - year review of No . 1 , No . 2 , and No . 3 anyhow , so they said - -
why not get the remaining viable land into the ag districts ? [ See
letter dated October 9 , 1980 , with attachment , from James W . Ray ,
Chairman , Tompkins County Agricultural District Advisory Committee , to
the Town Supervisor , attached hereto as Exhibit 10 . ] Utilizing the
map , Mr . Evans pointed out that Mr . Howard Conklin and Mr . Linton and
mapped out viable agricultural land in the County in three categories
- - the " darker " of which being the more choice [ Exhibit 11 ] . Mr .
Evans pointed out that viable ag land under Conklin has a fairly
precise meaning , that is , viable and should remain so were it not for
urban pressures , Mr . Evans stated that , with that in mind , he took
" this " outline [ indicating ] of viable land and superimposed on it the
ag districts and showed where viable land extends outside . Mr . Evans
stated that he then went to recent aerial photos and tried to make
reasonable guesses as to whether the land was in cultivation , which
Planning Board. - 7 - November 4 , 1980
was not so easy , and he came up with a group of parcels in a slightly
more sophisticaed map , that is , parcels which fit the criteria . Mr .
Evans noted some of the criteria as - - land not in an ag district ,
land of more than ten acres of viable land and currently in ag
production . Mr . Evans stated that the owners of all of these parcels
were notified by mail that the Advisory Committee was going to include
these lands in the ag district unless it was notified that they did
not want to be in it . Mr . Evans , commented that some said " No ,
thanks . " and are shown in black . Mr . Evans noted the ones in " green "
which represent those owners who came in and said that they would like
to be in . Mr . Evans pointed out that the " yellow " parcels are ones
the Advisory Committee at its last meeting said ought to be included .
Mr . Evans stated that at the last meeting after this decision was made
by the Committee they took a vote on whether or not inclusion of
" these " down in " this " area [ indicating ] should be accomplished by
consolidating all of the ag districts into one . Mr . Evans noted that
the vote was six in favor and three against and Jim Ray , Chairman of
the Committee , was very unhappy with that as he likes unanimous
recommendations and so does the Board of Representatives . Mr . Evans
stated that it: has been decided to have another meeting on the 11th ,
with the Board of Representatives members having been invited to
attend , commenting that he supposed some kind of compromise would try
to be worked out . Mr . Evans stated that the people opposed were not
opposed to consolidation at all but were concerned about one whole
district - - map 1 , 2 , or 3 . Mr . Evans stated that the Farm Bureau
• passed a resolution that there should be no fewer than four , their
reasons being that agriculture is not homogeneous throughout the
County and also that it would impair Home Rule - - those were their
arguments . Mr . Evans stated that it appears that at the November 11th
meeting some sort of compromise will be arrived at , however , he had no
idea what that: would be . Mr . Evans described some division dividing
lines - - ( 1 ) break it down the middle into two which would be fine ,
but what is the point ? , and ( 2 ) follow municipal boundary lines in
some fashion so at least you would be talking about discreet municipal
areas and the first consolidation would be all above " this line "
[ indicating ] 11 2 , and 3 have to be done anyhow and No . 4 is coming
up , and then No . 5 when it comes up for review in 1984 , then
consolidate it with Ag District No . 6 and part of No . 8 in the Town of
Caroline . Mr . Evans noted again that he had no idea which way things
would go .
Mr . Fabbroni wondered , when you consolidate , does that start the
eight years all over again , with Mr . Evans responding , yes . vice
Chairman May wondered if , when you consolidate , that precludes
changes . Mr . Evans stated that once land is in an Ag District it sits
for eight years with the built - in flexibility that if a sizable piece
- - at least 500 acres - - then a new ag district can be created within
the ag district . Mr . Evans noted that within an ag district there are
things that can be done , adding that he could not think of anything
you cannot do .
Mr . Mazza inquired as to what the advantages are . Mr . Evans
responded that if you are . a farmer you can get your land assessed as
an agricultural use rate oly, that is , assessment of the land and not
its location .
Planning Board. - 8 - November 4 , 1980
• Ms . Restaino inquired as to what this designation might do with ,
respect to wager and sewer extension . Mr . Evans stated that it does
not stop them , adding that , in the event that some condemnation is
required , for example , location of a water storage tank , all you have
to do is show that one site is better than some other , and , when it
comes to your special use assessment , then you can do so only on a
unit basis , such that someone with a half a mile of frontage can only
be charged one unit , not all the footage .
Mr . Mazza wondered about the disadvantages . Mr . Evans responded
that he was not sure there are any except maybe that you cannot change
the use without paying back the taxes you have enjoyed reduction in .
Mr . Stanton commented that Ag District No . 6 has a lot of land in
it that is not, viable in his opinion , adding that the " buffer " is one
thing people agree on , and further adding that if more and more people
go for agricultural assessment it shifts the burden of taxes to other
people . Mr . Evans stated that you do not get ag reduction assessment
until you are farming the land and spoke of a $ 10 , 000 figure .
