Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1982-04-13 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD APRIL 13 , 1982 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 00 p . m . on Tuesday , April 13 , 1982 , the meeting having been rescheduled from April 6 , 1982 because of a severe snowstorm . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , Edward Mazza , Barbara Schultz , James Baker , Virginia Langhans , Bernard Stanton , David Klein , Lawrence Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Lewis Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Richard Rostowsky , Tom LiVigne , Kenneth Horowitz , David H . Taube , Susan Beeners ( Town of Ithaca / Cornell University Work / Study Student ) , Scott Patrowicz , Clark Defranceaux , Bryan Clark , June R . C . Morse , Everett F . Morse , Margaret G . Smith , Giuliano Campagnolo , Barbara Meal , Edna Krizek , Anthony Krizek , Harold Sweet , Dorothy Carroll , Richard Vorhis , H . E . Shackelton , Wesley W . Gunkel , Lu Gunkel , Howard Fuller , JoAnn Fuller , John W . Ross , Virginia Ross , Janet W . Brown , Nieves M . Stiles , Mr . and Mrs . Paul McKeegan , Jon Morse , Mr . and Mrs . E . R . Roberts , Jean Swartwood ( Town Clerk ) , Lawrence P . O ' Neil , Frances Bruckner , Mr . and Mrs . Bill Hansel , Fred and Gloria Kulhawy , Eleanor May , Leslie May , Tom and Loren Colbert , Lois Fogelsanger , Joan Beeler , Rodney and Mary Tobey , Velma and Everett Markwardt , Bobbie and Roger Joseph , Bogdan and Seiko Mieczkowski , Marjorie vandePoel , Noel Desch ( Town Supervisor ) , George Kugler ( Town Councilman ) , James V . Buyoucos ( Town Attorney ) , Richard Thamasett , John Sebesto , Evan Monkemeyer , Albert Adams , Jeremy Howe ( WTKO ) , Louisa Slote ( WICB - FM ) , Will Astor ( WHCU ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 00 p . m . REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE TOMPKINS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - CAROLYN GRIGOROV . Mrs . Grigorov reported that the Planning and Public Works Committee of the County Board of Representatives has asked the Planning Commissioner , Frank Liguori , to design a modest stream maintenance program in the county to reduce the impact of flooding �1 and he is asking for ideas from the County Planning Board and the municipalities it represents . She noted that municipalities do not * Planning Board 2 April 13 , 1982 have clear responsibility for stream maintenance but they are authorized to do so if they choose and counties have no overall responsibility except to protect county facilities . She reported that suggestions under consideration are to have a central person at the country level ( probably in the Highway Department ) to oversee , patrol , or observe streams and to receive and coordinate reports or complaints from citizens regarding stream blockages in order to anticipate problems and alleviate them , and , to plan a regular summertime stream bed clean up project for the critical areas with workers from organizations such as CETA or , perhaps , joint county / municipal funding . She stated that it was also suggested than_ Boy Scouts could locate problem areas and report them . Mrs . Grigorov commented that this proposal appears to be non - threatening dollar - wise . Mrs . Langhans wondered about the naming of the one person to call . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he did not have any problem passing information on to the County , but , for the Town and the City it is counter - productive to send detailed information to the County and then have it come back secondhand . Mr . May suggested that for the Town of Ithaca the process could be that persons send in suggestions to the Town itself directly to the Town Engineer . Mr . Fabbroni agreed that such a procedure would be appropriate for the urban areas , adding that last year somewhat the same thing was done via the County Highway Department , Mr . Klein commented that not everything happens in the summer . Mr . Fabbroni stated that right now the emphasis is on large streams because of the storm in October , but certainly over the years regular care of streams has been lacking . Mr . Fabbroni stated that right now we have very detailed information in re the Town . He suggested that such a program should really be focussed on the Towns that have no staff . Mr . Fabbroni stated that in times of emergency or flood we are empowered to go on private property through an easement process . Mrs . Grigorov pointed out that the proposal under discussion by the County Planning Board is preventive in nature . Mr . Fabbroni stated that they go hand in hand , but people really do not want you on their property when there is no flood . He stated that it is a good idea for the rural towns that do not have staff , but for us , he would hope to see detailed information going to us and then going from the rpown to the County . Mr . Fabbroni emphasized that we need that detail coming to the Town . He commented that if the impetus is to take trees out of streams , the Town has been allowed three or four streams ' worth of time under County Highway CETA programs . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that people do not call up about a tree that is lying in a stream . Mr . Fabbroni again commented that this type of thing used to be done by highway • departments until they were shut out of the streams about ten years ago . Mrs . Grigorov stated that she was to go back to the Board with a reaction , the Board meeting tomorrow night , April 14th . • • Planning Board 3 April 13 , 1982 Mrs . Grigorov reported that the Planning Department staff has just completed assisting the Chamber of Commerce in updating its map published in 178 , with the new map expected in May 1982 , Mrs . Grigorov reported that a facility for receiving septage is being considered as part of the proposed City / Town of Ithaca / Town of Dryden sewage treatment plant , negotiations being underway between the county and the municipalities . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF REVISED SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO INCLUDE A RUNNING TRACK FOR " COURTSIDE RACQUETBALL AND FITNESS CLUB " TO BE LOCATED IN THE FORMER IDE ' S ROLLER RINK , CORNER JUDD FALLS ROAD AND MITCHELL STREET , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX . PARCEL N0 . 6 - 62 - 1 - 5 . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 25 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 April 7 , 1982 , and April 10 , 1982 , respectively . Mr . Thomas LiVigne and Mr . David Taube appeared before the Board . Mr . LaVigne presented the request for revised site plan approval for " Courtside " , being a revision to the final site plan granted approval by the Board on October 20 , 1981 , to include a running track outside ringing the building on the second floor • under cover . Mr . Taube , the architect for the project , displayed elevation plans , noting that the track would be outside the building line on three sides , and noting that courts # 7 and # 8 would be pulled out . He stated that the track is 7 ' 6 " high and is a two - lane cantilevered track . He stated that the building would be extended 10 feet . Mr . May asked if there were a drawing to show what happens in the area of the shed roof . Mr . Taube stated that there was not such a drawing , however , the shed roof portion would be eliminated , therefore being an improvement . Mr . May noted that Mr . Taube was indicating that the shed area would be taken away , to which Mr . Taube concurrE! d . Mr . May commented that that makes a big difference . Mr . May noted that the area that was a shed roof is proposed to become two stories on that end , adding that this is a change from thE! previously approved plan . Mr . Taube described the second floor above this area , at which point Mr . May inquired as to what this would do to the plans for the greenhouse . Mr . Taube replied that the greenhouse would be reduced but they still hope for something like that . Mr . Taube stated that they have a focus on the courts now . He stated that the track is a very important element in terms of the amenities for the members . Mr . Mazza asked if there were any windows in this track . Mr . Taube replied that there were . Mr . Klein asked if there were any . problem with side yards . Mr . LiVigne stated that they have an easement from Mr . George Ideman . Planning Board 4 April 13 , 1982 Mr . Fabbroni stated that Mr . Ideman has stated that he supports this modification . Mr . Fabbroni commented that this property is interior to a commercial area and it has always been hard for us to even consider that a side yard was to be required on this side . ]3e suggested that as long as we have something on record that the adjacent owner , who was the original owner , is not in conflict , it would be in order . The following document forms a part of the official record of this meeting : " April 1 , 1982 George & Mary Ideman 946 Mitchell Street Ithaca , N . Y . 14850 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Seneca Street Ithaca , New York 14850 Re : 14 Judd Falls Road ( Proposed Racquetball Club ) Att : Larry Fabbroni Dear Mr . Fabbroni : This is to inform the Town of Ithaca Planning board that we have entered into an Agreement with JKRT Associates ( the Courtside people ) to provide them with an easement of our land so that they may construct and provide their club members with a running track circling the second story of their building . Our attorneys are working out the details and will include this document with the closing paper: . Very truly yours , ( Sgd . ) Geo . W . Ideman George Ideman " Mr . Klein. inquired as to how much clearance there would be , to which Mr . Taube replied - - just over 10 feet . Mrs . Schultz inquired as to any proposed completion date , to which Mr . LiVigne replied - - sometime in November . Chairman May asked if there were anyone present wishing to speak to this matter . No one spoke . MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton * RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and . hereby does grant approval of the Revised Site Plan for " Courtside Racquetball and Fitness Club " to include a running track , as shown on Site Plan presented to said Planning Board this date , April 13 , * . Planning Board 5 April 13 , 1982 1982 , prepared for J . R . K . T . Associates by O ' Brien Taube Associates PC , such Revised Site Plan being a revision of Final Site Plan dated October 20 , 1981 heretofore granted approval by said Planning Board on October 20 , 1981 , with said Club to be located in the former Ide ' s Roller Rink , corner Judd Falls Road and Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 1 - 5 , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that revised site plan approval hereby granted is with the understanding that Code requirements are to be discussed with the Town Building Department , that building permit requirements be met , and that the landscaping plan be accomplished within a two -year time frame from said revised site plan approval . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Stanton , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the matter of Revised Site Plan Approval for " Courtside Racquetball and Fitness Club " , 14 Judd Falls Road , duly closed at 7 : 39 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL : REVISED SITE PLAN FOR GARDEN APARTMENTS FOR SPRINGWOOD APARTMENTS , EAST KING ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 43 - 2 - 8 , HERBERT N . MONKEMEYER , ( CAC INVESTMENT , DEVELOPER ) , Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 40 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 April 7 , 1982 , and April 10 , 1982 , respectively . Mr . Evan Monkemeyer of Springwood and Mr . Albert Adams of CAC Investment , Liverpool , N . Y . appeared before the Board . Mr . Adams stated that he had with him for distribution to each Board member copies of the proposed site plan . Mr . Adams apologized for not getting the plans to the Board before the meeting , Mr . Adams stated that he was looking for a preliminary reaction from the Board , really , rather than approval . The following plans were distributed to the Board : 1 . Site Plan # 1 , 4 / 2 / 82 - - 5 buildings , 12 units each = 60 units ; parking for 92 cars ; 50 - 2 - bedroom units , 10 - 1 - bedroom . 2 . Site Plan # la , 4 / 2 / 82 - - 4 buildings , 12 units each = 48 units , parking for 78 cars ; 40 - 2 - bedroom units ; 8 - 1 -bedroom . Planning Board 6 April 13 , 1982 3 . Site Plan # lp , 4 / 2 / 82 - - Landscaping for 4 - building concept . - - Site Information - - Site Area : 213 , 000 square feet . Mr . Adams stated that the land under discussion is the lower portion of the Springwood parcel and contains approximately 5 acres . He stated that their interest is to develop and build garden - style apartments . He displayed an elevation drawing as an example . He noted that the buildings would contain approximately 12 , 000 sq . ft . , with ten 2 -bedroom units and two 1 - bedroom units , being 12 units per building . Mr . Adams stated that he had talked with Mr . Fabbroni who had indicated to him that the maximum density could be 70 units . Mr . Adams stated that they did not want to develop with that intensity , noting that they are looking at either 60 or 48 units . He stated that they would like 60 units but may not build that number . He stated that it is their feeling that they are under density . Mr . Adams stated that CAC Investment is a firm comprised of himself and William Campolino who is President of the Central New York Home Builders Association . Mr . Adams stated that they have been discussing the matter of developing this with the Monkemeyers over the past six months . He stated that they think there is a good market at this time and a necessity for more rental units in this community . He stated that they have tried to stagger the units to keep the gorgeous view . He stated that they are here this evening for the Board ' s input and suggestions , adding that they would like to actually commence construction next year . Chairman .May asked if there were any questions from the Board . Mr . Stanton asked what the total acreage of the plot is , to which Mr . Adams replied 213 , 000 sq , ft . Mr . Adams noted that the existing units are uphill from those proposed this evening . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that it might be helpful to the Board to see the original site plan that was approved for Springwood . While Mr . Fabbroni was retrieving the Springwood site plan from the map files , Mr . Adams stated that it is not their intention to build all the units at once , adding that they would probably be built in two parts , i . e . , 24 and 36 . Mr . Fabbroni returned and displayed the original site plan for Springwood as approved . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that the whole 15 acres comprising Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 2 - 8 was rezoned multiple family . Mr . Fabbroni , indicating on the original site plan , noted that the original concept envisioned 93 units , with units A , B , C , D , E , F , and G receiving approval in December of 1973 and totalling 25 units . Mr . Fabbroni commented that Mr . Monkemeyer has built units A and B and is waiting to go through with the rest . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the overall plan is no way near saturation . He stated that the proposed 60 units is no where near saturation either , even though 32 is shown in the original Site Plan . • Mr . Adams stated that the original concept is not economically feasible today . Planning Board 7 April 13 , 1982 Mr . May asked Mr . Fabbroni for his views on drainage and utilities . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , with regard to utilities , in order to be sized the way they are shown here they would require Health Department approval and be considered private utilities from the road in . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that the developer consider an 8 " main and a hydrant centrally located within the complex . He commented that the saving is relatively little on a 4 " main and , also , that an 8 " main and hydrant is better for . the Town and fire flow . He noted that a hydrant is shown , however , that is not good on a 4 " main . With regard to sewer , Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Town would not. take over anything less than 8 " , except if a 6 " line were certified by a professional engineer that it would work . For sewer pipe , he commented that plastic pipe is probably all that we would see and the savings , again , between 6 " and 8 " is probably not worth the dif Ference and the Health Department will not approve a public main less than 8 " . Mr . Adams stated that they will , of course , meet all requirements , adding that 6 " for sewer and 4 " for water is consistent with other plans that they have done in other locations , however , if they do not meet the requirements here in the Town of Ithaca , they will change that . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that a 6 " sewer would work hydraulically . A question concerning the Health Department arose to which the reply was that , if it is a private system , it could be done with 6 " piping . Mr . Fabbroni commented that these are somewhat minor things , but , drainage is quite major , as Mr . Monkemeyer knows . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Board would want more detail as to where the parking area would hold water ; size of catch basins ; how they would anticipate holding and for how long . Mr . Adams described some of the plans and Mr . Fabbroni suggested that , as they come back to the Board , they would know more detail . He stated that on landscaping , it should be delineated as to what is in there now and whether it will stay as is . He stated that the area above should be delineated and documented on the final plans . Mr . Adams reviewed some of the points that Mr . Fabbroni had made , as follows : ( 1 ) change in water line , ( 2 ) size of pipe sewer -wise . Mr . Fabbroni stated that with private sewer , proper sealing by an engineer would be okay . Mr . Adams added ( 3 ) , drainage , to his list . Mr . Fabbroni stated that drainage is the most critical problem . He suggested a temporary ponding effect which could be made a landscape feature . Mr . Fabbroni noted that other than those details , the Board has been shown only layouts for landscaping . Mr . May asked if there were any comments from the public present . There were none . • Mr . Mazza inquired about the 20 ' right of way delineated on the site plan . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that it is a right of way . . Planning Board 8 April 13 , 1982 that the Monkemeyers have owned since the ' 40s . Mr . Klein noted that this has been rezoned to multiple family and no changes made . Mr . Fabbroni agreed , adding that this is a revised site plan only . Mr . Mazza noted 4 units on each floor . Mr . May al id if they would exceed the maximum height restriction . Mr . Fabbroni said that they would not , the bottom floor is below ground 22 ' . Mr . Mazza asked about the trash collection points and Mr . Adams pointed out that two are shown , Messrs . May , Klein , and Mazza indicated that that did not seem to be a sufficient number . Mr . Adams stated that they will add another between buildings D and E . Mr . Fabbroni indicated that there is a need for truck access also to be shown . Mr . May inquired about lighting . Mr . Adams stated that there would be external lighting via spot lights off the buildings . Mr . Klein inquired if there were a requirement that when somebody comes before the Planning Board , they submit plans ahead of time . Mr . May stated that that was correct . Mr . Klein commented that he realized the economics of the situation , but he was sorry that the original architectural concepts cannot be carried out . He noted that this proposal is rather distinctly different . Mr . Adams stated that he agreed , but economics will just not allow this kind of development . Mr . Adams stated that they will be quality , well - built , units , adding that they will use earth - toned colors and textures . Mr . Adams asked that , if there were any additional thoughts on the part of the Board members , they please tell Mr . Fabbroni or him . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton : RESOLVED , that , subject to its determination as lead agency of environmental :significance or non - significance , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for garden apartments proposed for an approximately 5 acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 2 - 8 , said Parcel comprised of a total of approximately 15 acres and zoned multiple family residential , and being presently owned by Herbert N . Monkemeyer , the intent of such grant of preliminary site plan approval being that the concept of development of such garden apartments in buildings containing 12 units each is satisfactory ; and FURTHER RESOLVED , that final site plan must include due and proper details as to drainage , sewer , water , hydrants , trash , lighting , landscaping identification , and interior of the plot , said details to be presented in a manner satisfactory to the Town Engineer and the Town Building Inspector . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Stanton , Klein . Planning Board 9 April 13 , 1982 ' Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Revised Site Plan for Garden Apartments at " Springwood " , East King Road , duly closed at 8 : 30 p . m . PRESENTATION BY STUDENT CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS ( CORNELL UNIVERSITY ) OF ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN FOR EASTERN HEIGHTS PARK AND POSSIBLE FOLLOW - UP STUDENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT . Susan C . Beeners , who has been working with the Town of Ithaca for three years through the Cornell University Work / Study Program , introduced Mr . Scott Patrowicz , Mr . Clark Defranceaux , and Mr . Bryan Clark to the Board as members of the Cornell University Student ChaptE! r of the American Society of Civil Engineers . Ms . Beeners stated that the ASCE came to the Town looking for a service project and it was decided to let them loose on Eastern Heights Park , the largest of the Town of Ithaca Parks . She stated that a detailed site plan was developed , photographs , etc . , and noted that the material the Board was about to review was shown to the Public Works Committee on March 25th , Mr . Scott Patrowicz conducted the presentation and stated that the group has been working on the project for four or five months now . He noted that Eastern Heights Park contains 14 acres of land and is a high priority item in the Town of Ithaca with a potential for regional significance . He stated that the purpose of this presentation is to receive comments and suggestions from the Planning Board . Mr . Patrowicz described the stages the students went through to arrive at a plan as being ( 1 ) Site Analysis , ( 2 ) Suitability Analysis , and ( 3 ) the dividing of the manpower into three groups which evolved different schemes . He stated that the approaches to the development of the park site were three - - passive / active , active , and passive . Mr . Patrowicz commented that the presentation was made to the Public Works Committee about two weeks ago and was well received , the comment being that they liked all the plans and would it be possible to take a little from all of them . Mr . Patrowicz stated that the site is beautiful and has existing facilities on site . He described the soil as silty gravel and noted the presence of springs . He stated that soil tests were done and the reports are available . He described the high clay content and the presence of large boulders . He described the geology of the site as interbedded sandstone . Utilizing large plans appended to the wall , he pointed out areas that were termed high impact areas , environmentally sensitive areas , and the vegetation . Mr . Clark Defranceaux described the passive / active approach to the park development , pointing out that it was a long - term plan . He described a buffer zone near the existing homes , a flat play —Planning Board 10 April 13 , 1982 • area where , if a tennis court were ever to be sited , would be the only area for it . He stated that he would recommend moving the parking area . He pointed out an ice surface area with the suggestion for lights on meters . He described the location of a pavilion between two particular areas . He indicated bathroom facilities ; a bicycle course ; the existing play structure ; additional parking if needed and as a spot for parking bikes . Mr . Bryan. Clark presented the active scheme , commenting that the design is aimed for those whose destination is the park . He described fill. , tennis courts , terraces , amphitheatre , lawn area , pavilion , and a buffer . Mr . Patrowicz presented , on behalf of David Lee who could not be present , the passive scheme . He described a huge picnic area , a trail all around the site , a buffer , wildflowers , beautiful views , parking for 5 or 6 cars , and a Boy Scout campsite . Mr . Patrowicz summarized the presentation in terms of putting it all together and asked for comments from the Board . Prior to individual comments , the Board members expressed their appreciation of and for the excellent work done by the students . Mr . Stanton asked Mr . Patrowicz to tell the Board about the disturbed area . Mr . Patrowicz did so utilizing the drawings on the wall and mentioning the use of the streams , the fill , the erosion up to 5 ' in depth . Mr . May inquired about the missing ballfield and Mr . Patrowicz spoke of that as being a difficult matter , however , he asked if the Board wanted to see one there . Mrs . Langhans felt that there was a need since there are so many families in the area . There was discussion of the ice rink with Mr . Fabbroni noting that it would certainly be a challenge to place it in the play area in the middle but could serve as a temporary holding area for water . Mr . May wondered about liability while Mr . Fabbroni felt it would not be a problem as proposed . Mr . May pointed out some of the proposals , noting the possibility of skating , family picnics , ballplaying , and describing the buffer as very good , the bicycle course as very good . He noted the pavilion , the flat area during winter for skating , and described the amphitheatre as great . He noted the wooded area and commented on areas within which the Boy Scouts could perform service projects . Mr . Mazza inquired about closing of the park . Mr . Fabbroni responded by de .; cribing the presently being proposed Park Use Law . The students thanked the Board for allowing them to present . their service project and the Board , in turn , thanked the students for their time and effort . Mr . Patrowicz stated that they will Planning Board 11 April 13 , 1982 • take all the comments and suggestions back to the drawing board and return with a final plan in the near future . PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING : THE BROOME DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES WILL EXPLAIN A. PLAN TO USE THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1205 HANSHAW ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 71 - 3 - 2 , AS A GROUP HOME RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR CERTAIN SELECTED MENTALLY RETARDED AND DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED TO THEM BY STATE LAW , Chairman May declared the Public Informational Meeting in the above - noted matter duly opened at 9 : 05 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Informational Meeting in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on April 7 , 1982 and April 10 , 1982 , respectively . Chairman May read from his letter , dated March 30 , 1982 , as Chairman of the Planning Board , directed to neighbors of and persons interested in the above - noted property and proposal , as follows : " Re : Group Homes - 1205 Hanshaw Road Town of Ithaca Dear Resident : The Broome! Developmental Services , Inc . , under the auspices of • the State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental :Disabilities is considering the acquisition of a house and lot on Hanshaw Road in the Town of Ithaca to be used as a Group Home residential facility for certain selected mentally retarded and developmentally disabled persons . The property is located at 120 .5) Hanshaw Road . The tax parcel number is 6 - 71 - 3 - 2 and it appears on Map # 71 of the Assessment Maps . Under the current zoning ordinance , the use of this property for the purposes stated above would require a zoning change . However , some gime ago , the legislature of the State of New York adopted a measure by which they exempted certain state agencies from compliance with requirements of any local law relating to zoning and use if the premises were to be used for the purposes stated above . The Town has a limited right to appeal any acquisition of I' roperty for the purposes stated above . Inasmuch as there is no other Group Home operating on Hanshaw Road in this vicinity , there may be little basis for successful prosecution of an appeal . The State is also still considering a site at 205 Northview Road West , however , they consider that 1205 Hanshaw Road is the most attractive at this time . The Town has been attempting to use its offices to discuss . with the State possible locations and to acquaint the State as much as it could with the local circumstances , services , and zoning policies in any particular area . Accordingly , the Town Planning i Planning Board 12 April 13 , 1982 Board has placed an item on its agenda for the regular meeting of the Planning Board on April 6 , 1982 , ( Note : Postponed to April 13th because of snow ) , at approximately 9 : 00 o ' clock p . m . , at the Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York . At that time , officials of the state agency will discuss the proposal and we expect that they will give us all pertinent information about the property , the number of rooms , any changes expected to be made , the acquisition costs , the number of occupants , the number of supervisors , the extent to which the site will be used in connection with their program , etc . You may appear to ask the State any questions which are reasonably related to the project . Although the Town ' s role is unofficial , this forum will provide an opportunity for presentation of the State ' s proposal and Town residents ' response . . . . " The following letters were entered into the record by the Chair : 1 . Thomas B . Colbert , 1210 Hanshaw Road , undated , to Mr . May -- " I oppose the proposed group home at 1205 Hanshaw Road and I hope the Town Planning Board , although limited in their ultimate power to oppose this location , does everything in its power to discourage this location of a group home . I oppose this location for a group home for the following reasons : - To place people who , by virtue of mental and physical _ handicaps , have limited access to needed services into a location where everyone who lives must drive for the simplest services , is poor planning . -There is no way that what is now a 3 bedroom , 1 , 400 sq . ft . home on a . 