Mr . Fabbroni asked about the " orange " properties which Mr . Evans
showed in the Town , on Mecklenburg Road and West Haven Road , and
pointed out that most of these lands are held by speculative
interests . Mr . Evans responded by describing amendments to the Ag
District law , one change in particular having to do with
• non - conforming farmland owners , noting that , if you own that but are
not farming it , it can qualify if the operator who is farming it
qualifies on the land that he owns . Mr . Evans noted that the farm
operator could include income from the land that he is renting with
his own land , and , the owner can also include it . Mr . Baker stated
that that is a big help , adding that it ensures the farmer having land
to rent , and further adding that it is an advantage to keep it , he
felt . Mr . Fabbroni commented that they have an obligation to keep
land in active production for eight years . Mr . Evans pointed out that
it is a lease agreement of at least five years , not an eight - year
commitment . Vice Chairman May spoke of the recognizing of wood lots
of less than $ 1. 0 , 000 . Mr . Evan stated that it does not qualify unless
$ 10 , 000 , adding that if you are a farmer with a wood lot you can
include up to $ 2 , 000 of that .
Mr . Evans indicated that he had no further information for the
Board at this time and thanked the members of the Board for allowing
him to explain some of the thoughts behind the proposal for
consolidation of the agricultural districts in Tompkins County . Vice
Chairman May expressed to Mr . Evans the thanks of the Board for
attending this meeting of the Planning Board ,
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ( PLANNING BOARD ) - SIGNS
1 . 9 : 00 P . M . - - East Hill Car Wash - - East Hill Plaza
• Mr . Stewart Knowlton appeared before the Board and appended to
the bulletin board a copy of Town of Ithaca Tax Map No . 62 , upon which
Parcel No . 62 - Ad'. - 13 . 2 had been colored in in yellow , and within which
the 60 - foot right of way and the car wash itself had been delineated .
Planning Board. - 9 - November 4 , 1980
• Mr . Knowlton stated that the area in which the car wash is located has
been sold in fee to Mr . and Mrs . Kailburn . Mr . Knowlton stated that
what motivated his being here tonight was to try to establish a
logical pattern for the " freestanding sign " as it relates to the new
Sign Law [ August 11 , 1980 ] . Mr . Knowlton stated that it appeared to
him to come under the multi - use development pattern , therefore , the
entire yellow parcel [ indicating ] would be permitted one sign of 50
sq . ft . Mr . Knowlton stated that the sign planned is proposed to be
in between thE! drive. leading into the car wash , the new paved drive ,
and the service drive into Eastern Artificial Insemination Co -Op near
Judd Falls Road , Mr . Knowlton indicated the 60 - foot wide right of way
presently paved just slightly under 20 feet leaving 20 feet , plus or
minus , on either side of the paving to the edge of the easement area .
Mr . Knowlton stated that what the design of the sign would be is not
to the maximum allowed and would be a directional sign that would have
three panels on each side , 290 of the piece outlined in yellow , and
would be three clearly sized panels 1 ' x 7 ' on a 4 ' x 8 ' background .
Mr . Knowlton displayed for the Board a mock -up with the words " East
Hill Car Wash " . Mr . Knowlton stated that he would like to see a
detachable panel screw on all of them for maintenance , adding that he
would not want it any bigger , and further adding that he would like to
go up with Mr . Cartee and Mr . Fabbroni to take a look at the sign
height off the ground since he was not sure about the height - -
whether above a car or what .
® Vice Chairman May inquired if there were to be three potential
businesses in connection with the land sold , with Mr . Knowlton
responding , no , and adding that it is not a part of East Hill Plaza .
Mr . Knowlton sltated that they sold a little part of the yellow portion
with the car wash in fee and kept the right of way and the remaining
lands . Mr . Knowlton commented that this sign would remain and because
it is so undersized they could use the bottom two panels . Mr .
Knowlton offered that they could have up to 100 feet of signage , but
they are talking about 64 sq . ft . - - 32 sq . ft . on each side .
Vice Chairman May stated that he was having difficulty with two
freestanding signs , noting that they have one " East Hill Plaza "
freestanding sign now . Mr . Knowlton responded that this has nothing
to do with the Plaza , adding that there is no entrance to there , and
further adding that the car wash access is limited to the 60 - foot
right of way from Judd Falls Road . Vice Chairman May , commenting that
he did not remember it that way , stated that he thought they were
going to have internal access . Mr . Knowlton pointed out that then we
go into discussions of drainage . Mr . Cartee offered that the owner of
the car wash has no way of advertising , with Vice Chairman May
responding , that is fine , in that case . Mr . Knowlton stated that he
kept the sign small very carefully , adding that he thought the sign
should be six feet off the ground . Vice Chairman May asked how far
the sign would be back from Judd Falls Road , with Mr . Knowlton
responding , about twenty feet . Mr . Mazza asked where the sign would
be' located , with Mr . Knowlton responding , between the new paved
• portion and the EAI Co -Op driveway . Mr . Mazza suggested that the
height should be considered for visibility .