35 acre lot , however modified , can house 9 adults plus support staff without negatively impacting the neighborhood . - 1205 Hanshaw Road is located directly on a high speed County highway with extremely dangerous driveway egress . -There are no sidewalks along Hanshaw Road . - This location is not convenient to shopping , downtown services , events , churches , etc . . . . - There is no regularly scheduled bus service to this site . - In essence , this location has all the drawbacks of a small home on a small lot in a downtown location , with the added disadvantage that these people must be bused everywhere , and are prisoners of this location . In view of these reasons and many others , I oppose this location for the proposed group home . s Planning Board 13 April 13 , 1982 Moreover , in view of my and others ' opposition to this location , the State should return to its original and still preferred location , where the home is located on a safer low traffic side street , a larger lot , and where a considerable investment in time and architectural fees has already been made . " 2 . Paul L . McKeegan , 1201 Hanshaw Road , April 1 , 1982 , to Mr . Desch - " This is a follow up to our phone conversation today in reference to the proposed residence for disabled adults at 1205 Hanshaw Rd . We will not be able to attend the meeting on April 6 but I would like to go on record as having strong reservations about developing such a program at that particular location . The traffic is really heavy on Hanshaw Rd and there are school buses that stop at Kay St right opposite the house . As a taxpayer for 45 years at 1201 Hanshaw ( next door ) , I resent having a State Agency just arbitrarily move in at 1205 Hanshaw Rd . I have a feeling that other close neighbors will concur in my opinions . . . . " O 3 . John D . O ' Shea , 1206 Hanshaw Road , March 27 , 1982 , to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board - " I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposal by the Developmental Disabilities Services of Broome Developmental Services -to establish a home for developmentally disabled adults at 1205 Hanshaw Road , Ithaca . I ask that a copy of this letter be included as part of the proceedings of the April 6 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board . My opposition stems primarily from my perception of the character and nature of the neighborhood and my unwillingness to see it change . Homes within the immediate proximity of 1205 Hanshaw Road are almost all owner - occupied and , to the best of my knowledge , are exclusively single - family dwellings . These two facts plus the intangible - - pride in home ownerhsip - -- have made this section of the Town of Ithaca an extremely desirable place to live . To allow 1205 Hanshaw Road to be converted into a rooming house / boarding house owned and operated by an insensitive governmental body would be a tragedy for the neighborhood , and it would have a deleterious effect upon the values of the homes in the neighborhood . The immediate area is not inhabited by a highly transient popultion . A majority of the families that stand to be affected have lived there for the greater part of their adult lives . Through their efforts and hard work , they have established the high - quality , residential character of the Planning Board 14 April 13 , 1982 neighborhood which is now being threatened by Developmental Disabilities Services . Claims to the contrary by this State organization should not be taken lightly . The house they propose converting has been meticiously ( sic . ) cared for over the years by owners with a sense of pride and concern for the neighborhood . Once the ownership and function of this house changes to the hands of a public body in absentia , I guarantee that the quality of care it will receive will virtually disappear- - if not immediately , then certainly after a time . Because of this , I fear for myself and my neighbors with the knowledge that a lifetime ' s hard work and investment will have been for naught . Developmental Disabilities Services ' proposal is poorly conceived , unwise and highly impractical . I urge you , as a planning board , to recommend denial of this application and take any appropriate steps to see that similar proposals are not thrust upon us . " 4 . Teresa E . Jordan , 1414 Hanshaw Road , April 5 , 1982 , to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board - " To whom it may concern : I wish to express my support of the Broome Developmental Services ' plan to use 1205 Hanshaw Road as a Group Home Residential Facility . Such a Group Home should enrich our neighborhood . " 5 . Peter Brussard , 1200 Hanshaw Road , April 13 , 1982 , Telephone Call to Jean Swartwood , Town Clerk - " Peter Brussard of 1200 Hanshaw Road called this morning from Mississippi . He will be unable to attend this evening ' s meeting to hear the presentation by Broome Developmental Agency . He asked me to inform the proper authorities of his objections to locating the Group Home at 1205 Hanshaw Road . Mr . Brussard stated that the house at 1205 Hanshaw Road was too small and that the hallways were too narrow for the proposed usage . He felt the house would need to be gutted in order to be used for a group home . He further stated that one - half of the bedrooms were located in the basement and it was impossible to heat the basement above 60 degrees . He went on to say that the lot was too small to accommodate a proposed addition to the house . Also , that there was O insufficient parking , at the present time , for staff without the addition of visitor parking . Therefore , the lawn would need to be blacktopped to accommodate parking . Planning Board 15 April 13 , 1982 He further noted that Hanshaw Road has a very heavy and fast volume of traffic , therefore , he felt the house proposed by Broome Developmental Agency was inappropriate and wished to voice his objection to the proposed location of the Group Home at 1205 Hanshaw Road . " Mr . Richard J . Thamasett , Director , Broome Developmental Services , Binghamton , N . Y . , introduced himself to the Board and the public present: , stating that Broome Developmental Services is a part of the State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities . He stated that tonight ' s meeting is the third concerning the establishment of a community -based facility , as part of the normalization process , for up to 8 adults who currently reside in the Broome Developmental Center . Mr . Thamasett recalled that another home was proposed for the siting of such a facility in the Town at 205 Northview Road West , however , Supervisor Desch indicated that that site was inappropriate and suggested 10 other sites which Broome reviewed . He stated that Broome is proposing to site a home at 1205 Hanshaw Road . Mr . Thamasett distributed several booklets and brochures describing Broome Developmental Services , e . g . , " Right at Home Right in the Neighborhood " , " Being retarded never stopped anyone from being a good neighbor . " , " Facts about Developmental Disabilities " , and " Broome Developmental Services " ( a fact sheet ) . Mr . Thamasett touched briefly on the background of projects such as this in the area , noting that this area ' s projects commenced in the Fall of 1980 and there are joint projects within the County area and the City . He stated that the need has been shown by the local agencies with this particular project having been endorsed by Mr . DeLuca ( Tompkins County Community Mental Health ) and Broome Developmental Services . He stated that there is an unmet need for such a facility here , adding that the regulations are very stringent with the operation being joint with the Town and the County . He stated that the purpose is to have the facility , funded by the State , be a part of the community . Mr . Thamasett stated that currently there is a community home residence on Aurora Street in the City of Ithaca and with him this evening to speak to the Board , and the public , is a parent of one of the residents of that home . Mr . Thamasett introduced Barbara . Barbara stated that she is the parent of an adult who lives in a group home now , on Aurora Street in the City of Ithaca . She stated that her daughter Mary Jane , now 30 years old , has been retarded since age 3 , and lived at home until she was was 16 . She stated that at age 16 her daughter went to the New York State Facility in Newark until , several years after , Broome was built . She stated that. they were very happy with the facility but , of course , it was an institution . Barbara stated that in August of 1980 her daughter was selected as suitable for living in a community -based home . Barbara described that at Newark there were 30 girls in a room like an army barracks . She stated that they O received good care but not like home . She