After brief discussion , it was the consensus of the Board that
Planning Board. - 10 - November 4 , 1980
• the sign proposal is fine and within the requirements of the Sign Law ,
the Planning Board having reviewed it and determined it to be within
the bounds of the Building Inspector to issue a permit , upon
application , and , therefore , the matter is referred to him .
2 . 9 : 15 P . M . - - Lil ' s Economy Motel - - 658 Elmira Road
Mr . Cartee noted that the subject motel had a sign approval in
November of 1976 when it was the " Dun Rovin Motel - - Spartan Inn " , and
a sign approval in February of 1980 when it was the " Wonderland Jr .
Motel " . Mr . Cartee noted that the present request is for a sign
approximately 66 . 01 sq . ft . in size reading , " Lil ' s Economy Motel - -
Color TV - - Heated Indoor Pool - - Dining Room & Lounge " , and is made
of plastic with neon tubing .
Vice Chairman May stated that it was his opinion that it is a new
sign and is non - conforming and , therefore , requires design review .
Ms . Restaino offered that , to her , it seems very similar to the sign
that was okayed for Indian Creek Fruit Farm , and she suggested the
same procedure . Mr . Fabbroni noted that under design review , the
Board can vary up to 25 % .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , pursuant to
Section 9 . 03 - 2 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , vary and hereby does
vary the maximum sign size limitation to permit the existing sign for
Lil ' s Economy Motel to remain in place .
There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Stanton , Mazza , Bronfenbrenner , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unaimously .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - - May 6 , 1980
MOTION by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner , seconded by Mr . Bernard
Stanton :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of May 6 , 1980 be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Stanton , Mazza , Bronfenbrenner , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Planning Board - 11 - November 4 , 1980
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - - September 23 , 1980
MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of September 23 , 1980 be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Stanton , Mazza , Bronfenbrenner , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
REPORT OF THE :BUILDING INSPECTOR
Mr . Cartee noted that his October 1980 Report of Building Permits
Issued indicates that 5 permits were issued for $ 340 , 280 . 00 in
improvements , as compared with October of 1979 when 7 permits were
issued for $ 265 , 500 . 00 in improvements .
REPORT OF THE TOWN ENGINEER
Mr . Fabbroni reported that everything has been finished in Town
Hall except for cosmetics , noting in particular , the Board room . Mr .
Fabbroni commented that , hopefully , the painter is coming back to work
next week . Mr . Fabbroni reported that the other main item is
finishing up all the contracts now and budgeting for next year , adding
that , basically , there is no money , so it will be a good planning
year .
REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER
Ms . Restaino stated that her report tonight would consist of
wishing that the Board has fun tonight - - watching the election
returns on television .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Vice Chairman May declared the November 4 , 1980
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9 : 40
PQM *
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•
ADAMS & T'HEISEN ARMA\D z ADAMS
• ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW HENRY W. THSISEar
THE CLLITON 1101USE, SUITE 301 RALPH W. NASH
103 WEST SENECA STREET „
TELEPHONE (807) 272-3442
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
September 25 , 19803 `) 01980
TOWN OF ITHACA
Lawrence P . Fabbroni ,
Engineer
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca , NY 14850
Re : John Marion Properties
Town Approval of Sale
58- 2- 22 et al
Dear Mr . Fabbroni :
• On our request for approval of a building permit for a lot which is now
a part of Parcel 58- 1 - 22 ( on the Pine Tree and Slaterville Roads ) you advised
that this constituted a " subdivision" and no building permit can be issued
until the Town :Board and / or Town Planning Commission have reviewed and approved
the " subdivision" .
" Subdivision" as defined in the Subdivision Regulations Section 3 , "means
the division of any parcel of land into two or more lots , plots , sites or other
divisions of land for immediate or future sale or for building development in
such a way as to create one or more new streets " .
The sale which we have asked you to approve of one parcel of one and one-
half acres ( See map " C" enclosed) lies between two already existing streets , and
does not contemplate any new street . In our conversation you indicated that
" any sale of over 4 lots constitutes a subdivision'.' . In this regard it seems to
me you have confused the provisions of Public Health Law § 1115 which have to do
with water and sewerage service rather than planning or zoning .
The purchaser (Hans Biesdorf ) does expect to divide this 1 1 /2 acre parcel
into two residential lots , one of 1 / 2 acre fronting on Slaterville Road and one
of 1 acre extending between the Slaterville Road and the Pine Tree Road on which
the barn now stands ( See Map " C" ) .
Though we do not agree with your conclusion that approval of a subdivision
is required (because you claim more than 4 residential size lots have been sold
from this parcel 58 - 2- 22 ) it may perhaps serve the purpose of the Town and Mr .
• Marion if we obtain a clarification of the Town Board and / or Planning Commission
( 1 ) whether the sale of parcels of land of whatever size , if serviced by water
and sewer facilities , but do not involve or contemplate new streets , requires
a subdivision approval ; ( 2 ) whether a subdivision approval if more than one lot
is required before a building permit can be issued ; ( 3 ) if required , approve a
building permit for the two lots to be sold to Biesdorf ( See Map " C " ) ;
EXHIBIT 1
Lawrence P . Fabbroni , Engineer
Re : John Marion Properties
September 25 , 1980
• Page 2
. and ( 4) what future steps ( other then compliance with minimum lot size and
health department requirements ) Mr . Marion must take to dispose of ALL of his
remaining land holdings .
As you are aware , John Marion owns more land in the Town than is included
in the 1960 Subdivision Map , hereinafter referred to . He has liquidated some
of his holdings recently ( to Tavelli et al and Zwerman) . Prior to these sales
he owned a total of almost 74 acres which are now represented by 3 tax parcels .
In his planned land liquidation he had these lands divided slightly different
from the Tax Parcels and broken down into 4 sections , one of which ( Section 2 )
was his residence and appurtenant buildings .
The enclosed map marked " X" which is based on the tax maps 57 and 58 , shows
this division into Sections ( for purpose of sale ) as follows :
SECTION TAX PARCEL ACREAGE
1 58 - 2- 22 and former parcels 6 . 4 ) . . 8 . 14
24- 27 1 . 74)
2 57 - 1 - 11 (house and barn ) 1 . 0 ) 1 . 25
• 57- 1 - 11 ( 1 / 2 of lot 23 ) . 25 )
3 57 - 1 - 11 ( remaining) 43 . 68
4 58- 1 - 32 19 . 5 ) 20 . 76
58 - 1 - ( former 29 and 30 ) 1 . 26 )
TOTAL 73 . 83 Acres
All this acreage except Section 2 ( residence ) is now on the market . The
immediate prior sales ( Tavelli et al and Zwerman) and the proposed present sale
(Biesdorf ) are all in Section 1 .
All of Section 1 and the 1 . 26 acre portion of Section 4 were AT ONE TIME a
part of a FORMAL SUBDIVISION . The enclosed large map by J . C . McCurdy under date
of October 10 , 1960 shows this subdivision . This subdivision was approved for
health requirements by the County Board of Health on October 11 , 1960 . By action
of John L . Marion dated October 30 , 1978 this subdivision was discontinued .
On the aforesaid large map we have marked in Red pencil the several parcels
of land which have been sold or contracted to be sold , and in Yellow pencil is
marked the lands on that map (which includes Section 1 and a small portion 1 . 26
acres - 2 lots and road between) of Section 4 ) which have not been sold .
Prior to the extinguishment of the subdivision plan all of the lots on the
east side of Pine Tree Road ( tax lots 14 through. 27 and north half of lot 13 )
• and all the lots on the west side of Pine Tree Road ( tax lots 14 through 21 ) were .
sold .
Since the subdivision was extinguished ( 10 / 30 / 78 ) two parcels have been sold
and one is in the process of sale ( the transaction with which we are now concerned) ,
as shown by the following maps , copies of which are attached .
EXHIBIT 1
Lawrence P . Fabbroni , Engineer
Re : John Marion Properties
• September 25 , 1 ,980
Page 3
A . Sale of 3 . 24 acres of land to three present owners of lands on the
Pine Tree Road ( Tavelli , Turnbull and Carmichael) at the rear of their present
residential lots , see Brasher Map of "Portion of Lands of John L . Marion Showing
Three Lots to be Conveyed" , dated 7 / 22 / 1979 [ See deed recorded 573 /588 ] .
B . Sale of 1 . 224 acres of land to Paul Zwerman ( supposedly for a building
site) . See Brasher Map dated 1 / 2 / 1980 . This sale constituted ALL of the
remaining frontage on the northeast side of the Slaterville Road .
C . Proposed (.pending) sale to Hans Biesdorf of 1 . 5 acres lying between the
Slaterville Road. and Pine Tree Road and including the barn . See Schlecht Map
dated 9 / 16 / 1980 .
After this third sale , all that will remain of the former subdivision
(McCurdy Map 10- 10- 60 ) are the two areas marked in Yellow .
One has a frontage on the west side of Pine Tree Road (north of Biesdorf
and south of Turnbull of 405 feet more or less ; the other consists of the area
on. the west side of the Slaterville Road consisting of the 1 . 26 acres in Section
4 , ( formerly tax parcels 58- 1 - 29 and 30 ) .
• When offers are received for purchase of these two areas ( in Yellow on the
large map ) Mr . Marion will want to consider them . If possible , they will be
sold as complete parcels . We do need to know what steps must be taken to get
the Town approval to sell these areas . Neither would seem to contemplate streets .