stated that , now that her daughter is in a group home , there is a noticeable change , a real change , in her from when she was at Newark and Broome . Planning Board 16 April 13 , 1982 Barbara said that her daughter is now close by , noting that she ( Barbara ) livE! s in Lansing , and adding that she ( Barbara ) now has input into her life . She stated that she can take her out ; have her hair done , participate in her daughter ' s activities whenever she ( Barbara ) wants to stop in at the home . Barbara commented that it is nice to be a part of the life of one ' s family . Barbara described the advantages of the group home life , commenting that with the large groups in the institutions when one person had a tantrum they all did as a group , but in the home where they are treated as individuals , this did not happen . She spoke of the tranquilizers used in the institutions and noted that her daughter is being taken off those now that she has individual attention , being one of ten people . Barbara described the fun she had going with her son and a group from the home to the State Fair . She stated that , to her , the group home is a " real " place , a great stride forward . Barbara commented that there are 300 homes like the one here proposed in New York and 600 family care / personal care homes like the one on Aurora Street in the State . Mr . John Sebesto , Broome Developmental , stated that he is a program specialist , having the responsibility for three State operated Intermediate Care Facilities . He described his work as being involved with up to 10 individuals in each home with an average age of 50 years . He described extensive training programs , in -workshop programs , programming that goes on at the home goes on at night and on the weekends , with the days being used for treatment program or sheltered workshop time . He described the staffing as 8 -1Z resident aides , a nurse , program manager , and program director . He noted that there are three shifts per day , thus the home is staffed 24 hours a day , with the majority of the staff being there during nights and weekends . He stated that therapists work 20 hours per week and social workers are involved . He noted that a psychologist is on 1 / 3 time and , in addition , the services of a dietician and a physician are available . Mr . Sebesto commented that it is the policy of the group home to utilize a number of community programs . He noted that , just as everyone has a family physician and a family dentist , the homes have agreements with local hospitals for medical needs on a 24 - hour basis . Mr . Sebesto described the neighborhood relations as they exist in Broome County and in every community residence in the whole State . He described the Neighborhood Advisory Committee as being a group of 5 persons of which 3 have to be immediate neighbors . He stated that the Committee renders advice , has input into the functioning of -the home , and holds meetings on a quarterly basis , meeting in the evenings . He stated that at such meetings , the services are discussed , questions by neighbors are responded to , and the like . He stated that it has worked out very well in Broome County . Dr . Lawrence P . O ' Neil , Treatment Team Leader , Developmental O Disabilities Services , spoke next and stated that the Home that they are planning on Hanshaw Road is for non - self - preserving individuals - - persons who are physically handicapped and in need Planning Board 17 April 13 , 1982 of more care than the people living in the Aurora Street home or in homes under the jurisdiction of H . O . M . E . S . in Tompkins County . He stated that the proposed facility is a part of the system of services that they have been planning in conjunction with Mental Health in order to provide services to the broadest possible range of individual : here in this community . Dr . O ' Neil described the resource services , for example , Challenge Industries , available . He noted particularly the treatment program which is at the Cayuga Heights School. involving 45 individuals and which renders active treatment services for developmentally disabled people . He stated that the people at the Hanshaw Road home would be involved for the most part with that program at Cayuga Heights School . He stated that at some time the residents will move on to other residences in Tompkins County , Mr . Stanton asked if Dr . O ' Neil would explain what the term " developmental disabilities " means . Dr . O ' Neil explained that the term is appliE! d to those who have life - long disabling conditions that appeared before age 18 such as mental retardation , cerebral palsy . He spoke of retardation , epilepsy , neurological impairment . Mr . May inquired if this home were proposed to house 10 clients , to which Dr . O ' Neil responded that that was not the case ; this home has been proposed for 8 residents . Mr . May inquired as to the specifics of the staffing . Dr . 0 O ' Neil described the staff involved as 7z to 8 persons working in three shifts , 24 hours a day , 7 days a week . He stated that there will be one van for the clients , 2 staff cars which are personal vehicles , plus those involved in light visits . He noted that this would mean two or three extra vehicles all parked on the property . Mr . Desch inquired as to how many in - residence staff there would be at the maximum , asking if it might be two . Dr . O ' Neil responded that there would be none , no one being resident there . Dr . O ' Neil , continuing , stated that there would be light staffing during the day when the residents are busy at Challenge or Cayuga Heights , , however , there would be more staff there in the evening . A lady from the floor asked if there were much visiting during the weekend . " Barbara " responded that that was not really the case , it being actually in reverse - - the residents are taken out by their families , adding at Christmas time , for example , the Aurora Street house was empty . A gentleman from the floor stated that he had been in the Hanshaw Road house many times and he did not know how 8 residents would fit in thE: re for meals and overnight . Dr . O ' Neil stated that the house , as it: now stands , would involve renovating the garage to living space , enclosing an open porch , which has a foundation , for additional bedrooms , and thus would provide sufficient bedroom O space on the first floor for the residents . He noted that the bathrooms will be modifed for use by physically handicapped people . He stated that none of the residents would live in the basement Planning Board 18 April 13 , 1982 levels that level would be used for office space or work space for the staff . He described some additional modifications to the kitchen facilities . Dr . O ' Neil stated that the services of a local architect have been retained to design the modifications . A gentleman from the floor stated that the Johnson City home is on a main ,street where the people can use the bus , unlike the one proposed for Hanshaw Road . Dr . O ' Neil asked that everyone remember that these people , those to reside at the Hanshaw Road home , are coming from an institution - - the Broome Developmental Center , and this is their very first experience away from there . He stated that it is not important that they be on a main street . He stated that their office is very conscious of activities ; there are no large groups ; they want to individualize these people . He described thi .c: intermediate care facility as a stage in their development and , as people develop skills to handle more and more in the community , there are other residences in the community which provide more opportunities so their freedom is not limited . Mr . Thamasett spoke of the people in Johnson City using the busses and noted that these individuals use the bus to and from work , adding that the busses are not fitted for handicapped . A gentleman from the floor stated that he wished to speak to the matter of traffic again , noting that there is proposed one van for the house and two other cars . He stated that at certain times O there would probably be 5 cars at one time . Dr . O ' Neil replied that that was entirely possible , pointing out that they will park on the property where they are entitled to park . Mr . Thomas. Colbert , 1210 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and stated that 1205 Hanshaw Road is a woefully inadequate site for this purpose , adding that he was also aware that the Town of Ithaca had dissuaded Broome Developmental Services from placing a home on another site in the Town because of negative impact on the neighborhood . Mr . Colbert , speaking to the Hanshaw Road site , spoke of the fast traffic on Hanshaw Road , describing it further as high speed , and noting that the access to the driveway is dangerous . He stated that there are no sidewalks . He stated that the only way to get around is by bus ; the residents could not walk , there being no sidewalks . He noted that there is no regularly scheduled bus service , Northeast Transit being the only service . He noted again that insofar as regular transportation , there is none . Mr . Colbert stated that the Hanshaw Road site is the secondary preference by Broome as they have stated . Mr . Colbert stated that parking space is inadequate . Mr . Richard Thamasett stated that he wished to respond to the statement by Mr . Colbert that the site was woefully inadequate . He stated that architectural studies of the home have been done and that it does meet all of the criteria . He spoke of bedroom space O and noted that the codes are very stringent , for example , 80 sq . ft . required per individual bedroom and 120 sq . ft . for a double bedroom . Mr . Thamasett described another home in Oneonta , New Planning Board 19 April 13 , 1982 York , as being similar to the Hanshaw Road site and stated that there have been no problems with traffic . Mr . Thamasett stated that other communities have expressed the same concerns as those heard at this meeting , adding that once the home is established there have been no