The same is true as to the lands shown on Map " X" as Sections 3 . and 4
( exclusive of the 1 . 26 acres ) . Presumably , both these areas to be " developed"
will require streets and a planned development , which Mr . Marion has no intention
of undertaking . However , if any municipality claims that even if sold in the
large acreage they constitute LOTS which added to the premises sales will bring
the total to over 5 , we need to know it now , before the areas are offered for
sale . In the event of both sale of Sections 1 and 4 , we would expect the
purchaser - developer and not Mr . Marion , to obtain any necessary permits .
Will you please see that the appropriate Town officials and / or Boards consider
all of these matters . The first urgency is the approval of the sale to Biesdorf
of the 1 . 5 acre parcel comprising two lots as indicated. by Map " C" , and the
issuance of building permits for these two lots .
Yours tr y , .
Aoe
..
Armand L . Adams
• ALA/sep
enclosures
cc : John L . Marion
Philip S . Winn , Esq .
Noel Desch , Supervisor EXHIBIT 1
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EASY SENECA STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK
14850 September 26 , 1980 .
Armand L . Adams , Esq .
The Clinton );louse , Suite 301
103 West Seneca Street
Ithaca , NY 1. 4850
Re : John Marion Properties
Town Approval of Sale
58 - 2 = 22 et al
Dear Mr . Adams :
Since I will be out of Town until October 72 1980 ) 1 thought
a brief immediate response to your September 25 , 1980 , letter
would be in order . As we discussed in my office in August and
one time later , I do not share your interpretation of the. Town
Subdivision Regulations , and history does not reinforce your
opinion either . However , I will discuss the issues with regard
to subdivision raised in your letter with Mr . Buyoucos , Town
Attorney , Mr . Montgomery May , Planning Board Vice - Chairman , and
• Mr . Noel Desch , Town Supervisor , as you requested .
It seems curious to me that Mr . Marion ever bothered to
obtain Town Planning Board approval of his subdivided lots along
Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road in October 1960 , if all he
required were Health Department approval . Also , the Town cannot ,
and will not , stand idly by while you eradicate former subdivi -
sions of lands , but then re - subdivide the same lands without pro -
per Planning Board consideration of proposed drainage courses ,
access to adjacent undeveloped properties and rear lands , environ -
mental assessment. , open space , etc .
At this point , I believe the maps you have submitted are
sufficient to call a preliminary subdivision hearing for Parcel 12
as you refer to it . This meeting should be arranged through Mrs .
Fuller. , Planning Board Secretary , and further required submittals ,
e . g . , environmental assessment forms , should be discussed with
Mrs . Restaino , Town Planner . I believe , with the proper request
by 10 : 00 a . m . Monday , September 29 , 1980 , a Public Hearing might
be scheduled for an October 7 , 1980 , meeting .
gawrence
rely yo ®rJ74 7
s
• LPF / nf P . Fabbroni , P . E .
cc - John L . 10arion Town Engineer
Philip S . Winn , Esq .
Noel Desch
Nancy Fuller
Montgomery May EXHIBIT 2
Barbara Restaino
Lewis D . Cartee
Al ) AMS & THE ISL+' N AHDIA.NU L AUANIS
ATTOFINEYS AND COUNSELORS AT 14AW IIENHY W. THEISEN
• T11E CLINTON HOUSE. SUITE :101 HAIAP11 W. NASH
103 WEST SENECA STREET
TELEPHONE 10071 972-3449
ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850
September. 30 , 1980
James V . Buyoucos , Esq .
BUYOUCOS & BARNEY
Citizens Savings Bank Bldg ,
Ithaca , New. York 14850
Re : John Marion " Subdivision" , T - 3366
Dear Jim :
Under date of September 25 , 1980 , I wrote the Town Engineer the letter
of which the enclosed is a copy . He replied to me under date of September 26 ,
1980 that certain questions raised in my letter were to be " discussed " with you .
• Larry is out of town . We have not heard from him or you in answer
to my question .D .
Larry suggested a meeting of a Town Planning Board for October 7 , 1980 ,
provided we got notices out by September 29 , 1980 . Because we haven ' t heard from
you , we were not able to make the September 29 , 1980 deadline . Now Mrs . Fuller
says that a meeting of the Town Planning Board can be scheduled for October 14 ,
if we get notices out and ready by Monday , October 6 .
We still don ' t know whether the sale of land in bulk , as Marion has
done , contemplates a subdivision or not , especially where no new streets are
involved .
We do need building permits for two houses , one on the Slaterville
Road and one ort the Pine Tree Road . Larry Fabbroni calls this a subdivision ,
though it doesn ' t seem to fit the definition in the Town Ordinance . Is it
your opinion that we need an approved subdivision before we can get building
permits for the: two lots involved ? See enclosed map .
%oujn Or �, 7L�} pc / /Qrio1� SU��IUI � �d�
�'alle � le ��
EXHIBIT 3
Re : Marion " Subdivision " , T- 3366 9 / 30 / 80
Page 2
My client goes to Florida this month . We need to get this matter
resolved not later than October 5 , so we can get on an October 14th Planning
Board Agenda if we have to .
May I hear from you ?
Very truly yours ,
Armand L . Adams
ALA/ dh
Enclosures
cc : Mr . Noel Desch
Mr . Lawrence P . Fabbroni
Mrs . Nancy Fuller
Mr . John Marion
•
EXHIBIT 3
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
NEW YORK
DIVISION OF ASSESSMENT
MEMORANDUM
Armand L . Adams
TO : The Clinton House , Suite 301 , Ithaca , NY 14850 DATE: October 29 , 1980
FROM : Robert H . Cockram , Senior Assessor
PP
SUBJECT: Apportionment - Town of Ithaca - 58 - 2 - 22 . 2
1 . ) Assessed value as of August 1 , 1980 : Land - $ 9 , 000 , Improvements - $ 500 ,
Total - $ 9 , 500 . Land area - 4 . 7 acres .
2 . ) On May 30 , 1980 , Zimmerman purchased 1 . 224 acres of vacant land .
3 . ) Biesdorf is under contract to purchase 1 . 5 acres along with the barn .
4 . ) Marion is retaining 1 . 98 acres of vacant land .
Improvements Total Percent
5 . ) Apportionment : Land
• Zimmerman $ 2 , 800 - - - - $ 2 , 800 29%
Biesdorf 3 , 000 $ 500 39500 3710
Marion 30200 - - - - 3 , 200 34%
Totals $ 90000 $ 500 $ 9v500 10010
EXHIBIT 4
1 � \\
.. . . J ISO
• r 28 : ZII
IS Fit
25
a
TAK m4P EgQCR • .•a 24 suvoc AS
w
na ■.• •
. • 17 164 �1 tur tr.rt tr■a ,Q
111 ( p*u wtra•cr IICQCNC7 LaNC
BLI o 8 ° w Ila1T1 1O '
a4f •C. Cti. o - eta � �f ale
.
09 _ & 2OC right of way
all$ to GIG
20
io �' r
ea w
2f 22 • 21 19 • I [aR[a1
O K. CaL
JLZG 31*44. all he CAL
.• l !1
i 26.1 /
R
27
13
231, ` 14 r ( a
2a
27 . � lII _ I}_ " 1 � RIM 039
ie o .v \0 s �dr, 14
� ago
t
\ I_I K CAL
1 Alimi't. La ASI,
30
944
i.t/ KCAL.
� � r
a - 10ac
•C4rP
4Yt4 !;
IS a.c c40. \
"Tp V-A L
pfnow Am SgivE
'�jca � e Irl =
400
r
NORTH EAST APPRAISALS AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC,
ITHACA, NEW YORK
EXHIBTT 5
i
k
/y/NP � �' Lors fc � Tc .v.✓ Mr� �iC /.� , Ocrio, / qGs _ ; •• -
MV i
So
/Y/.VP of �.oEyM.y�✓� � vic�E ,�,vnre �ry/ �y �'� f��� ..
iia 41 /�. r r,P,o�va c
�L� rc .vC .�rC�•P. p �
` azo • `--�. Z,.. _
jP
•a . � -
• \ Aiwste
/. G Z 4oc"Jl = SLAcnr
f .Q .a ) I
r �w /✓B30I ✓ • N/ �1
-- — •• — — _ — t �I
99 7
j AVEGLI
. 1
• �' 0 1 V
P.
Q V Ad 7.
:
,.SB3 '
4& 7 •
t� 4t
r V '
c. St oot
( 'Q4 .as63 < 300
r 2
op.
0 1 . . . _
� Oma. .. .- ... ,
to � �• � I �
REMA //✓4 L'/oNA1 mP Mq .P/Oti/ ; 1 +
SURVEY NliQP ': �,
le: fp .
t i �E4
i AA PO .Qr / oN OF LANOS of 10
I a.. •� Lop , v i . Too✓ e MAR
'VAeOIv/A6T [ OnX To8f I
a I ,,, , •: �ivf TQE E � ao� i aa/.V e F rrvs:c.ct
Y/ IL
_ . Q- C�/t i
g' t SCHEDULE A
' '
EXHIBIT 6 � :
///
a► , y8 � • o � off/
16
� A me '' i°
in
o �j y a
rh
n r �► �, 3tu
`I (A®rk ^
xk'
f
f
� OGS �� ®� � a .ap -
� a � • - .—fig T - - - ;
Q: , 1
3 t1
y
1p
IN
ski
it 4
ddbft
tilt
EXHIBIT 7
TOWN OF ITHACA COUNTY OF TOMPKINS STATE OF NEW YORK
® EKf 5 T'/NCy OP/A/
>—q CULVERT
tiL ,/ r, Ty POLE
- - G - — CyA S LINE- KAAA'^oxI,W7 r)
p 5E7 ROO
-S- � EwE � L- /ME (APP)ROX /AfA7'E)
` - -Wp� )VA TER Lr /A/a (APPROX /MA7&)
PAUL j SARA ZWE•RMAV REMA //Vl/VCy 4AN03 CFw
57:/4.36 r/QGL
-7vyN MAA70N X
Cp . E
15 �$10D
G0CID
.
`. � e2c3z. = s9^ I
if
amm
z o_ \`v I
rG ._ v►� \
A!10
•rM . . � d; � . h � � N� n nQ1 -
r
0
a-
vo
Q
M.. PAC NEL r
L498/.a?37
NOTE- ANY REVISIONS TO THIS MAP MUST COMPLY WITH SECTION 7109,
SUBDIVISION 2 OF THE NEW YORK STATE* EDUCATION LAW.
DATE QQ DRAWN
SURVEYED T30 BY J• r SCALE � �� 50 � NO. ?n - /r7
/Y��'•.
Yll
• o Vis, I HEREBY CERTIFY I AM A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND GEORGE SCHLECHT
SURVEYOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THAT THIS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER \
x MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY PRa'EsStoNAI LAND SURVEYOR
SUPERpVISIOK MAIN OFFICE
43 s4: `� 0•h_ BARN ROAD
7 SiOnenri_ ---V-i._� .. FREEVRLEWN. Y" 130"
EXHIBIT 8
MEMORANDUM
TO : Noel Desch
l
FROM : Barbara Z . Restaino
RE : Agricultural Districts
DATE : October 15 , 1980
The following property owners have been contacted by the
County for inclusion in the Ag District ; none have responded as
yet ,
Parcel No . 23 - 1 - 11 . 11 , 27 acres - L . Wolf , R . Wright ':.
Parcel No . 24 - 1 - 19 . 12 , 72 acres - Bruce Babcock ,
Parcel No . 24 - 1 - 23 , 70 acres - Bruce Babcock ,
Parcel No . 27 - 1 - 13 . 12 , 95 acres - Ceracche .
Parcel No . 27 - 1 - 141 104 acres - Eddy Hill , Inc .
Parcel No . 27 - 1 - 15 . 21 96 acres - George Ideman .
Parcel No . 27 - 1 - 16 . 2 , 98 acres - Alicia Carpenter .
r
Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 20 . 2 , 110 acres - Cecil Shulman .
Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 26 . 2 , 181 acres - Eddy Hill , Inc .
I have included a map for your information . These lands
are leased for farming and have been considered because of
" agricultural viability " . The time limit on these lands N . is five
years , rather than eight , because of new legislation adding leased
lands to the eligible lists for Ag . Districts ,
Jim Baker , who is on the Tompkins County Agricultural
District Advisory Committee , has requested that the Planning
Board hear a presentation by Gary Evans , Tompkins County Planner ,
explaining the rationale behind the creation of a consolidated
Ag District . This will most likely occur on Tuesday , November 4th ,
at the regular Planning Board meeting .
1
EXHIBIT 9 %
or �G
Tomp Ziner "qun
BOARD '0 RtPRTE E ATIVES
Court,_ Houe�� ki ac$;:N. Y*4850
4
October 9 , 1980
TO : Cit and Village Mayors
t wil Supervisors
FROM : James W . Ray , Chairman , Tompkins County Agricultural District
Advisory Committee Ctwo 'l
RE : Agricultural District §
The Tompkins County Agricultural District Advisory Committee ( ADAC ) is con -
sidering recommending to the Board of Representatives that eight existing
ag districts in the county be consolidated into one . Among other benefits ,
this would be an opportunity for the Board of Representatives to add some
• previously excluded agricultural land where it seems appropriate .
There have been changes made in the Agricultural District Law (Agriculture
and Markets , Section 25 -AA ) which make it advantageous for land which is in
cultivation , but not owned by the farm operator , to be included in the ,.
district .
Since the ADAC wants all viable agricultural land to be included , the
enclosed letter has been sent to owners of land which is not in the agri-
cultural districts but which appears to be in cultivation or has been
identified as having agricultural viability ( from examining airphotos ) . Some
of this land is in your jurisdiction .
The ADAC hopes to make its recommendation to the Board of Representatives by
the first of November . Therefore , if you have questions or comments we would
-7684 or
appreciate hearing from you soon . Please contact either me , at 564
564 - 9057 ; Garrison Evans , County Planning Department , at 274 - 5286 ; or Monika
Crispin , Cooperative Extension , at 272 - 22920 If you would like for us to
attend an informational meeting for your Board or other interested parties
that can be arranged , too .
The consolidation of agricultural districts requires notices to property
owners and municipal officials and an advertized public hearing by the Board
of Representatives , just like the original creation of a district . The
public hearing will most likely take place during the first two weeks of
• December .
JWR : ys
Enc .
EXHIBIT 10
� OI'
ornp ins` bun
BOARD ''F R.E. EI ,: ATIVES
Court. Houe`e1,� I { 19850
V
October 7 , 1980 ,
Dear Property Owner :
This letter is being sent to you because you own agriculturally viable land
that is not in one of Tompkins County ' s eight agricultural districts ( as
established under the NYS Agricultural and Markets Law ) .
The Tompkins County Agricultural District Advisory Committee ( ADAC ) , made up
of four farm operators , four agribusiness operators , and one county legislator ,
is meeting this fall to review and make recommendations on Agricultural District
No . 1 in Dryden , No . 2 in Ulysses , and No . 3 in Groton and Dryden as required by
the State law . ( The law provides that agricultural districts must be reviewed
and re - established , modified , or terminated after eight years . ) The Committee
is , at this time considering recommending to the Board of Representatives that
all eight agricultural districts in the county be consolidated into one . The
review and consolidation process also provides an opportunity to add land such
as yours which oras not included when Agricultural Districts No . 1 thru 8 were
originally formed .
• The ADAC feels strongly that viable ag land should be included in the new con-
solidated ag district , and since there are time limits that must be observed the
committee intends to recommend to the Board of Representatives that your land be
included- -unless you notify the committee by October 30 , 1980 that you do not
want it included . If you are undecided and wish to discuss your situation , call
me , Monika Crispin , or Garrison Evans at the phones listed below .
It has been the policy of the ADAC and the Board of Representatives to exclude
land of anyone who wants it excluded . It is also possible to exclude portions
of your land including road frontage and leave in your "back forty " if you feel
- it would be in your best interests .
There has been a great deal of misinformation circulated about the effect of the
agricultural districts on the landowners and for this reason you are. invited to
read the enclosed information and , if you have further questions , write or call
me , James Ray , Elmira Road , Newfield , NY 14867 , :phone (office ) 564- 90575, ( home )
564-7684 ; and/or Monika Crispin , Cooperative Extension , 225 South Fulton Street ,
Ithaca , NY 14850 , phone 272- 2292 ; and/ or Garrison Evans , County Planning Depart -
ment , 128 East Buffalo Street , Ithaca , NY , phone 274- 5286 .
Sincerely ,
W
es W . Ray ,, C1 'Man
Agricultural District Advisory Committee
• c /o County Planning Department
128 East Buffalo Street , Ithaca , NY 14850
JWR : ys
Enclosure
EXHIBIT 10
`vim s! ¢ I f ] 5 1 r,1 yq ., .F •` } se�1 �i a
T � , C � � a t� a • "4j
111, 6
c==Z2Z 96 r
" -�5293ACRE3 ` ^� 1 J ' 8,061 ACRES, F
Y erg
rY
not.. �QI -', � yr M' r . JAIId
It
Ir
'�.1•� i��r LF arta �1�_`G� — ` -li Ld1 , •y�, �.3 s �:. ' • � •.,. . :.a
• �� •� s . . ` �f� ��'�, 2-'�'r"�.+Iy,, fi x, y,_MI.-`p` .�_..�-
.
� ► , ESQ
_ t}
IT . I
C A/ l � ^• %C �'- 14 $PI� i P. • � • • ,rte
rYc'13;503ACR ' tiI yy `
sH r1�
a...c�a 'r .....+. a� 'ru..-_'^ �• ;� -1 �'` • at 'xA' I1 I r \ p
•vsr «s c R/C 'M _ ( -_ , `►� ��. a � w%;
11e11\l�:•i�wQ11d• '
dpi' � tx `i � �,t �� �• �. � ` � : v \
or AU
y
Com` 3 i ,tC:� Wv
�s .
r , RA ��� 17.•cM�_�i• ]_'�� 1 . �• • 1 } tit
lz
or
LI
VIIVII III
r;eI
I It It I
Y y.'• It `L�y' �
1 KT • � 1 le ! tf' II S � iv
r e .�. 3i{,. s •c . .i.. L % � _� y�, r � ♦ t7��k��x.�y ° 7- h � Y`e�' i�4�
n'�. i9 �• V^ '' : i •�'7,�'i� Y,
5;737- ,C ESQ 1`• �►a !rr �i. ��� ;
_ ,•.r.`y'�u�•`^ .. �v, � �, . �'1 f 4�� � ..eel
X277Is. I
I
XF
wL.,� y.. �i,�• h€� ) � T ' .y�.. 1.11 +..- .s
' Xi!MOT
(t �• _ , ,Ole . • s l ^,.... . .'y . ` .tet �iI� i .SC" i .,y �� r' , *" �
ll
L .1 r •7' F L ;v rte . 5^a • �. r ".3 x'7- 1 c+i:
/' ► 1 Y T �j fir , i 1 /� LOrf� i
MDv .
. r a'4 � � r ��� � ��.6y � _� � � 2l� �:� y tea} � X• . � � '• 4F
It
sem
It I IL
1+}.✓ -'0 rte t r. SIT yM1al { ' ✓ ry. t • _ • - . '• ;L
,J c1 1rIS `
00
• 1