problems insofar as altering the community . Mr . May stated that he would agree that traffic on Hanshaw Road would not be impacted , but parking could be a problem . A gentleman from the floor asked exactly how many cars would be there , to which Dr . O ' Neil replied that during the day there would be the transfer of two vehicles at shift change ; with night shift - - one car . The gentleman stated that he had roughed it out to 30 vehicle :shifts per day . Dr . O ' Nei .l described the Fall Creek home as not changing the character of the neighborhood . Fred H . Kulhawy , Ph . D . , P . E . , Consulting Geotechnical Engineer , 113 Orchard Street , Professor of Civil Engineering , Cornell University , spoke from the floor and stated that he would like to present= to the Board a 5 - page technical report speaking to the matter before the Board , also signed by Gloria Kulhawy , MA , MLS , Information Consultant . The report read : " April 13 , 1982 OTo : Developmental Disabilities Services , Ithaca , NY We are concerned with your proposal to establish a Community Residence Facility at 1205 Hanshaw Road . We believe you are attempting to make a decision which is based on focused reasoning that has not taken into account proper consideration of all concerns . Of course we are supportive of the concept of the Facility - to think otherwise is irrational and illogical . However , the selection of this site is also irrational and illogical . Consider first the needs of the proposed residents . You have stipulated that there will be eight developmentally disabled adults , for the most part physically handicapped in addition to being mentally retarded . These multiple disabilities pose significant restraints , including . - - very specialized residence needs - - full - time supervision by qualified staff ( 2 or more ) - - frequent visits by medical / nursing staff The goal of these residences is to provide : - - a less institutionalized ( i . e . , more " normal " ) life - - access to day treatment / rehabilitation programs - - access to the local and general community - - potential for interaction with the local community O - - opportunity for local and general mobility To do this , the legislative intent is : Planning Board 20 April 13 , 1982 that communication and cooperation between the various state agencies , local agencies and local communities be fostered by this legislation , and that this will be best achieved by establishment of clearly defined procedures for the selection of locations for community residences , to best protect the interests of the mentally disabled and ensure acceptance of community residences by local communities . ' Now let ' s consider some of the facts in this case : 1 . There has been no communication and cooperation sought with the local community ! All that has transpired has been a March 25 , 1982 letter to the local community , requesting our support , in which you state that : - - you have already planned the facility - - you have already designed the renovations How can you expect support on this basis ? 2 . The clearly defined selection procedures you are to use apparently are not common or public knowledge ! In private conversations , the following have said that they have not seen any clearly defined procedures , other than broad , general guidelines : - - local community O City Engineer Town Engineer - - knowledgeable Cornell Law School faculty - - knowledgeable local attorneys Does this mean that you can establish your criteria arbitrarily , on the basis of an individual ' s interpretation of circumstances ? 3 . You are using a relatively new state law to redefine a single family ! While this is a convenient legal vehicle , what real difference is this group compared to fraternities , communes , religious communal groups , facilities such as George. Junior Republic , etc . ? All of these entities are fundamentally the same . They are groupings of unrelated persons , living together for a common purpose , each individually a part of the group for different periods of time . All of these other groups have to obey local laws and ordinances . We are disturbed that you have a special authority to supersede any existing ordinance in the state , regardless of the circumstances . 4 . You will alter substantially the nature and character of Othe area ! t Planning Board. 21 April 13 , 1982 The area in question is one of single family homes . People have moved to this area because it is zoned single family . Most have worked long and hard to achieve this goal . They are very quiet and reserved , and lead private home lives . They stay in the area because of these reasons , and that results in a very stable community . The immediate neighbors have resided in their homes for 45 and 28 years , respectively . The prior owner at 1205 Hanshaw resided there for 17 years . The current owner of the property only lived there a few months . The development of this facility will modify directly the calm and ambiance of the area . There will always be multiple vehicles in the driveway for the staff , there will be van movements to chauffeur the residents , there will be frequent visits by doctors and nurses , as well as by officials responsible for the facility , in addition to family visits . The :result is that the driveway , which is small , will look like a used car lot , and vehicles will have to back out into a 40 mph thoroughfare . The frequent comings and goings of vehicles are also completely out of character in the area . 5 . It is unlikely that there will be any substantive interaction with the local community ! A matin goal of this program is interaction . At the current time , because of the nature of the people in the area , there is very little neighbor interaction . There is no reason to suspect that this will change . Furthermore , the area is poorly suited to the needs of the physically handicapped . There are no sidewalks and the house faces upon a 40 mph thoroughfare . There will be no opportunity for the staff to even take the residents for a walk because of these constraints . In effect , you will be restricting the residents to the Facility . This is not fair to them . 6 . There is little , if any , bonafide support from the local community ! For the many reasons cited previously , the overwhelming majority of the local community is not supportive of this site for the Facility . Contrary to what has been reported in the Ithaca Journal , there is no groundswell of support . Instead many of the residents feel cheated and misled . They moved into the area because of its zoning and its character . They don ' t want it changed . 7 . You will create a building that could be used for other o kinds of residents , with potentially serious consequences ! Planning Board 22 April 13 , 1982 With, the extensive renovations to be done , the building will not be able to be used for anything other than a community residence . You currently plan to house eight mentally and , for the most part , physically disabled adults . With changing political climates in Washington and Albany , possible re - direction of efforts , and unknown levels of financial support , it is very possible that different residents may use the Facility . According to state law , the residents could also be youth and children . There is also no restriction as to whether residents with potentially violent behavior patterns could be housed in one of these facilities . It could also be used as a halfway house . What guarantee can you give that the type of residents would not change ? Will it be about as valid as the zoning law we thought we had ? 8 . The economics of developing this facility are unreELlistic ! The house in question lists for $ 109 , 800 and it is realistic to presume that you would purchase it for at or near this figure . Based on renovation costs cited in the Ithaca Journal ( April 3 ) , presuming they are correct , renovation at Hanshaw could be $ 100 , 000 or more . For a O facility on the order of 2000ft2 of usable space for the residents , this translates into over $ 100 / ft2 . A new facility , designed properly for the residents , would cost only $ 60 - $ 75 / ft2 based on current architectural and engineering estimates . As taxpayers , we object to this gross misuse of funds . 9 . You will alter the economics of housing in the area ! If you pay the asking price of $ 109 , 800 , or close to it , you will be paying a price that we consider to be excessive . Other houses in the local area , of comparable size and quality of construction , but with more property and more desirable side street locations , are valued at considerably less . This sale price would alter our assessments upwardly , to the financial detriment of local home owners . Also , in your brochure describing the 12 frequent questions about these residences , you state " Community ResidE! nces do not cause property values to go down " . In real terms , this means that property values have not gone up . In inflationary times , this translates to a loss in potential sale value . We are very concerned about these dual financial impacts . O10 . You will be altering the structure significantly ! r Planning Board. 23 April 13 , 1982 You state that the only significant exterior change will be the addition of a ramp . Then what do you call the following ? - - closing in of a rather large rear porch - - converting a garage into living area These are major exterior changes . In effect , you are creating a dormitory . Will you also be increasing the paved area to accommodate the additional vehicles and vehicle movements ? 11 . Access and mobility concerns are largely irrelevant in a small town such as Ithaca ! Access to day programs and the community , as well as opportunity for mobility , are not persuasive arguments for :siting in a small town where everything is only 15 to 20 minutes away . The residents , as described , are largely physically and mentally disabled . This means they will be transported by van or similar vehicle to all destinations . Even if this was not the case , consider the following : - - public transportation is very limited in the area , and is specifically oriented to daytime work commuter schedules - - -virtually all public buildings and community resources , as well as the majority of shopping and churches , are located in the downtown area at a fair distance from 1205 Hanshaw - - the only community resource in the immediate area is a Catholic church : the nearest store is more than 0 . 6 miles away It is easy to continue enumerating the shortcomings of the proposed site . It is also easy to pose the substantive questions of financing relatively expensive community centers in the face of drastic cuts by the Reagan administration . We believe that the choice of this site is very poorly conceived . Its only positive attributes are : ( 1 ) it is relatively close to the day program facility , but the entire east hill area is in this category , and ( 2 ) it is for sale . On the other hand , the shortcomings are numerous and varied . Collectively , these shortcomings are quite substantial and warrant discontinuation of consideration of: the 1205 Hanshaw site . " Dr . O ' Neil invited Dr . Kulhawy to come with him to see the Aurora Street home . A gentleman , speaking from the floor , stated that he learned about this thing from the Ithaca Journal and he was surprised and astonished that this house was chosen by those who talk of human O needs . He stated that the lot is small , there are no sidewalks , no transportation . He stated that the neighborhood residents are older persons so there would be no interaction . He stated that he r Planning Board 24 April 13 , 1982 4 would have thought they could have done a better job in finding a home for these! people . He stated that the house is not fenced in ; it is open to the road and asked if they will keep the doors locked . Dr . O ' Neil stated that the doors will not be locked , to which the gentleman stated that there would then be great danger in people getting out into the street . Mr . Thamasett referred to a letter written on November 6 , 1981 by the Town Supervisor , Mr . Desch , to Dr . O ' Neil , a copy of which was directed to him , citing the 1205 Hanshaw Road house and others , and speaking to the willingness of the Town to cooperate with Developmental Disabilities Services , Mr . Thamasett stated that the matter is indeed a cooperative venture and DDS certainly seeks the endorsement of any Town , City , or Village in which they plan to locate . Mr . Thamasett stated that they were limited , if you will ; the Town gave them a list of examples of possible areas and sites . A gentleman , speaking from the floor , stated that the wisest choice , in view of the problems that Broome has faced in finding a home and engaged in a search for a home , is , if one cannot be found , then put it off . Mr . Thamasett stated that their search began in the Fall of 1980 . Mr . Thamasett stated that these people have a right to be in the community . He spoke of the unmet need and the indication by the Tompkins County Division of Mental Health of such unmet need . Mr . Thamasett stated that Broome could go on until 1984 searching for " the most appropriate site " . Dr . O ' Neil stated that the 1205 Hanshaw site was not a " second choice " . He stated that , at the time of the discussion of the Northview Road site , they had seen 1205 Hanshaw ; it was recommended at that time . Dr . O ' Neil stated that they were not " stepping down " . Mrs . Paul McKeegan , 1201 Hanshaw Road , speaking from the floor , stated that they were there first ; they owned the land . Mrs . McKeegan stated that her husband is retired and ill . She stated that this place will detract from the houses in there and asked why the representatives from Broome could not see their side of this . Mrs . McKeegan stated that she and her husband came all the way home from Florida because of this , adding that it is a terrible thing . Mrs . McKeegan stated that they wanted to live in peace . She stated that she felt sorry for these people but they just would not fit in such a quiet neighborhood , such a conservative neighborhood . Mrs . McKeegan stated that the people did not want them on Northview Road . She stated that they should go out in the country where these people can get out . Mrs . Schultz asked Dr . O ' Neil what about this house was more architecturally suitable than the other ten , in response to which Dr . O ' Neil stated that one of the things that immediately made a number of the houses unworkable was that a vast majority were on wells or septic systems and this made them unworkable in terms of required sprinkler systems or unacceptable under Code . He stated that they need homes on municipal water . Dr . O ' Neil stated that . y Planning Boarc! 25 April 13 , 1982 this house , architecturally , from their standpoint was by far and above the better . Dr . O ' Neil noted that the terrain in the Ithaca area is difficult and they have to be able to move physically handicapped people around . He noted that steps need ramping so they need a house to be one story . A lady , Speaking from the floor , stated that for the amount having to be paid for the house and the amount to fix it up , she would think that BDS could build a home on a property which is exactly what they need . Dr . O ' Neil stated that the State - designed appropriate facility newly -built costs a million dollars . A gentleman , speaking from the floor , noted that there was an accident on the corner of Orchard Street ; he noted the lack of curbing and sidewalks . He stated that Broome had failed to check matters properly , noting that the Oneonta home has curbing and sidewalks . He also commented upon the parking of three or four cars in the driveway . Dr . Kulhawy stated that as he pointed out in his report , the dollar numbers are out of line at $ 100 / sq . ft . when a new facility would cost only $ 60 - $ 75 / sq . ft . , based on current architectural and engineering estimates . He commented that the new Hospital ran $ 90 - $ 100 / sq . ft . Dr . Kulhawy noted again that Broome had stated that there would be no changes in the structure , and asked if changes to the porch and garage were not exterior changes . OMr . Thamasett stated that they do not make changes such that it would be different from a home on the street . Mr . Thamasett stated that their architect is O ' Brien and Taube of Ithaca , adding that if Dr . Kulhawy would give him his name and address he would arrange for therm to get in touch . A gentleman , speaking from the floor , asked if Broome gets this home would it be possible to change it to a group home for young adults or children . Mr . Thamasett stated that this was a question often asked and described a " certificate of need " process , noting that any basic change must be approved by many agencies , for example , County Health . He stated that the Part 51 process - - the " certificate of need " process is a very lengthy process indeed and involves representatives from the community . A lady , speaking from the floor , asked how these people were going to breathe and how they were to survive being confined for so many months . She asked if the parents who visited were from Ithaca or some other area . She stated that Broome had talked about Aurora Street but had :not mentioned that on Hanshaw Road the speed limit is 40 mph , with most cars going 60 mph . She described the ridge created by snow plows which makes backing out of the drive almost impossible . She! stated that they have provided these people with no recreation , just bedrooms . She described people cooking , doing dishes , cleaning , the presence of educators , and stated that the house is going to be jammed with people , asking where , then , do the visitors go . . Planning Board 26 April 13 , 1982 Mr . Sebe .sto stated that the residents go away to " something " during the day , for example , the Cayuga Heights School program or Challenge Industries . He stated that for six hours a day they are busy just like anybody else , just the same as we - - what we have to do , they have to do . He stated that they are involved in the community as any individual is , for example , Y ' s , schools , movies , etc . Mrs . McKeegan stated that they do not want it ; they do not belong there . Joan Beeler , 1207 Hanshaw Road , stated that 1205 Hanshaw is about 10 feet from her line . She asked that the representatives from Broome please come up to her house and see . She stated that Broome is making this a multiple residence which does change the character of the neighborhood . She pointed out that it is being proposed to build on to the porch and that she will be looking at a wall . Mrs . BeE! ler stated that if the proposal were for four people and no changes , she would have no objections at all . Mr . Klein asked if the proposed residents were from Tompkins County , to which Dr . O ' Neil responded that by and large they were . Mr . Buyoucos asked how many were from the Town of Ithaca , to which Dr . O ' Neil responded that he did not know , but that he would get that information for him . Mr . Thamasett stated that the home would be for County residents , adding that the whole thrust is to bring opeople back to their homes of origin . A gentleman , speaking from the floor , stated that Broome had made a point of interaction between group home residents and the neighborhood and he would like to point out that there seems to be a biased group here very negative to forcing a home in there . He asked what kind of living arrangements that would be for the people in the home . Dr . O ' Neil stated that the goal of the Developmental Disabilities Services is to work very closely with the neighbors . He stated that he could understand the neighbors viewing them in a negative way , adding that he had no doubt that the neighbors will accept the group home and its residents . Mrs . Grigorov asked if the representatives from Broome had any information on the effects upon property values when a home is placed in a neighborhood . Dr . O ' Neil stated that Princeton University had done a study on homes in New York State and the study shows that residences of this type do not negatively impact the neighborhood. in which they are located . A gentleman , speaking from the floor , asked if this were a proposal or has the decision already been made . Dr . O ' Neil stated that at this point it was a proposal but one which they are very ® much interested in pursuing . i Planning Board 27 April 13 , 1982 A gentleman , speaking from the floor , stated that the driveway of the home under consideration comes right across from another intersection , asking if Broome had considered this . Dr . O ' Neil stated that they have considered the traffic and they felt that it was workable . A lady , speaking from the floor , asked when the Planning Board would make a decision . Chairman May stated that the Planning Board would not make a decision ; the matter would go to the Town Board . Mr . Buyoucos asked Dr . O ' Neil did he not write a letter to the Town Board that he would consider 1205 Hanshaw Road but that he still desired 205 Northview Road West , Dr . O ' Neil responded - - No . Mr . Thamasett stated that he wrote to the Supervisor on March 11 , 1982 requesting the Town Board to consider 1205 Hanshaw Road as an alternate site to the 205 Northview Road West site , 1205 Hanshaw being one of ten alternate sites proposed by the Town to be considered in lieu of 205 Northview . Mr . Buyoucos spoke of a giving up of options and Mr . Thamasett said that he did not have any such correspondence , A gentleman , speaking from the floor , stated that he wished to comment on the $ 250 , 000 . 00 figure He stated that Dr . Kulhawy ' s comments seemed valuable . He stated that Broome could look into building . Dr . O ' Neil stated that they had . O Mr . Colbert stated from the floor that the Ithaca Journal had quoted that 205 Northview remains the primary site location . Chairman May stated that , there appearing to be no further questions , he would close the public informational meeting at 10 : 25 P . M . Board discussion followed . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza : WHEREAS , at a Public Informational Meeting , attended by 41 persons , held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on Tuesday , April 13 , 1982 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , in re a proposal by Broome Developmental Services to use the property known as 1205 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 71 - 3 - 2 , as a Croup Home Residential Facility for certain selected mentally retarded and developmentally disabled persons , where all persons wishing to be heard were heard and all written comments received were entered into the record , the following facts were presented : 1 . The existing house will require interior remodelling , with the interior of the garage converted to living space and the rear porch enclosed for living space . 2 . The occupancy of the house will be eight ( 8 ) adults plus supervisory personnel working in three shifts . Planning Board 28 April 13 , 1982 3 . The character of the immediate area is one - and two - family residential . The concentration of occupancy on this parcel would exceed the average occupancy of other dwelling units in the immediate area with the frequency of ingress and egress substantially increased . 4 . Outdoor activity is limited by the size of the parcel , i . e . , 15 , 000 sq . ft . , 100 ' frontage by 150 ' depth . 5 . There are no sidewalks . 6 . There is public transportation within walking distance . 7 . There is shopping within walking distance . 8 . There is a church located within walking distance . 9 . There is off - street parking sufficient for three to four vehicles to be parked under normal circumstances . 10 . No additional traffic of significance on Hanshaw Road will be created . The driveway at 1205 Hanshaw Road is opposite Kay Street . 11 . There are no other Group Homes of this type in the area . O12 . The property is served by public water and public sewer . 13 . The use of the parcel as a group home residential facility will be in violation of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . 14 . The proposed use of the parcel as a group home , as planned , would be at such variance with other uses in the immediate area that :it could be reasonably concluded that such use could have both an adverse economic effect on properties in the immediate adjacent area and could lessen the enjoyment of such adjacent properties by the occupants . 15 . Broome DevE� lopmental Services stated that there was a definite need for this facility in Tompkins County as part of the total mental health program . NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board sees reason for recommending to the Town of Ithaca Town Board denial of said proposed use based on the inappropriateness of the specific property at 1205 Hanshaw Road due to the density of occupancy . This should not be interpreted as a rejection of the concept of a group home residential facility being located in the Town of Ithaca . Board discussion of the Motion on the floor followed at the conclusion of which the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Stanton , " . " Planning Board 29 April 13 , 1982 Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . REVIEW AND COiNSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY TOWN BOARD OF PROPOSED TOWN OF ITHACA WETLANDS MAP . Mr . Fabbroni stated that presently under design is a combined sewage treatment facility with the City and Dryden which involves a Federal grant and , as part of that , there has to be a promise not to sewer areas within a 100 - year flood zone , or , in the alternative , not to extend sewer within 50 years . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the Town of Ithaca passed a " Wetlands Law " in 1978 . He also noted that the State was to establish the map . Mr . Fabbroni referenced T . G . Miller , P . E . , PC , and mapping that he had done ; Federal flood maps that the Town last had received , County mapping ; the Miller maps just mentioned . Mr . Fabbroni described benchmarks and noted that the Federal government should have supplied the Town with the required detailed flood maps , however , only the City and the Village of Dryden were done . Mr . Fabbroni recited the evolution of maps relating to the Town flood maps , noting pieces of information coming from Harrisburg , Pennsylvania and even Maryland . He described " creeping lines " that occurred each time a new map was made and the problem O therewith . He stated that he was prepared to recommend specific changes in the .Miller " wetlands " designation map before it comes to the Town Board , citing as an example of such a specific change - - Grayhaven Motel on the Elmira Road ( Route 13 ) . Mr . May agreed . Mr . May and Mr . Fabbroni discussed allowing each Board member to send his or her comments to Mr . Fabbroni relative to the area in which they live and of which they have knowledge . Mr . Fabbroni spoke of the possibility of there being installed a trunk line through an area even though it not be sewered . Mr . Fabbroni spoke further on these " third generation " maps and the breakdown that has resulted . He stated that the flood plain and wetlands mapping were ultimately dependent upon maps that the State or the Federal government were yet to provide . Mr . Fabbroni summed up by noting that the Planning Board recommendation on the " Wetlands " map will be the collective comments of all of the Board members . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton . RESOLVED , that the members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board agree and hereby do agree to send comments on " wetlands " designation mapping for the Town of Ithaca to the Town Engineer who will collect and transmit such comments from said members and so state to the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca . ` a Planning Board 30 April 13 , 1982 There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Stanton , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . IN THE MATTER OF : PROPOSED EQUIPMENT AND FIELD TESTING FACILITY , ARBORETUM EXPANSION AREA , CORNELL UNIVERSITY , ON FOREST HOME DRIVE ( ROUTE 392 ) , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 65 - 1 - 4 . 2 . The record should here note that , because of the severe snowstorm which caused the postponement of the Planning Board meeting scheduled for April 6 , 1982 until this date , April 13 , 1982 , and it appearing that further hardship might be placed upon Cornell University and its general contractors by such delay , the following action was taken by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca via the Secretary by individual contact by telephone on April 8 , 1982 . MOTION by Montgomery May , seconded by Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS , Cornell University wishes to build an Equipment and Field Testing Facility fronting on Forest Home Drive in the general Ovicinity of Flat Rock , and WHEREAS , the area is zoned R - 30 requiring approval of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals after receiving a report from the Planning Board , and WHEREAS , the proposed facility is more than 1 , 500 feet from the nearest private residence , and WHEREAS , traffic , land use , drainage , landscape , noise , and architectural impacts are minor and for the most part internal to the Arboretum operations , NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board that the facility be recommended to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for approval and permit as depicted on plan , sheets 1 through 12 , for an Equipment and Field Testing Facility , dated 1 / 28 / 82 , as prepared by Anton J . Egner and Associates . Aye - May , Grigorov , Schultz , Stanton , Baker . Nay - None . Abstain - Langhans , Mazza , ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion ,, the Chair declared the April 13 , 1982 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 50 p . m . : t ' ! Planning Board 31 April 13 , 1982 Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary .