HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1982-06-15 . TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 15 , 1982
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , June 15 , 1982 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , James Baker ,
Virginia Langhans , Bernard Stanton , David Klein , Edward
Mazza , Carolyn Grigorov , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town
Engineer ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Lewis D . Cartee
( Town Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Eleanor P . May , Bob and Kay Marion and Yvonne and
Yolanda and Lori , E . S . . Phillips , Vincent Hinkley ,
Catherine M . Hinkley , Lucy H . King , Lawrence Rivkin ,
Ann Prince Rivkin , Joseph A . Multari , Nathaleen
Multari , Town Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger ,
Robert Powers , Virginia Powers , Peter Barbier , John
D . Hunt ( Town of Dryden Planning Board ) , Nancy L .
Hewett , Letty Ludington , David Co Ludington , M . J .
Tauber , C . A . Tauber , Joel Zumoff , Edna Clausen ,
Jessica R . Ettinger , Bion Carpenter , Edith
Carpenter , Joseph Leeming , Thomas P . Clausen ,
Jonathan H . Fischer , Richard Be Fischer , Bernard J .
Stephan , Edith Cassel , Alan Wood , Gary Rondeau , Paul
Zwerman , ,Isaac Beer , Gus Lambrou , James C . Dill ,
Jennifer•' Rondeau , Susan Howser , Arthur Howser ,
Leslie Dotson , Don Wilson , Frances Barraclough ,
Tamar Sherman ( Ithaca Journal ) .
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 42 p . m .
REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING
BOARD , CAROLYN GRIGOROV .
Mrs . Grigorov stated that she would like to report very
briefly that the TOMTRAN bus to Dryden will be commencing by
September lst , adding that there may be two busses therefore there
may be a run to Groton also .
Mrs . Grigporov reported that there will be a Census Workshop on
June 29 , 1982 , from 1 : 30 p . m . to 3 : 00 at the Ag Center on South
Fulton Street . Mr . Lovi expressed his interest in attending .
Mrs . Grigorov reminded the Board that the listing of its
priorities as to issues the County Planning Board should be
focusing on for 1982 - 83 should be reviewed by the Board in order
that she may submit it to the CPB by August 1st , Mrs . Grigorov
commented that. the matter of utilization of the Biggs complex is in
`. the incubation period with it appearing that all the eggs are on
the table and waiting to be hatched .
e
%planning Board June 15 , 1982
A,
• Mr . May thanked Mrs . Grigorov for her report ,
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL OF 124 - UNIT CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT ON 43 ± ACRES ON A PORTION
OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 21 1443 SLATERVILLE ROAD
( FORMERLY P . GRENNELL AND S . BREWER ) , J . WEISBURD , OWNER - DEVELOPER .
( FROM 6 / 1 / 82 ) .
Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 50 p . m , and noted that this
meeting was an adjourned public hearing , adjourned from the public
hearing held on June 1st to this date , June 15 , 1982 , at 7 : 30 p . m .
Mr . May invited Mr . Weisburd to speak .
Mr . Weisburd stated that he had submitted a new plan into the
Planning Office last week . He said that the new plan shows the
tentative layout for the utilities , i . e . , sewer mains , sewer lift
lines , manholes , water mains existing and proposed , hydrants ,
electric , cable , telephone mains , transformers , which , he said ,
will be pinpointed with the submission of the detailed engineering
drawings . He commented that this gives the agencies a chance to
react and he wanted to get that process started .
Mr . Weisburd stated that he went to the State DOT ( Department
of Transportation ) and then redesigned the entry on to Slaterville
Road making .it a divided road with a planting strip down the
middle . Mr . Weisburd described the use of a turning lane with the
possibility of decelleration , noting that that sort of thing is
completely under the jurisdiction of the State , Mr . Weisburd
commented that quite a bit of work is contemplated by the State on
the Slaterville Road and that that will be considered . Mr .
Weisburd stated that the divided road shown on the revised
preliminary site plan ( dated 6 / 8 / 82 ) would provide two ways in and
out . Mr . Weisburd stated that the second entrance idea as shown on
the plan presented to the Board at the last meeting has not been
eliminated , but for the moment just the one entrance , just
described , is the one he is showing . Mr . Weisburd said that other
than that , everything is the same .
Chairman May asked if there were any questions or comments
from the public .
Mr . Joseph A . Multari , 1430 Slaterville Road , spoke from the
floor and stated that he has been a project manager on capital
projects in the Ithaca area for many years and that when he saw the
plans at the last meeting one thing caught his eye and that was the
wood foundations . Mr . Multari stated that he had heard about this
system eight or nine years ago and at that time he dismissed the
system as a viable system for this area , He stated that now that
it has come up again he looked into it again . Mr . Multari
described various things used to treat lumber such as creosote or
. pentachlorophenol which produce noxious vapors . He spoke of
arsenical preservatives which appear under different brand names
like Celcure , Greensalt , Koppers , Osmose , and Wolman . He stated
2
'Planning Board. June 15 , 1982
that all wood preservatives are pesticides , potent pesticides , that
must remain active for decades , and kill or repel not one but
several classes of creatures , among them borers , beetles , termites ,
carpenter ants , bacteria and fungi . Mr . Multari stated that in
1978 the EPA declared that exposure to creosote , pentachlorophenol
and arsenical compounds can cause numerous afflictions , including
tumors , cancer and birth defects . Mr . Multari described the
arsenic compounds used to treat wood as chromated copper arsenate
( CCA ) and ammoniacal copper arsenate ( ACA ) . He commented that
arsenic , besid. es being a strong poison , causes cancer and damage to
nerves and chromosomes . Mr . Multari stated that one reason for
disposing of treated wood by burying is that burning
arsenical - treated wood releases arsine gas , a poison . Mr . Multari
stated the pentachlorophenol , usually called penta , is a member of
the same chemical family as 2 , 4 , 5 - T , one of the herbicides in the
well - known mixture Agent Orange . Mr . Multari stated that the best
way to cope with the uncertain risk from treated lumber is to avoid
using it . He noted that when this wood is shipped often the
relationship in the sizes is not what one wants and therefore the
wood has to be cut or drilled . He spoke of the dangers of the
sawdust from sawing the wood into desired lengths . Mr . Multari
referred to some proposed EPA regulations about the way that wood
preservatives should be used - - wear gloves and do not eat or drink
while applying a preservative ; that the wood must not be used
indoors , or where it might cause contamination of animals , food ,
• feed , or water ; treated lumber must have warning that users wear
gloves , disposable coveralls and dust masks , and dispose of scraps
not by burning but by burying . He stated that these chemicals are
very hard to get if one wanted to buy them since they are very
poisonous . He: stated that the sawdust is highly toxic , adding that
some workers will not work with this stuff . Mr . Multari stated
that he has talked to local architects and contractors to see what
they think of this system . Mr . Multari interjected that he did
have a copy of the material he was referring to for the Board . He
said that the local people he talked to said " no " they would not
recommend its use . Mr . Multari asked if anyone would want to live
in or by a house with a basement with these materials in it . He
stated that some of the articles he has come up with are these :
( 1 ) " How Bad Are Wood Basements ? Pekin , Ill . Producer Can Tell
You , " by Dean Cornick , President , Cornick Concrete Products Co . ,
Pekin , Illinois . Mr . Multari described " all sorts of problems
during construction . " He noted that at one time there was a stop
order . ( 2 ) A. Sound / Slide Presentation entitled " Block Basements
and Concrete Foundations vs . Plywood Basements and Wood
Foundations " by the NYS Concrete Masonry Association , Inc . ,
Rochester , NY and Portland Cement Association - Eastern Region ,
Arlington , VA. . Mr . Multari stated that there is a Licensed
Professional Engineer from the Rochester area who would be willing
to come to Ithaca for a seminar for this Board on this at no cost .
( 3 ) The City of Saskatoon , Saskatchewan , Canada , specifications
tightly controlling this and requiring stainless steel type
• fittings since: galvanized fittings proved not to work . Mr . Multari
stated that the system is unproven although it has been on the
market for at least ten years . ( 4 ) The City of Columbus , Ohio ,
3
%Planning Board
June 15 , 1982
Division of Building Regulation - " Wood Foundation Approval
Requirements . " Mr . Multari stated that Columbus has gone through
this and we are here reinventing the wheel . He stated that they
have forbidden it and referred to the Concrete /Masonry Testimony to
the Columbus :Building Commission and to " Wood Basements Lose . . .
Twice . . . in Columbus Area . . . Within 60 Days . " Mr . Multari stated
that three houses could be built . ( 5 ) Mr . Multari stated that
someone is going to tell him that this is approved by the State of
New York Building Construction Code . He stated that the NYS
Construction Code is a minimum code . He stated that the code notes
that wood is okay but concrete is preferable . Mr . Multari noted
that there is also a chapter warning of poisonous chemicals .
Chairman May stated that he thought that the Board had heard
enough , adding that Mr . Multari had made his point clear . Mr .
Multari stated that the Board had not heard enough and that the
Board would hear him out . ( 6 ) Mr . Multari spoke of more pictures ,
clinical information , migration of poisons from wood into the
ground , construction methods such as 2 by 4s , 2 by 6s , 2 by 8s laid
on a gravel bed , studs , and sheets being all that is between you
and the earth , all as set forth in an article entitled , " A Critical
Evaluation of Plywood Basements and Wood Foundations " prepared by
an Allied Industry Committee composed of representatives of 13
associations including the Brick Institute of America ,
International Masonry Institute , Portland Cement Association , among
others . Mr . Multari noted again that a sheet of plastic is the
only thing keeping moisture away from the wood and stated that a
rat could fracture that important membrane . Mr . Multari stated
that another important feature is the inspection of this system and
commented that it is an inspector ' s nightmare . Mr . Multari noted
that stones can puncture the plastic also when backfilling . Mr .
Multari read the " Conclusion " of this article in its entirety , as
follows : " The purpose of this evaluation has been to examine
critically the plywood basement and wood foundation system . The
proponents of its use , including certain government agencies , have
in their literature pointed out many of the so - called advantages of
their system , however , the literature is VOID ( sic . ) of critical
examination of shortcomings . q[ Innovation in construction methods
and materials is very important in light of the many problems being
faced by the housing industry today . Industry and government must ,
however , insure that each innovation is properly evaluated , . and
performance tE! sted , so that the unsuspecting public is not made the
victim of the innovations failure . Subjecting wood , treated or
untreated , to the conditions encountered in a basement foundation
is a misapplication of the material . q[ Home buyers are entitled to
expect their home , the largest investment most of them will ever
make , to last for at least ( sic . ) the life of their 30 or 40 year
mortgages . Historically , the public views the life of a well -built
home to be in excess of 50 years . The plywood basement may subject
the unsuspecting home owner to foundation failures , deterioration ,
fire hazards , toxic substances , and life expectancy for his home of
• 20 years or less . Energy and cost savings to the home owner
claimed by proponents of the system cannot be substantiated . I The
only result of the use of the plywood basement and wood foundation
4
'planning Board. June 15 , 1982
c-
system is a degradation in the quality of American Housing . The
implied short life of the system may insure an increase in the
nation ' s sub - standard housing over the next two decades . " ( 7 ) Mr .
Multari stated that , finally , he would inform the Board of what
other communities are doing with this system . He stated that the
City Council of Green Bay , Wisconsin , approved a permanent ban on
the construction of wood basements , noting that the City Health
Commissioner said that the arsenic used to preserve wood
foundations could contaminate water and also indicated that the
arsenic treated wood could pose a danger by releasing harmful
gasses when burned , and that the wooden basements were susceptible
to collapse and that in his opinion no person of any age should
ever be exposed to arsenic treated wood without his knowledge and
understanding . Mr . Multari stated that the City Council of Peoria ,
Illinois , passed an ordinance barring any new permits for
structures with wood foundations . Mr . Multari stated that the
Department of Building and Safety of the City of Los Angeles has
expressed its opposition to the use of wood foundations for
dwellings . HE! stated that in a letter to the UBC , commenting that
he did not know what that meant , the City General Manager stated
that , " deterioration , settlement or other failure of concrete
masonry footings is seldom found in old buildings . On the other
hand , the redwood and treated wood foundations that were permitted
in this city at one time , are most often found to be rotted and
insect infestE! d . In the few cases where the wood footings have not
• deteriorated , the building and floors are usually uneven with stuck
windows and doors , resulting from differential settlements , The
cost of repair or replacement of these wood footings and the
resulting building damage is extremely high . " - all from the
Pennsylvania Concrete Masonry Assn . , January 1978 ,
Mr . Multari presented the foregoing material to Mr . May for
the record ,
Mr . May commented that , in the interest of another viewpoint ,
he would like to say that Mr . Hines has a wood foundation in his
house on SlatE! rville Road which he built about 4 or 5 years ago and
he is very happy with it . Mr . Multari responded that that was not
enough time to allow for a proper evaluation .
Mr . Weisburd stated that there is a great debate going on
between the masons and the wood foundation people , He stated that
he could guarantee that he could bring in a stack of information
equal in size to Mr . Multari ' s collection from the other position .
Mr . Weisburd :Mated that he did not think this was the place for a
forum on wood foundations vs . masonry foundations , noting that
concrete block or wood is a matter for the Town Engineer and the
Building Inspector to determine and that they will not handle the
matter lightly . Mr . Weisburd stated that he , . himself , is very
experienced in masonry foundations and it does not change the
concept to switch to masonry .
• Mr . Lawrence Rivkin , 1450 Slaterville Road , stated from the
floor that :some of the residents know his reputation as a
5
'planning Board June 15 , 1982
pharmacist and of his concern for public health . He stated that he
has spent many years testing drugs and he is well qualified about
chemistry . Mr . Rivkin stated that from his office as a pharmacist
in the Vet School he is tied into the National Laboratory of
Medicine ' s computer . He stated that there is something just coming
out that should be considered before wood foundations are used at
this project which is adjacent to the City water supply . Mr .
Rivkin read from a sheaf of papers delineating some 50 references
on wood preservatives ' use of pentachlorophenol or sodium and
arsenate , and the toxicology of same . With regard to water supply
he noted a work called " Determination of Benzo ( a ) pyrene ,
Hexachlorobenzene and Pentachlorophenol in Oysters from Galveston
Bay , Texas ( Water Pollution ) . " Mr . Rivkin described a reference
about methods for benzidine , chlorinated organic compounds ,
pentachlorophenol and pesticides in water and wastewater . He
talked of the registration of pesticide products containing
inorganic arsenic . He named a publication about a simple
thin - layer chromatography method for detection of pentachlorophenol
in sawdust and woodshavings used in agriculture as a cheap source
of litter for broiler chickens , turkeys , ducks , pigs , and cattle .
He spoke of a reference about determination of pentachlorophenol in
milk and blood of dairy cattle residues . Mr . Rivkin stated that
just as mercury has been banned in thermometers , he expected that
this product will be banned . Using precise technical terms , Mr .
Rivkin described the toxicity . He stated that this compound has
• been implicated in several deaths of human beings . He spoke of
toxicity found in clams , chickens , turkeys , ducks , pigs , and
referring to bacteria in the soil , commented , " God help us if it
gets into Mr . May ' s sheep . " Mr . Rivkin stated that when he spoke
of this matter to Dr . John E . Lowe , head of the Cornell Equine
Research Park. , he was shocked and exclaimed that Cornell is
painting this stuff on the rail posts at the Equine Research Park ,
and that he would look into it immediately . Mr . Rivkin stated that
the sodium arsenate used has a toxicity rating of " 5 " and added
that that is extremely toxic - - super toxic . He commented that
this stuff is already in the food chain . He noted again the 50
references he had in hand pointing to the toxicity of this system
and stated that we should not accept this from a public health
standpoint . Mr . Rivkin presented his documentation to Mr . May who
thanked him for his presentation .
Mr . May stated that he was not sure that the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board was the right forum for this kind of debate . He
stated that the Board is looking at concepts , that is , preliminary
plans for a proposed cluster development . He stated that the
developer must abide by the Codes and should final approval be
granted he still must present plans with his application for each
building permit for approval by the Town Engineer and the Building
Inspector .
Mr . David C . Ludington , 1456 Slaterville Road , spoke from the
• floor and stated that if the Board were looking for expert
witnesses , he was not sure he would qualify but that he is a
Professor of Agricultural Engineering at Cornell University and has
6
planning Board June 15 , 1982
been involved in matters relating to environmental pollution for
some twenty years . Mr . Ludington asked if the map that the
residents were given , as far as the contours go , were drawn as it
is today or as it will be after construction .
Mr . May stated that he did not believe the final topo map has
been done .
Mr . Ludington stated that there is a creek that goes across
his land which is not shown , adding that it is by the entrance
shown . Mr . Ludington noted that it has been stated that all
drainage will be maintained undisturbed and he stated that he can
say that that is not correct . Mr . Ludington stated that if the
road is built the way we are seeing it , he knows of one creek that
is going to be abolished . Mr . Ludington said that also there are
areas that are not shown , one being a very deep depression with
water standing in it . He stated that that does not show on the
plan at all . rMr . Ludington said that it is stated that there will
be minimum changes in the contours , adding that if it turns out the
way it is drawn now there will be significant changes in the
contours , plus the creek will be gone , therefore , he would say that
the plan being presented to the Board is inaccurate and not
accurate enough for preliminary approval .
Mr . Ludington stated that the residents appreciated all the
• notices of this meeting sent out by the secretary . He stated that
at the earlier meeting they were told that no variance was
requested for the plan but on page 3 of the Environmental
Assessment statement ( long form ) it says that a variance is being
requested . It. was determined that Mr . Ludington was referring to
question # 19 on page 3 which reads : " Zoning changes or variances
being requested . " and at which space is written : " All to be
considered R15 with sewer & water . " Mr . Ludington stated that some
of the land is zoned R15 and some is zoned R30 . Mr . Ludington
stated that it was also said that the density will be only what
would be allowed under the present zoning .
Mr . May stated that the parcel is zoned R15 along the road and
R30 at the rear . Mr . May stated that the Town Engineer has gone
through this particular question very carefully . Mr . May read from
Mr . Fabbroni ' s unit calculations report as follows :
With Present Zoning :
1 . R- 15 - - Frontage - 560 ' - - 560 x 150 = 84000 - - - 1 . 93 acres .
2 . R- 15 - - Rear Acreage - 2188 ' - - 2188 x 150 = 328200 - - - 7 . 53
acres .
3 . R- 30 - - Remaining - 45 - 9 . 46 = 35 . 5 say 35 acres .
• Traditional Units
1 . 5 - 100 ' x 150 ' lots - 2 family = 10 units
7
'planning Board June 15 , 1982
2 . 21 100 x 150 lots - 2 family = 42 units
3 . 35 acres minus 5 . 5 acres roads minus 4 . 5 acres
open space = 25 acres
25 acres x 43560 sf x 2 units = 72 . 6 units
acre 30000 sf
124 . 6 units
Town Board policy has been to pro forma rezone R30 to R15 where
public utilities are available . So , if all R15 : -
1 . 10 units ( as above ) .
2 . 42 units ( as above ) .
3 . 25 acres x. 43560 sf x 2 units = 145 . 2 units
acre 15000 sf
197 . 2 units
Mr . Ludington asked Mr . Fabbroni where he got this from , to
which Mr . Fabbroni replied , from the ordinance . Mr . Fabbroni
explained that: the R15 zoned portion of this parcel extends back
• 250 ' from the right of way , dating from the original ordinance
enacted in 1954 , therefore , a row of houses could front on a street
which could theoretically be built parallel to Slaterville Road .
He then described the remaining R15 acreage and what could be
theoretically built on that . He then described the remaining land
under the R30 designation and stated that from all of this is taken
away 10 % for park or open space pursuant to Town Law and the land
needed for roads . He said , thusly the permitted number of units is
124 . 6 . Mr . Ludington said that he had trouble figuring all that
out from the copy of the ordinance he had purchased at Town Hall ,
Mr . Fabbroni agreed that it was complex because Mr . Ludington did
not have the scale of the R15 zone nor the cluster law to work
with . Mr . Fabbroni gave Mr . Ludington a photocopy of the unit
calculations report that Mr . May had read which Mr . Ludington read .
Mr . Ludington stated that seeing it spelled out helped a lot and he
was satisfied .
Mr . Ludington stated that both in the proposal and on the
radio he had heard the statement made that there would be no
" normal " heating for these dwellings , i . e . , the houses will be
totally independent of " normal " heating systems . He said that he
understood that heat will be gained by solar , body heat , and
appliances . He asked how many bodies it takes to heat a house
two or three people or four people or what . He asked if there were
any stipulation as to the number of people it takes to meet
" normal " heat , or any stipulation about appliances . Mr . Ludington
• asked if he were to purchase one of these homes , is there anything
he would have to do , or have , to make this function .
8
planning Board June 15 , 1982
Mr . Weisburd stated that the houses will come with an air to
air heat exchanger . He stated that the houses will be
super - insulated ; they will be air tight . Mr . Weisburd stated that
he is proposing conservation homes and noted that it has never been
done in this area . Mr . Weisburd stated that he did not think that
this is something that the buildings should be criticized for . Mr .
Weisburd stated that the houses will have back up heat .
Mr . Ludington asked Mr . Weisburd how often one has to use this
back up heat . Mr . Weisburd replied that it would depend on how
cold the winter was . Mr . Ludington stated that , if these homes are
going to be marketed it sounds like a great idea , but whether the
construction of the units as presented will do what it is supposed
to do is another matter . Mr . Ludington stated that theoretically ,
yes , it can be done , but , practically speaking , absolutely no .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the use of heat - retaining draperies ,
night shields , and the solar heat has been a part of energy
conservation homes . He referred to places where this approach has
been carried out , mentioning Massachusetts , Saskatchewan , Virginia ,
Mr . Ludington stated that as they are planned and presented ,
they will not work .
Mr . May stated that he thought that was not a fair statement
• and if Mr . Ludington wished to make it , he should complete it .
Mr . Ludington stated that he would complete it . He stated
that we are being told about special draperies , night shields ,
appliances , and so on . Mr . Ludington stated that he thought we are
being told something that will not happen .
Mr . May stated that this is a preliminary subdivision approval
consideration hearing and noted that the final detail and
engineering plans have not been prepared , adding that that is the
reason for preliminary hearings .
Mr . Ludington stated that the uniqueness of this proposal has
captured people ' s imagination and the problems have been missed .
He referred to the road shown on the preliminary site plan and
stated that it is 20 feet below Route 79 and the grade of that road
coming up into Route 79 would be roughly 10 % . Mr . Ludington stated
that Buffalo Street has a loo grade . He commented that Mr .
Weisburd has drawn another Burns Road on the plan and stated that
there has got to be more than one exit ; more than the one shown .
Mr . Ludington stated that Mr . Weisburd has shown the road in the
steepest part , the poorest spot for a road .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that it is important to understand the
level of detail and just where we are at in the process at the
moment , not to discourage any of the public comment at this time ,
• but to clarify the subdivision review process . He stated that the
detailed engineering drawings must be submitted , final
cross - sections of roadways in accordance with the Town Highway
9
'planning Board. June 15 , 1982
Specifications; , final site plan , etc , Mr . Fabbroni commented that
Buffalo Street. has a 17 % grade , not 10 % .
Mr . Elmer S . Phillips , 131 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the
floor and stated that , for a clearer picture of the grade spoken
of , he would like to inform those present that Pine Tree Road has a
10 % grade .
Mr . Ludington stated that the runoff would be increased when
the land is developed and further that it would be much more
polluted with it all going toward the creek , particularly with the
chemicals that: we are talking about tonight . Mr . Ludington stated
that also there would be dramatic movement in the slopes along that
creek and described when Marion ' s water line was taken out when the
City main broke . He asked how this development will affect the
stability of that slope and added that it may improve it and it may
make it worse .
Mr . May stated that the developer is required to submit a long
form EnvironmE! ntal Assessment statement , which he has done , and the
Planning Board must make a positive or negative declaration under
the SEQR law .
Mr . Maurice J . Tauber , 1427 Slaterville Road , spoke from the
floor and stated that at first he was taken aback by the specifics
• of what the first two speakers had to say . He stated that as he
listened he felt that we should consider this a very interesting ,
very inovative , project . He said the developer should get full
credit , adding that the proposal is not an " eyesore " , but , he also
felt that we could be taken in by this , not fooled really , but the
more attractive the project the easier to be lulled into missing
the whole picture . He stated that we must consider what is in the
total package here presented . Mr . Tauber stated that he had heard
some remarks about the grasp of the total package and those were
valid considerations , but he did not know how far we should pursue
these right now . Mr . Tauber stated that he is concerned with
looking at the total package but also he is concerned with the
total community in which this is going to be built and / or the road
on which it is . He stated that he was very concerned about any
roads within the proposed development that would continue on to
connect eventually to Giles Street in the City . He stated that he
was concerned with looking at the quality of life in our community
and what we want to do with it - - again , the total community , Mr .
Tauber specified three matters of concern to him - - ( 1 ) the traffic
and how it impinges on the existing and proposed roads ; ( 2 ) the
kind of housing that is going to be provided , ( 3 ) to what degree
the proposal would change the character of the residents ' homes in
their district . Mr . Tauber stated that this all could be a very
nice way of saying - " I don ' t want anyone there who does not
ascribe to my way of living . " Mr . Tauber stated that what we are
talking about here are 600 sq . ft . homes - - yes , they are energy
efficient homes , and , yes , we should include in our lives people
who do not have as much income as we - - but , how far do we go . Mr ,
Tauber asked rhetorically , are we using salami tactics in the
10
`Manning Board June 15 , 1982
neighborhood ? He stated that discussions should extend way beyond
the people that are here . Mr . Tauber stated that we need to look
carefully at the question of runoff ; we have to look at the
Environmental Assessment statement , we have to look at the
watershed ; we have to look at increased community use . He
commented that there is not going to be just a bunch of little old
ladies sitting in there - - he would hope there would be a
cross - section of the community . He said we would have to think
about these people using Six Mile Creek and the Reservoir . Mr .
Tauber stated that he did not want to get into an adversary
situation ; what should be discussed is how we can use that land the
best way we can . Mr . Tauber stated that if Mr . Weisburd does not
develop it , somebody else will . Mr . Tauber stated that , again , he
was concerned with the road that may be joined up with Giles
Street . He st= ated that there would be a highway in front of the
Slaterville Road property and one in back and he did not
particularly like that .
Mr . Robert E . Marion , 1463 Slaterville Road , spoke from the
floor and asked if the power lines would be above ground or below
ground .
Mr . Weisburd stated that the Code requires that all telephone
and power lines be buried .
Mr . Marion asked if , on the Board members ' walk through the
• territory , they located the cemetery . Mr . May stated that they did
not . Mr . Marion asked why they did not since he had cleaned it all
up for them . The Board members indicated that they had seen no
signs of a cemetery . Mr . Marion expressed his surprise that they
had walked the land and not found the cemetery and wondered what
else they had missed . He stated that he would like to know the
other things they missed .
Mr . Weisburd stated that there are no cemetery notes in the
deeds or abstracts . Mr . Weisburd stated that he had no intention
of building on a cemetery .
Mr . Don Wilson ( no address stated ) , spoke from the floor and
referred to the heating question which had been asked . He stated
that he did not hear an answer , adding that maybe he is hard of
hearing . Mr . Wilson asked what kind of home the person who
purchases one . of these units would be coming home to .
Mr . May stated that he was sorry that Mr . Wilson did not hear
the developer :Day that there is supplemental heat proposed .
Mr . Wilson spoke of the 65 % factor , i . e . , 65 % of the heat is
proposed to be from body heat and appliances . Mr . Wilson stated
that it is hard on the people here tonight to ask them to respond
intelligently and at the same time state that this proposal is not
• the detailed proposal .
11
Rlanning Board June 15 , 1982
• Mr . May described what he termed the concept , stating that the
Board is considering preliminary subdivision review , preliminary
site plan , all of the preliminary plans submitted in the package
from the developer and not the detailed specifics of the proposal
which will be forthcoming with the final drawings , i . e . , the
detailed engineering drawings - - where the specific contours , the
drainage details , the topography , etc . will be shown as surveyed
out . Mr . May stated that these are rather detailed requirements
and in fairness to any developer the Board does not require full
engineering drawings until such time as preliminary approval may be
granted .
Mr . Wilson asked if it is only theory , is the Board taking a
preliminary look at the real thing , to which Mr . May replied that
it certainly :is the real thing but the final engineering details
are not in place . Mr . Wilson said that he understood and therefore
he would re - enter his talk about the heating . Mr . Wilson stated
that the EAF shows that the maximum number of employees present at
the site at one time to be 2 , and commented that that is silly .
Mr . Weisburd responded that he was sorry - - he thought that
that question meant after construction and that he guessed it was
just a matter of interpretation .
Mr . Wilson stated that the applicant ought to be more careful
and he questioned the accuracy of this entire application .
Mr . Gus Lambrou , 156 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor , and
asked the Board if they represented the developer or the residents
since everything Mr . May says is for the developer . Chairman May
replied that the Planning Board is appointed by the Town Board and
it represents the Town of Ithaca .
Mrs . Nancy L . Hewett , 1518 Slaterville Road , spoke from the
floor and asked the Board what time it will be and where it will be
that the residents can follow these things up ; when all this detail
will be known - - that is why they are here . She stated that the
residents want to be notified , by mail , when and where and what
time they can pursue this . Mrs . Hewett asked , also , if the Board
were aware that there is a conflict of interest on the Board , not
wishing to name names , but did the Board know that there is a
conflict of interest on the Board . Mrs . Hewett stated that ,
finally , she wished to inform the Board that it is very difficult
for the public to speak to people ' s backs and asked that those
Board members with their backs to the audience please turn around .
Planning Board member Edward Mazza stated that he assumed the
person to whom Mrs . Hewett was referring is he . Mr . Mazza stated
that the Board. is aware that he has indicated to the Chair , and the
Secretary , that he may have a conflict of interest and that , as the
public may have noticed , he has said nothing , nor did he say
anything at the first meeting , was here to listen to the public ,
and intended to abstain from any vote on the matter at hand .
12
'? lanning Board June 15 , 1982
Mr . Gus Lambrou stated from the floor that Mr . Mazza should go
home ; he should not be here . Mr . Mazza stated that he is a member
of the Board , there are other agenda items ; and he has a right to
be here this evening .
Mrs . Shirley Raffensperger stated from the floor that she did
not understand the calculations that led to the permissible number
of units . She noted that there are involved approximately 9 acres
of R15 land -and asked how many units one can have on the R15
portion .
Mr . Fabbroni replied that two units per 15 , 000 sq . ft . is
permitted . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she thought that that is
where the problem is . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that it was her
understanding that 2 . 9 units per acre is the permissible number in
accordance with the primary unit / secondary unit requirement of the
ordinance .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that two dwelling units are permitted in a
house , i . e . , one unit plus another unit 50 % the size of the other
unit unless the second unit is constructed within the basement
where they may be equal , therefore , two dwelling units is a maximum
per house . He stated that that applies for the 15 , 000 sq . ft . lot
in R15 and for the 30 , 000 sq . ft . lot in R30 . Mr . Fabbroni stated ,
with reference to the 2 . 9 units per acre mentioned by Mrs .
• Raffensperger , that that number hit him cold , it being the first
time he ever heard that .
Mrs . Raffensperger asked Mr . Fabbroni where in the Town there
is that much density . Mr . Fabbroni mentioned various parts of the
Town that have such density , particularly the Eastern Heights area ,
where homes contain two dwelling units of equal size . Mr . Fabbroni
described how a homeowner of a single family home could add an
apartment one -- half the size of his original home but of equal size
when below ground .
Mr . May asked , does the cluster provision of Town Law not say
units ? Mr . Fabbroni stated that that was true , adding that Town
Law says that you will not exceed the density of units permitted by
zoning and the Town ' s ordinance permits two per minimum lot . Mr .
Fabbroni stated that that is how you arrive at 124 units as the
permitted number . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the configuration or
type of construction , because it is cluster , has nothing to do with
the zoning ordinance ; there is no connection between the two as to
configuration or type of construction , but , of course , the meeting
of building codes , fire codes , etc . , is not put aside . He stated
that the duplex unit , for example , has nothing to do with the
permissible one - and two - family units . Mr . Fabbroni stated that
this proposal is the maximum number of permissible units on the
parcel ; it is not like a high - rise structure which conceivably
could be permitted by Section 281 of Town Law so long as the
• permitted number of units is not exceeded .
13
'k1lanning Board. June 15 , 1982
• Mr . Isaac: Beer spoke from the floor and stated that he lived
on South Quarry Street in the City of Ithaca . Mr . Beer referred to
question # 49 and question # 52 of his copy of the EAF submitted by
Mr . Weisburd , as follows : # 49 - - " Briefly describe the nature and
amount of indirect growth anticipated as a result of the proposed
action or resulting activities . " - - answered , None . , and # 52 - -
" Will proposed activity substantially change the following
socio - economic population distribution ? : income ; race ; ethnic
background ; age ; Comments . " - - left blank .
Planning Board member Bernard Stanton stated that the Board
will be speaking to the matter of the EAF during the course of this
meeting . Mr . Stanton apologized for his back being to the
audience , commenting that the Planning Board was not responsible
for the shape of the Board Room nor the shape of the Board table .
Mr . Lawrence Rivkin stated from the floor that he did not want
to hear from the Chair that the Board is running the Town ; the
people run the Town . Mr . May stated that the Planning Board does
not run the Town .
Mr . Isaac: Beer stated that the answer to question # 49 , to
which he was :just speaking , is patently false and he objected to
question # 52 being left blank .
• Mr . Elmer S . Phillips , 131 Pine Tree Road , stated that he has
been in Ithaca for 50 years , Cornell ' 32 , and that he has lived on
Pine Tree Road' for 43 years . He stated that in the early 50s he
was chairman of the board that wrote the original zoning ordinance
for the Town of Ithaca , enacted in 1954 . He stated that he was
also , after that , a member of the Planning Board and the Zoning
Board of Appeals . Referring to the EAF and question # 49 that Mr .
Beer had mentioned , Mr . Phillips stated that that question would
have to be left blank if you have no more units in a cluster than
in an R15 or R30 district . He said there would be no difference .
Mr . Isaac Beer stated again that question # 52 on the
socio - economic factors is left blank and Mr . Phillips stated that
he would leave it blank too or else answer " no " .
Mr . May stated that by virtue of the subdivision being
proposed under the cluster provision there would appear to be no
substantial change from developing the parcel as a standard
subdivision .
Mr . Phillips , speaking toward the audience around him , stated
that if the residents want to keep the land in question as it is ,
then they , as taxpayers , should buy it and then there would be no
problem .
Mrs . Susan Howser , 1469 Slaterville Road , asked from the floor
• who it is that orders the independent environmental assessment .
Mr . May replied that the Town staff has determined that this is a
Type I action under the Town of Ithaca SEQR law and the Planning
14
' glanning Board June 15 , 1982
' Board makes the determination of a negative or positive declaration
as to environmental impact . Mr . May stated that this has not been
done yet ; the Board has not to this point made a determination .
Mrs . How.ser asked how this body of people will know when that
is done . Mr . May described the public hearing processes which are
followed .
Mrs . Catherine A . Tauber , 1427 Slaterville Road , spoke from
the floor and , referring to the statement of there being no
socio - economic impact , asked how the Board and Mr . Weisburd could
say that . Mrs . Tauber stated that all the homes in the
neighborhood are at least 1100 sq . ft . in size and this proposal
would be chancing the whole type of housing in addition to the type
of people living there . Mrs . Tauber stated that also she did not
think you can ignore the traffic . She said that unless you attack
this on a local basis nothing will be improved because you will
never get the State to look at this . Mrs . Tauber stated that this
is not the developer ' s problem , it is the residents ' problem . She
stated that the Town of Ithaca should look into this matter of
traffic and she described the lack of police , the speeding , the
number of carr . Mrs . Tauber suggested that more homes on the books
means more taxes and therefore money to get a policeman out there .
She stated that the Planning Board should seriously look at the
traffic , commenting that it involves everything from through truck
• traffic to kids on bicycles . Mrs . Tauber stated that there are
figures all over the place such as Triphammer Road with 15 , 000 cars
per day versus 5 , 000 to 9 , 000 per day on the Slaterville Road
( Route 79 ) . Mrs . Tauber noted that the Village of Cayuga Heights
has its own police department and nobody speeds in Cayuga Heights
and stated that if they can do it , so can the Town of Ithaca do
something similar .
Mr . Joel Zumoff , 216 Valley Road , City of Ithaca , stated from
the floor that. he is President of the Bryant Park Civic Association
in the City , an area north of this area under discussion tonight .
Mr . Zumoff stated that he and his group are interested in what this
development would do to their area , particularly with regard to
traffic . Mr . Zumoff described how cars travel in the neighborhood ,
citing Pine Tree Road , Cornell Street - - in the City - - and the
travel to and through Cornell University , Mr . Zumoff stated that
he was present to express the Association ' s concern that the
potential number of cars be looked at as one of the aspects in
determining how many units can be built . Mr . Zumoff pointed out
the fact of the existence of Belle Sherman Elementary School on
Cornell Street and the . matter of the safety of the children
enrolled there . He asked that the Planning Board pay attention to
the surrounding areas and not just the area of the building itself .
Mr . Alan Wood , 167 - 7 Calkins Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he does not live on the Slaterville Road nor near it .
• Mr . Wood statE! d that Ithaca is both progressive and innovative and
that he thought the community as a whole ought to permit this kind
of development: . He stated that we are talking about consistencies
15
Planning Board
June 15 , 1982
• here and trying to decide and he has heard a lot of concerns
expressed . Mr . Wood stated that he thought we ought to address the
question at hand which , in his opinion , is the concept of this form
of clustering homes ; talk about what the Town needs ; talk about the
type of housing and its meeting the needs of the people . He asked
the question , do we want to be progressive or do we want to be only
concerned with our own little neighborhood . Mr . Wood stated that
the proposal offers housing at reasonable costs and a lot of people
are looking for that and looking toward owning their own home .
Mr . Lawrence Rivkin , 1450 Slaterville Road , stated that he had
with him a Petition which is a five - day sampling of the population
of the Town of Ithaca and shows 137 opposed to the project , 25
people from adjacent areas opposed , and 2 for the project . Mr .
Rivkin stated that this is not a biased petition because there is
space to sign if one supports the development and they are quoting
the concept exactly from Mr . Weisburd ' s plans .
Mr . Rivkin presented to Mr . May one copy of one of the signed
petitions which read as follows :
" June 10 , 1982
PETITION
• Greetings to the Town Board of Ithaca
It is my understanding that a development , consisting of " nine
clusters of townhouses " , each cluster containing , " three to five
buildings of two to five units each " , is planned to be built on
" 45 + or - acres " of " woods , open fields , and streams " in the Town
of Ithaca , just " west of Pine Tree Road between Slaterville Road
and the Ithaca City Reservoir "
Further , it is my understanding that this development of
cluster townhouses will be built " totally independent of normal
heating systems "
Further , it is my understanding that " all heat will be
provided by direct solar gain , appliances , and body temperature "
Further , it is my understanding that sewage from this
development will have to be transmitted up - hill using lift stations
Further , it is my understanding that " unit sizes will range
from 600 to 900 sq . ft . "
Further , it is my understanding that " 124 dwelling units " are
planned
Further , it is my understanding that the developer has
• estimated that. " 750 cars per day " will eminate from this
development
16
'planning Board June 15 , 1982
Further , it is my understanding that " all -weather wood
foundations " and " wood frame construction " is planned ,
Therefore ,
Because of this proposed development , there will be excessive
traffic , fumes , and noise generated ,
Because of this proposed development , there will be additional
strain placed on the already limited fire and police protection in
the Town of Ithaca ,
Because of this proposed development , wildlife , such as
trilium , fern , deer , great blue heron , pileated woodpeckers ,
baltimore orioles , pheasants , and other species will be displaced
from their natural habitats ,
Because of this proposed development , there is a strong threat
to the viability of the City of Ithaca Water Supply ,
Because of this proposed development , a serious threat to
life , health , and living standards in the Town of Ithaca will
exist ,
Therefore ,
• Due to the reasons stated on the previous page , I , as a resident
and voter in the Town of Ithaca , do sign my name willingly to this
document .
I strongly oppose the planned development :
Name : Janet F ., McEntee Address : 128 Pine Tree Road
Tel . No . : 272 - 6701 City / State : Ithaca , N . Y . 14850
Date :
I strongly support the planned development :
Name : Address :
Tel . No . : City / State :
Date :
Planning Board member Virginia Langhans asked Mr . Rivkin where
they went with these petitions . Mr . Rivkin stated that they went
everywhere - - door to door - - the P & C - - Town of Dryden - - the
City of Ithaca - - GIAC ( Greater Ithaca Activity Center ) . Mr .
• Rivkin stated that they could get a lot more .
17
%planning Board June 15 , 1982
Mr . Weisburd asked the Chair if he may ask a question of Mr .
Rivkin to which Mr . May replied , yes . Mr . Weisburd asked Mr .
Rivkin if he administered this questionnaire or did a lawyer . Mr .
Weisburd repeated his question asking Mr . Rivkin if he were
responsible for these petitions . Mr . Rivkin stated that he
administered them through an attorney . Mr . Weisburd asked Mr .
Rivkin if he wanted this project built the way it is . Mr . Rivkin
replied the way it is , no . Mr . Weisburd stated that he would
submit that this questionnaire being organized by a highly biased
person is going to have a highly biased result .
Mr . Isaac Beer spoke from the floor and asked who these people
are who are in favor of this development out on Slaterville Road .
Mr . Beer stated that he believed the Town and the City are
overwhelmingly against this . He stated that they are not against
moderately priced housing , but against this spot for this which
overrides the interest that the developer is saying exists . He
asked again where the people are who support it .
Planning Board member Carolyn Grigorov asked Mr . Beer if he
felt that there should be no development of this land at all
that it is so important to the Town that it should never be
developed , Mr . Beer stated that the development he has seen here
proposed is such an outrage and changes the whole character of the
road . Mr . Beer stated that he feared development in Ithaca as
going the way we have seen in every other Town and City around the
country . Mr . Beer stated that there is an implication here that
this is going through the back door and that the Planning Board
thinks there has been a grass roots ' urging for this development .
Mrs . Grigorov stated that that was not the case ; the Board did
not believe that ; the Board did not assume a grass roots ' push for
the development ,
Mr . Beer stated that if there is a force for this development ,
he would like to see it - - to see them come in with a counter
survey .
Mr . May asked Mr . Beer if he understood that cluster is a
permitted use for that land which is zoned Residential , R15 , and
Residential , R '30 . Mr . Beer replied that the Town Planning Board is
making the first step - - he understood that .
Mrs . Jennifer Rondeau , 167 - 6 Calkins Road , stated from the
floor that she was not necessarily willing to say that she
represented any grass roots movement , but that she would point out
to those who say that most people oppose it that information on
this proposal has not been readily available to all the residents
of the Town of Ithaca like the neighbors got in order to find out
about this , therefore , grass roots ' support is hard to get . Mrs .
Rondeau stated that a Town meeting packed with Slaterville Road
• residents is not necessarily a very good representation of the Town
as a whole and how it feels .
18
'Planning Board June 15 , 1982
Mr . Elmer S . Phillips , 131 Pine Tree Road , stated that he felt
he should offer some historical background to the Town zoning . He
stated that at the time the original zoning ordinance was being
written there was present an overwhelming feeling in the community
which was transmitted over and over to the committee to please
write the zoning ordinance so that the community stays just like it
is . Mr . Phillips stated that , of course , this is impossible - - no
entity is going to stay just the way it is . Mr . Phillips stated to
Mr . Beer that he was laughing but he had not lived long enough yet
to know about these things . Mr . Beer stated that he was not
laughing . Mr . Phillips stated that the Town of Ithaca community is
a heck of a lot better than it was in 1950 . He stated that the
houses are better kept , the lawns are better kept , there is
landscaping and greater care of property throughout most of the
Town . Mr . Phillips stated that , as he just said , one of the
original functions of the planning committee was to sit down and
make a map and say - - okay - - where can we go to try to retain the
Town the way it is . Mr . Phillips stated that there were five of
them who , after a meeting or two , knew that they were way over
their heads and so they went to Professor Thomas Mackesey , a top
planner at thE! University , and told him that they were way over
their heads in the matter of planning and zoning and could he
please help them , but they could not pay him very much . Mr .
Phillips stated that Professor Mackesey said , of course , I will
help you and for free . Mr . Phillips stated that Professor Mackesey
• worked with them for three years on the zoning ordinance and the
map . He stated that the whole thing went through two public
referenda and Naas on the books in 1954 . Mr . Phillips stated that
the residential land was zoned in accordance with the services
available , e . g . , 9 , 000 sq . ft . near the City with both water and
sewer and as you went out farther with one facility - - 12 , 000
sq . ft . - - and where there were no facilities - - 15 , 000 sq . ft .
and now , land that has to take care of water and sewer , 30 , 000
sq . ft . , predicated on several things such as the porosity of the
land and , of course , the Health Department . Mr . Phillips stated
that he went into Town Hall today and asked about this project . He
stated that those who have questions should do that too , the people
there are very helpful . Mr . Phillips stated that he asked about
the R15 and R30 zoning and about cluster and about the number of
units proposed . Mr . Phillips stated that he did not mean to say
before that there would be no change ; he was saying that the number
of units is no greater than what the zoning permits . Mr . Phillips
stated that he did not know about apartments or multiple residences
and he would not address that . Mr . Phillips concluded by saying he
hoped that some of what he has said will help describe the
philosophy of zoning in the Town of Ithaca .
Dr . Richard B . Fischer , 135 Pine Tree Road , spoke from the
floor and stated that he has lived on Pine Tree Road since 1959 and
he is a member of the East Ithaca Town Association . Dr . Fischer
stated that his neighbors have been asking him questions such as
• the sizes of the units - - are they 600 to 900 sq . ft . and are they
small dwellings ? He said they are asking him about 750 cars per
day coming from the development ; if 124 units and 750 cars a day ,
19
,
Rlanning Board June 15 , 1982
what does that do to them ? Dr . Fischer stated that they are saying
it is a housing project for Cornell students . Dr . Fischer stated
that that scares us .
Mr . Fabbroni , Town Engineer , stated that the number with
reference to cars is six comings or goings from one unit , which is
a reasonable estimate for a dwelling unit , multiplied by the number
of units .
Dr . Fischer responded that the 750 number is number of trips
per day and not separate cars . Mr . Fabbroni agreed and stated that
he thought Mr . Weisburd could address the nature of the occupants
as to ownership and the homeowners ' agreement . Dr . Fischer stated
that the members of the East Ithaca Town Association asked him what
he thought and he had an answer now .
Mr . Weisburd stated that it is very desirable to have people
invest in equity housing and have the pride of ownership . He
stated that there will be built in to the by - laws of the
homeowners ' association restrictive covenants against sub - letting
for purely income purposes . He said that people will be investing
in their homes as equity income , not as rental units . Mr . Weisburd
stated that some exceptions will be permitted , obviously a
homeowner who .Leaves on sabbatic for a year should be allowed to
lease his home , just as others in Ithaca . Mr . Weisburd stated that
the speculator buyer who intends to lease or sub - lease to students
• would not be permitted to do so .
Dr . Fischer asked who will stop it . Mr . Weisburd stated that
that is the question anywhere , but with the homeowners ' agreement
which must be signed by the buyer , you are in a better position .
Mrs . Catherine Tauber , 1427 Slaterville Road , spoke from the
floor and asked the attorney to respond to the questions not the
engineer . Mr . Fabbroni , the Town Engineer , stated that the Town
Attorney was not present , the person she was looking at is Mr .
Lovi . Mr . Fabbroni asked if he could speak and both Mr . May and
Mrs . Tauber agreed . Mr . Fabbroni described the role of the Town
Board and the Town Attorney in this subdivision review process ,
stating that the open space proposal and the homeowners '
association agreement would be reviewed by the Town Board and the
Town Attorney . Mr . Fabbroni stated that this process had been
followed during the time of the approval process for Eastwood
Commons , a multiple residence development , which those present may
very well remember . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , although the
Planning Board has been delegated the authority to approve
subdivisions , the Town Board has determined that that one area of
clustering involving open space and homeowners ' agreements will be
reviewed by the Town Board and the Town Attorney ,
Mrs . Tauber- stated that she wanted to see the Planning Board
making rational decisions . Mr . Fabbroni stated that one has to
accept the process or request the legislature to change the
Planning Board as the body authorized to approve subdivisions .
20
Qlanning Board June 15 , 1982
Mr . Maurice J . Tauber , 1427 Slaterville Road , spoke from the
floor and stated that he is concerned with the references to
sequence . He stated that we must look at this in terms of the
total community . Mr . Tauber stated that when things are done in
sequence , important parts may be missed . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out
that the proposed open space plan and homeowners ' association
agreement has to be reviewed by the Planning Board prior to
submission to -the Town Board ,
Mr . May ,stated that were there to be any approval by the
Planning Board: of the open space and homeowners ' agreement , it
would be conditional upon the approval of the Town Board and the
Town Attorney ,
Mrs . Eleanor P . May , 1360 Slaterville Road , spoke from the
floor and statE: d that she happens to be the wife of the Chairman of
the Planning Board , however , she speaks for herself . Mrs . May
stated that , although their home is near the proposed development ,
she does not overlook it directly nor will the roads go near her
house . She stated that as she looks out her window she looks at
vacant land that she knows will be developed before long . She said
that she does :Look at vacant land that will not be vacant for long
and she does enjoy it and she would like to have it remain vacant
so she could always look at it . Mrs . May stated that she is the
School Nurse at Fall Creek Elementary School and she knows many
• people who cannot afford to buy a house and who feel they will
never be able to have their own home like you and me . She stated
that many such people are renting at $ 400 a month in less than
desirable circumstances ; they cannot afford the higher rents for
better circumstances . She stated that these people have no way out
of these circumstances ; they are priced out of the home market .
Mrs . May stated that she has a very real concern and fear that her
children will not have a house of their own . Mrs . May stated that
she is not an expert and has only looked at the proposal
superficially , but that she does see this development as having the
potential for people who are not as affluent as we and may not be
able to buy a big piece of property . Mrs . May stated that their
property has appreciated in value and if they want to go to
something smaller . some day , they can because they can sell their
home and be able to buy another . Mrs . May stated that her children
may not be able to do that since she fears they will not have their
own home in the first place . Mrs . May stated that people need
housing . Mrs . May stated that she admits that she does not want a
development across from her but she cannot afford to buy the land .
Mrs . May stated that she well remembers when Mr . Schickel was
proposing Eastwood Commons and we were all in a snit and sure that
we would all be washed away during the night by the drainage . She
stated that everybody loves it now that it is there and nobody
complains now . Mrs . May stated that as a matter of fact we are all
sorry we did not get one then when the units were going for
$ 25 , 000 . Mrs . May stated that no one suffered the water damage
is
that we all said we would and she respected what the Town did with
all the requirements that Schickel had to meet .
21
i
Planning Board. June 15 , 1982
Mr . Lawrence Rivkin stated that the people ' s concerns are not
with people of: low income , their concern is with this development
and how it will affect their quality of life . Mr . Rivkin stated
that they do not want the quality of that life to go down . He
stated that they want development to be logical and fit the
character of the neighborhood ; they are not trying to keep people
who cannot afj= ord housing out of their neighborhood , that is not
their aim . Mr . Rivkin stated that their aim is to try to get
something of substance ; this is nothing of substance .
Mr . Donald Wilson , stated that the concept of this development
as to rental units or owner - occupied units turns upon the
restrictive covenants being both adequate and effective , and
suggested that these be submitted to and an opinion received from
an attorney . Mr . Wilson stated that he is an attorney and that the
Courts take a dim view of restrictive covenants and , in fact , you
may be dealing with rental housing . Mr . May repeated that in no
way would there be approval without the homeowners ' agreement being
completed and Town Attorney approval given .
Mr . Wilson commented that he noticed that title would be in
fee simple , adding that that is very difficult to regulate .
Mr . Gary Rondeau , 167 - 6 Calkins Road , stated that if he were
on Slaterville Road he would probably be saying the same thing that
• he is hearing tonight - - get that development out of there - - but
nonetheless he is concerned about people getting housing . Mr .
Rondeau stated that he had spoken with the Ombudsman for the
Village of Lansing who told him about the problems that renters
were having with their rents continually rising , virtually every
six months rents are raised $ 50 . 00 . Mr . Rondeau stated that owning
one ' s home does give one pride in it . Mr . Rondeau stated that the
proposal is of quality and is needed in the community . He stated
that he would take this any day rather than rental units in
Lansing . Mr . Rondeau stated that the need is there , but he could
understand the people being up in arms .
Mr . Maurice Tauber stated from the floor that that makes him
angry . He stated that the people are not up in arms , they are
extremely concerned , no question about that . Mr . Tauber stated
that very few of the neighbors are unconcerned with the problems ,
however , they are very interested in innovative , new concepts . He
stated that relative to what they have got , it is innovative . Mr .
Tauber urged that we get rid of this kind of nonsense and stated
that we must consider this thing in a realistic fashion .
Mrs . Frances Barraclough , 1341 Slaterville Road , asked from
the floor , how one can be sure that this will be low- cost housing
and cited as an example , West Village in the City of Ithaca which
receives federal funds and is refusing to rent to low income
persons . She stated that she knows this for a fact because she
• knows people involved there . Mrs . Barraclough spoke of dinky
little houses renting for $ 500 or $ 600 a month .
22
Tlanning Board June 15 , 1982
Mr . Weisburd stated that a lot of good points have been
raised . He described again the cluster approach to development .
He stated that he has shown why it is a better development approach
than a standard grid . He described again the particulars of his
proposal , pointing out the commons , the open space , the parkland ,
the way children can get around without crossing roads , the
permanent open space which cannot be subdivided in the future . Mr .
Weisburd stated that he has heard no references as to why this
project is less good than a grid to which , he assumed , there would
be no opposition . He stated that he has heard no opposition to a
standard grid subdivision . Mr . Weisburd stated that those opposed
to this proposal have presented what they have termed a non -biased
petition based on his statements . Mr . Weisburd stated that the
petition states that there will be excessive traffic , fumes , and
noise . He asked if those were his words , where in his submittals
they appear . Mr . Weisburd stated that he would submit that the
traffic , fumes , and noise is much less through clustering than a
grid with more roads . Mr . Weisburd stated that , with regard to
low- income housing , he has not been charged with creating
low- income housing . He stated that he is doing the best he can to
provide affordable homes . Mr . Weisburd stated that he has not been
funded by the Town or the state or federal government . Mr .
Weisburd stated that he has his own conscience and he wishes to
provide as best he can moderate income housing . Mr . Weisburd
stated that insofar as insurances for our futures go , there are
none .
Mr . Lawrence Rivkin stated from the floor that Mr . Weisburd
has hit upon one of the key issues . Mr . Rivkin stated that they
are not arguing about a grid or a cluster ; they do not care . He
stated that they are arguing about what is going into the cluster ,
what is the quality of the development .
Mr . May stated that he assumed Mr . Rivkin was talking about
quality of construction .
Mr . Rivkin stated that he was talking about quality of
construction , size of units , contracts . Mr . Rivkin stated that
what is being shown here is not something of substance .
Dr . Richard Fischer stated from the floor that he was hinting
at that when he spoke before . Dr . Fischer stated that you can say
there will be no sociological impact but if the project is low
income rental housing , there is enormous sociological impact . Dr .
Fischer stated that one cannot promise that it will not be such .
Mr . May stated that one cannot promise that even with a grid .
Dr . Fischer staged that he agreed .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that what is being proposed here to the
Planning Board , himself as the Town Engineer , and to those present
• as a group of individuals , is not rental housing . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that the Town has seen similar proposals in the past and
they have prover. out . Mr . Fabbroni noted again that the proposal
23
Planning Board June 15 , 1982
• as presented is not to be rental housing , the residents will own
each unit and the land it sits on individually . He stated that the
fee simple deE! d approach needs to be explored further , commenting
that Mr . Wilson had said it best , however , let us see if we can go
with that as a basis for discussion . Mr . Fabbroni stated that as
he sits here , one of his questions of quality is relative to energy
saving . He commented that as the individuals here tonight sit in
their houses now and see the pressures of energy consumption , he
would think that they might well wonder , as he does , about the
quality of construction of their houses . Mr . Fabbroni described
proven energy - E= fficient construction , suggesting that we forget the
wood foundations aspect for right now and talk about basic
construction . Mr . Fabbroni spoke of the NYS Building Construction
Code , the NYS Energy Conservation Construction Code , the NYS Fire
Prevention Code , all adopted by the Town of Ithaca . He described
again energy shields as a drapery . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it is
important to know where we are at at this point and to know how Mr .
Weisburd intends to construct these homes . He stated that there is
quality control beyond Mr . Weisburd ' s eye in terms of construction
quality . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the basic concept presented is
low energy and. control of costs . Mr . Fabbroni referred to the
interest market. of today and commented that he could imagine every
realtor in Town saying , yes , yes , yes , we need this ; it seems to
hit right on the mark as homeownership for the single person , the
family with one child , the graduate student . Mr . Fabbroni
commented that residents could be drawn from every sector of the
socio - economic profile and that needs to be discussed in a rational
way and we need to ask ourselves where does that miss the mark in
terms of what we know the needs are in this community .
Mr . Lawrence Rivkin stated that he represented this community
in drug use counseling . He stated that he has presented the
effects of man
f drugs on mice in a classroom . He stated that
y
because of this work he kept mice at his home in a cage .
Commenting that this may seem a little farfetched , he stated that
he made the mistake of crowding too many mice in the cage and while
he was away on a trip one time he returned to find all of the mice
had been eaten except for one . Mr . Rivkin stated that he
calculated the space in these proposed units devoted to people - -
600 sq . ft . - - and brought it down to the size of a mouse , the
result being 3 / 4 of a square inch per mouse . Mr . Rivkin asked what
does 600 sq , ft . mean - - it means 3 / 4 of a square inch per mouse .
Mr . Rivkin stated that he could not live in this . Mr . Rivkin
stated that this is not a funny matter ; he was complaining about
the size of the units . Mr . Rivkin stated that 600 sq , ft , is not
adequate and leads to family fights , domestic trouble , squabbling
and real problems . Mr . Rivkin stated that any increased tax base
reaped by the Town would be chewed up by the increased burdens upon
the Town .
Chairman May stated that he thought this was a little out of
• line and asked the Town Engineer to speak to the requirements of
the building construction code as to minimum size of dwellings .
24
Planning Board June 15 , 1982
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the NYS Building Construction Code
refers to minimum size principally in terms of bedrooms as the only
area of the dwelling that is regulated with regard to minimum size .
Mr . Fabbroni described ventilation , sound control , and other things
that are built into the code for commonly owned buildings . He
commented that: the Building Code is , one might say , an empirical
tool that attempts to address the health , safety , and general
welfare of human beings . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the proposal
should be looked at carefully and pointed out the carports as
separate from the square footage of the unit ; the common building
as separate from the square footage of the unit , the community
center as separate from the square footage of the unit ; the gazebo
as separate from the square footage of the unit . He stated that in
that sense you have people commonly sharing what we generally think
of as the usual amenities when you have an individual dwelling .
Mr . Fabbroni commented that this a change in concept that many
would buy into to have equity in a home , adding that he might not
himself , but lifestyles have changed over the last twenty years
away from the large home on the large lot for many reasons .
Planning Board member Bernard Stanton stated that this
discussion has been going on now for over two hours and he would
suggest that there be a stretch break . Chairman May agreed with
Mr . Stanton and. announced a short break for ten minutes .
After a break of approximately ten minutes , Chairman May
called the meeting back to order and stated that a question was
asked during the break which was , if preliminary approval were
granted tonight what , if any , kind of site work could be
accomplished or started . Mr . May asked Mr . Cartee , the Building
Inspector to respond . Mr . Cartee stated that possibly a temporary
access way into the site could be created , possibly some clearing
in order to properly and accurately survey could be done . Mr .
Cartee stated that those kinds of reasonable things can be done
since they are necessary to the completion of detailed final plans .
Mr . Cartee stated that there could be no digging for buildings , no
foundations dug , and so forth .
Planning Board member Carolyn Grigorov stated that a question
from the floor earlier more suitable to the Planning Board was the
idea of the road becoming a through road to Giles Street in the
City . Mrs . Grigorov asked if the road proposed within the
subdivision could be made a dead end and placed that way on the
official highway map and , thus , never developed as a through road
to Giles Street .
Mrs . Catherine Tauber stated that that was what was supposed
to be done with Texas Lane and it did not work . Mr . Stanton
pointed out that Texas Lane is not a through road . Mrs . Tauber
stated that the Planning Board should look at where this road can
go , adding that you just cannot say never .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the only land southeast of here
between this property and what the City owns as reservoir , on the
25
'Planning Board June 15 , 1982
down side of Slaterville Road , is , he believed , about ten acres
owned by Dr . Lowe and about 19 plus or minus acres owned by John
Marion . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the latest he knows about John
Marion ' s intention is to split off four lots perpendicular to
Slaterville Road and sell them as individual lots . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that he did not believe there will be a road although , as
part of such proposal the Town would ask for a future right of way
for Marion ' s .Land . Mr . Fabbroni referred again to the four lots
fronting on Slaterville Road and stated that there would be no need
for a road , that is , based on those four lots south of the Weisburd
parcel . Mr . Fabbroni stated , referring to the area north of the
Weisburd proposal , that here one gets into a case , before you go
too far north , of someone ' s home being directly in the path of
where one might put a road . He stated that such a road would be
unlikely and redundant to Slaterville Road . Mr . Fabbroni recalled
that it was Sweet who built this home down behind the Novak
residence . Mr .. Fabbroni stated that as you go farther north , there
is less and less land available for development . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that the Weisburd parcel does not fit into the master plan
for roadways , adding that it is the biggest parcel there and
relatively self: - contained .
Mrs . Catherine Tauber stated that as the neighbors understand
it , Verne Marion had a plan to develop all the way to Giles Street ,
Mr . Fabbroni stated that such a road is not on the master highway
plan of the Town of Ithaca . Mrs . Tauber asked if there were room
to get a road through there . Mr . Fabbroni responded , yes , but in
terms of what useful purpose it would serve it is highly unlikely ,
there being neither purpose nor need .
Mr . May stated that the real facts are that both Sweet ' s house
and another one down near the City would be in the way of it . He
stated that both would have to be removed . Mr . May stated that at
the time Verne Marion was talking Giles Street was quite
differently proposed and there have been a number of changes since
then .
Planning Board member Barbara Schultz pointed out that there
are no through rights of way and you just cannot run a road
wherever you might want to .
Mr . Lawrence Rivkin pointed out that there is such a thing as
a condemnation procedure . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the usual legal
way would be through a master map .
Chairman May asked if there were any further questions or
comments from the public . There were none . Chairman May declared
the adjourned public hearing duly closed at 10 : 15 p . m . and asked
for any discussion by the Board . Mr . May stated to the public that
they were most welcome to stay and noted that everyone was staying .
Mr . Mazza stated that he would like to say something and that
is that he does have a conflict of interest in that Mr . Weisburd
has been represented by a member of the firm he is associated with .
26
,
Planning Board June 15 , 1982
Mr . Mazza stated that he will not be voting on any issues related
to this proposal and he will make no comment .
Mr . May i- eferred ' to the memorandum to the Planning Board , as
lead agent in this matter , from Mr . Fabbroni indicating his
determination that this proposed action is a Type I action under
the Town of Ithaca SEQR law . The Board members agreed with Mr .
Fabbroni ' s determination and Mr . May stated that they would proceed
and consider this as a Type I action with the Planning Board as
lead agent .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton *
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , as lead
agent in the matter of SEQR review of a proposed 124 -unit cluster
subdivision at 1443 Slaterville Road as proposed by Mr . Jerold
Weisburd , postpone and hereby does postpone its determination as to
the environmental significance or non - significance of the project
to such time aS further public hearings may be scheduled .
By way of discussion , Mr . May stated that he did not believe
the Board able at this time to make a negative or positive
declaration as to environmental impact based on the preliminary
plans submitted . Mr . Stanton suggested that the Board go through
the Environmental Assessment statement submitted and discuss the
comments in it and the comments made by the public . Mr . Stanton
said that the developer may wish to re - submit the EAF since he
agreed that he had misinterpreted some of the questions ' meaning .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Stanton , Klein , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Mazza .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Mr . Stanton noted , on page 1 , that the date was incorrect , Mr .
Weisburd having written May 25 , 1981 , rather than 1982 . Mr .
Weisburd quipped that that was a great way to start out and
apologized . Mr ,. Weisburd stated to the Board that at the time he
made out the form on May 25th , he believed that the property
transfer would be completed by June 1 , 1982 , as he had written ,
however , he wished to state that he is not the property owner as of
this date . He stated that the title should have cleared a few
weeks ago but because of some legal snags Paul Grennell and Sam
Brewer are the property owners at this moment .
Mr . Mazza asked to be excused ; he was , and he left .
Turning to Page 2 , Mr . Stanton referred to Question # 8 - -
" Total area directly modified by proposed action . " He noted that
the developer had answered ± 7 acres , and asked if it were not more
27
? lanning Board June 15 , 1982
than that . Mr . Weisburd stated that he thought that question
referred to buildings or gravel parking areas and not the nude
cornfield which will be changed to ground cover . Mr . Stanton
stated that it should be clarified . Mr . Klein commented that it
seems low .
Mr . May rioted that Question # 11 on Page 2 as to the size of
the units is answered - - 735 to 924 sq . ft . Mr . Weisburd stated
that that was correct , adding that very early on he had considered
600 to 900 sq . ft . Mr . Stanton commented that the answer indicates
that the square footage is of the dwelling units and does not
include the outside areas such as carports , common buildings , etc .
Again on Page 2 , referring to Question # 13 having to do with
proposed signs , Mr . May stated that signage is a separate matter
covered by the Town of Ithaca Sign Law . Mr . Weisburd stated that
he would like to say , just for information , that he envisions the
one sign mentioned there - - " Commonland Community " - - as a
permanent sign. , and the other one - - " A Revolution in Energy
Conservation " -• - as a temporary sign .
Referring to Question # 15 on Page 2 - - " Name potentially
hazardous materials , such as toxic substances , flammable or
explosives to be used or disposed during or after proposed action . "
- - Mr . Stanton stated that the answer " N / A " is not sufficient and
needs additional comment . He stated that the matter of toxic
substances needs to be dealt with . Mr . Weisburd stated that he
stands on his answer and would like to make his own presentation ,
with data , to the Board .
Question # 17 on Page 2 - - " Describe project history including
controversy perceived by the developer , litigation , court
decisions , etc . " , to which the answer was " None " , was discussed by
the Board as the most likely place to mention the cemetery .
Turning to Page 3 , Question # 19 - - " Zoning changes or
variances being requested . " - - Mr . May pointed out that the
response " All to be considered R15 with sewer & water . " , appears to
be a misinterpretation of the meaning of the question , and
suggested that a more appropriate answer would be " None " . Mr . May
stated that Question # 20 on the same page - - " Check if the site of
the proposed action is within or next to the following Districts or
Areas : Agricultural District , Floodplain ( HUD designated ) ;
Freshwater Wetland ; Historic Preservation District ; Unique Natural
Area " - - has not. been addressed and should be even if by an " N / A " .
Continuing on Page 3 , the Board discussed Question # 27 - - " If
bedrock depth i .c: less than ten feet check type of bedrock existing
at site of proposed action : Shale , Thinly bedded shale and
siltstone ; Silt .stone or sandstones Limestone . " - - which had been
left blank . The Board indicated that leaving it blank was
appropriate at the moment .
f
28
`planning Board June 15 , 1982
Referring to Question # 24 , on Page 3 - - - Number of existing
buildings affected by the proposed action . " - Mr . Stanton said
that he would think that there should be some reference to the
houses directly adjacent to the site being considered , commenting
that he thought there were four of them .
Referring to Question # 21 , on Page 3 - - " Check which land uses
describe the neighborhood character . " - - to which the answer was
checked as single - unit residential , the Board indicated that in the
box marked " Other " , the Reservoir should be noted .
Turning to Page 4 , Question # 30 - - " Briefly describe the
nature and extent of proposed modification of existing slopes or
soils or drainage . " - - to which the answer was , " All buildings to
be built into south knolls with minimal change to existing topo .
All existing drainage ways to be maintained . " - - Mr . May spoke of
the drainage way that was mentioned . Mr . Weisburd stated that the
drainage way that was mentioned and shows as a depression will be
picked up in specific detail by the detailed engineering drawings .
He stated that he did not want to fight drainage , it is expensive ;
that is the beauty of cluster - - you can move things . Mr . Weisburd
commented that they might be installing a culvert where the road
crosses it . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Board would expect to
define the limits of the drainage way for at least a 25 - year storm
and , practically speaking , for a 100 - year storm so that the
building sites do not conflict with the limits of that drainage
way .
The Board discussed Question # 31 on Page 4 and indicated that
there were no recognized wetlands adjacent . The Board discussed
Question # 34 on Page 4 , particularly as to ferns , grasses , sedges ,
rushes , and aquatic plants . Mr . Weisburd commented that he did not
believe there were any natural grassy areas there , it being either
heavily wooded or the open , unused cornfield .
Referring to Question # 37 on Page 4 - - " Are there any plans
for revegetation ? If so , briefly explain . " , to which the answer
was " Yes , as per plans . " - - Mrs . Langhans wondered what the plans
are for revegetation . Mr . Weisburd said that he plans to
revegetate extensively which will be depicted in fine detail on the
detailed landscaping plans . Mr . Weisburd stated that he is not
going to destroy vegetation , it will be added .
The Board discussed Question # 39 on Page 4 , which was
answered , " No " - - " Will activity cause a change in or affect visual
character of natural or cultural landscape features ? " - - and
indicated that it would be more appropriately answered " Yes " .
Turning to Page 5 , Question # 42 , which had been answered " No "
- - " To your knowledge are there any known unique natural features
on or near the site of the proposed action ? If so , briefly
explain . " - - Mr . Stanton wondered if the City Reservoir should be
listed here .
29
• 'planning Board June 15 , 1982
The Board discussed Questions # 43 and # 44 on Page 5 - - " Will
any of the following emissions be produced by the proposed action
or its resulting activities ? If so , describe the cause : Ashes ;
Dust ; Fumes ; Odors ; Smoke ; Other emissions . " , and , " Will there be
changes to existing noise or vibration levels due to the proposed
action or its resulting activities ? If so , describe the cause . "
all answered , " No " . Mr . Fabbroni stated that normally one would
say that such things are incidental to construction unless it was ,
for example , an industry site proposal .
The Board discussed Question # 45 on Page 5 - - " Number of
employees during construction . " , and , " Maximum number of employees
present at the site at one time . " Mr . Fabbroni stated that the
question referred to peak loading during construction . Mr .
Weisburd said that he should change the " 20 " and " 2 " answers to
" 30 " and " 20 " , but that the answer , " 3 " , to - - "
Question # 46 Number
of employees during activities after completion . " , is correct .
Mr . Weisburd stated that his answer of " 124 " to Question # 48
on Page 5 - - " If the resulting activities are for residential use ,
state the number of planned residents . Permanent : " , - - is in
error , apologizing for getting residents mixed up with residences .
He stated that the answer should be " 310 " .
Turning to Page 6 , the Board discussed Question # 51 - - " If the
focus of resulting activities is for residential use , check if
residence is intended for : low income segment ; medium income
segment , high income segment ; students ; families ; elderly . " , to
which the boxes checked were . low income segment , medium income
segment , families . Mr . May wondered why " students " had not been
checked . Mr . Weisburd commented that that is not the focus , but
that he could certainly check it adding in , perhaps , graduate
students .
Referring to Question # 52 on Page 6 , which was not checked , - -
" Will proposed activity substantially change the following
socio - economic population distribution ? - income , races ethnic
background , age . " - - Mrs . Grigorov stated that she would not answer
that either because of the kind of residential proposal . Mr .
Weisburd stated that he believed that the socio - economic population
already exists and he will not be affecting that . He noted that
his proposal is targeted toward single parents , young couples ,
graduate students and with the existing large homes in the area
more suitable for large families , he did not believe there would be
a substantial change in the population distribution .
Mr . Fabbroni stated , with reference to Question # 54 on Page 6 ,
where all the permit requirements are listed , that the County of
Tompkins Highway Department is not involved here with driveways and
culverts , so that part should be answered " No " . He stated that the
State Highway Department is involved . He stated that the County
Health Department is involved with the sanitary facilities for
realty subdivisions and should be indicated as a " Yes " . Mr .
Fabbroni stated that the answer of yes to the box having to do with
30
'Planning Board June 15 , 1982
Planned Unit Development , on Page 7 , even though the developer
added " cluster " there is a misinterpretation . He stated that that
should be a " No " , and the word " cluster " really belongs by the box
for subdivision .
Mr . May asked if there were any comments on the last two
questions - - 455 and # 56 . There were none . Mr . May asked if there
were any other comments or discussion .
Mrs . Grigorov asked if it would be out of the question to make
some sort of :barrier between the development and the reservoir , or
is that up to the City , or is it too big an area to fence . Mr .
Weisburd commented that he would question the feasibility , but he
would guess that it would be up to the City , adding that they have
tried for years to stop people from trespassing but they keep
coming in .
The Board members discussed the particulars of specific
detailed drawings if preliminary approval were to be granted . Mr .
Fabbroni described plans and profiles for the roadwork , drainage
ways detail ; engineered drawings on the utilities including pump
houses ; drainage ; specific staging process ; lighting details
landscaping with detail and staging ; buffering , if any , with regard
to adjacent property , culverts ; topography , if possible it would be
good , although it is also done through the building permit process ,
• to specify the construction materials and quality of materials , for
example , what constitutes the community center . Mr . Fabbroni
commented that the developer could cut down on all the highways and
not in any way bother the Town and the same holds true for sewer
and water , adding that if there is a more economical way than shown
on the preliminary plans , he would encourage it on the final plans .
Mr . Fabbroni ;mpoke of the phasing and noted that there could be
performance criteria imposed by the Board which must be met before
phase 3 , for example , could be commenced .
Mr . Klein asked if by defering the vote on the environmental
assessment , negative or positive , and if the Board should proceed
to preliminary approval and require the developer to complete these
detailed drawings and information , would the Board not trap the
developer into a lot of work with the Board perhaps saying that a
draft environmental impact statement is required . Mr . May
commented that saying yes to a D / EIS does not mean no to building a
subdivision .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that what the Board would have at any
final hearing , if there ever is one , would be the kind of detail
needed to respond reasonably to all the " yesses " on the EAF . Mr .
Fabbroni stated that there are a number of yesses in terms of
impact and a lot of noes and the detailing will help in making a
determination . Mr . Klein stated that that answers his concerns .
Chairman May asked if there were any further comments from the
Board . There were none .
31
*Planning Board June 15 , 1982
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton :
RESOLVED , that , pursuant to the provisions of Section 281 of
the Town Law of the State of New York and pursuant to the authority
delegated to it by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , the Town
of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval for a 124 - dwelling unit cluster development on
45 ± acres at 1443 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 2 , subject to the following requirements :
1 . The submission of the proposed homeowners ' agreement setting
forth the proposed restrictive covenants to be contained
therein with specific regard to the matter of ownership and / or
leasing and / or sub - leasing , such submittal to be made to the
Town Engineer of the Town of Ithaca in adequate time to permit
review as to the validity thereof by the Town Attorney of said
Town of Ithaca and in any event no less than three weeks prior
to the scheduling of any public hearing to consider final
subdivision approval .
2 . The submission of detailed information on the materials
proposed to be used in construction and the quality of said
construction , in particular the proposed wood foundations and
any potential hazard therefrom to the environment , such
submittal to be made to the Town Engineer of the Town of
• Ithaca no less than three weeks prior to the scheduling of any
public hearing to consider final subdivision approval .
3 . That the proposed final site plan indicate that special care
has been taken to mitigate any impact of the proposed roadway
system within the proposed subdivision , including ingress and
egress , upon presently existing houses and neighbors .
4 . That submittals be in accordance with the Town of Ithaca
Subdivision Regulations .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Stanton , Klein , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May thanked everyone for coming and stated that the
Board very much appreciated their comments .
Chairman May declared the matter of the consideration of
preliminary subdivision approval of the Weisburd proposal duly
closed at 11 : 10 p . m .
. DESIGN REVIEW . :PLANNING BOARD AS SIGN REVIEW BOARD .
32
f
Tlanning Board June 15 , 1982
Mr . Cartee stated that he had four items for the Board to
review in re signs ,
1 . Common Sense Energy Systems , 116 East Buttermilk Falls Road ,
Parcel No . 6 - 38 - 1 - 3 ,
Mr . Cartee stated that Common Sense Energy Systems located at
116 East Buttermilk Falls Road , formerly the site of Anderson
Moving and Storage , has requested three signs - - one of which is in
place on the front ' of the building , being 16 ' x 2 ' and reading
" Common Sense Energy Systems - Your Complete Heating Center - Home
Farm - Pools - Commercial " ; a second sign on the front of the
building at the entrance door ( not in place ) , being 1 . 5 ' x 1 ' and
reading " 116 E . Buttermilk Falls Road - Finger Lakes Thermal Energy
Systems , Inc . " ; and a third sign ( not in place ) at the road
entrance near Buttermilk Park , being 1 . 5 ' x 1 ' and reading " Common
Sense Energy Systems " with an arrow .
Mr . May asked what the frontage is of the building in
question , to which Mr . Cartee replied , 44 ft . The Planning Board
noted that the problem is that although sign # 1 would be legal , the
request for sign # 2 renders one or the other illegal since only one
wall ' sign is permitted , and , sign # 3 would be permitted . Mr . May
summarized the matter by noting that the large sign over the door ,
sign # 1 , is conforming ; sign # 3 is also conforming ; the problem is
• sign # 2 , the 1 . 5 ' x 1 ' sign referencing a division of the business
in the buildin<3 . Mr . Cartee stated that the building is in an area
off the road back behind a lot of vegetation .
MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mrs . Virginia
Langhans :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board ( Planning
Board ) recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals that Sign # 2 , i . e . , 1 . 5 ' x 1 ' , and reading
" 116 E . Buttermilk Falls Road - Finger Lakes Thermal Energy
Systems , Inc . " be allowed by variance of the requirements of the
Town of Ithaca Sign Law permitting one wall sign , it being that
Sign # 1 is a legal , conforming sign , and it being that Sign # 3 is a
legal , conforming sign .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Stanton , Klein , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
2 . Eddydale Farm Market , Elmira Road , Parcel No . 6 - 35 - 1 - 10 . 1 .
. Mr . Cartee stated that the request is for an exterior wall
sign , 5 - 1 / 3 ' x 3 ' , reading " Eddydale Farm Market " , to be erected on
the right front entrance of the market ( to the right of the
33
• 'Planning Board June 15 , 1982
overhead door ) . Mr . Cartee stated that the building is some 45 to
50 feet wide and is set back from the road substantially , however ,
the proposed 16 sq . ft . sign is larger than the 4 sq . ft . which is
permitted , thE! market being located in a residential district .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board ( Planning
Board ) recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals the grant of variance to permit a 16 sq . ft .
( 3 ' x 5 - 1 / 3 " ) permanent wall sign reading " Eddydale Farm Market " to
be erected on the external wall of the building facing Elmira Road ,
centered on the south side of the front doorway .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Grigorov .
Nay - Stanton , Klein .
The MOTIO14 was declared to be carried .
3 . Bell ' s Convenience Foods , 614 Elmira Road . , Parcel No .
6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 41 .
• Mr . Cartee described the request for signs at Bell ' s
Convenience Foods as set forth in Mrs . Bell ' s letter of May 5 , 1982
to Mr . Cartee -
1 . 8 inch plastic letters to be mounted on the side of the
building , to the left of the ice cream serving window ( approx .
area involved - 4 ' x 61 )
SOFT ICE CREAM
CARRY OUT
2 . Plastic menu sign ( photo enclosed )
18 " high x 6 ' long Letters 1 " high
To be hung outside over the ice cream window , during the ice
cream season only ( removed during the winter months )
3 . Seasonal wooden A Frame sign to be located up by our road
sign . Picture of an ice cream cone on it , no wording . "
Mr . Cartee distributed the most recent photographs of the
signage at Bell " s which he had taken in addition to those taken by
the Bells . Mr . Cartee pointed out that there is presently in place
a permitted portable sign which advertises " Diesel " . He stated
that this sign is legal since a gas station is permitted one
. portable sign . Mr . Cartee noted that the Bells slide a wooden sign
over that sign which has a picture of an ice cream cone on it . Mr .
Cartee described the plastic menu sign in place and the Soft Ice
34
; `Manning Board June 15 , 1982
Cream & Carry Out Sign in place , and pictures of sundaes , etc . , in
place . Mr . Cartee read from the Sign Law in re permitted temporary
signs and the 30 % window coverage portion thereof . Mr . Cartee
noted that the menu sign is not in a window area , it is on the
front wall , as is the carry out sign . Mr . Cartee noted that half
of the beer signs are gone .
The Board members discussed the matter of the Bells ' signage
at some length , noting the continual placement of signs without
permit and also taking into account the letter from the office of
the Town Attorney , dated May 28 , 1982 , copies of which the members
had received , to the Board of Appeals in re the window signs in
place .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board ( Planning
Board ) recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals that no variances for the proposed signs be
granted at this time , and
FURTHER , that Bell ' s Convenience Store be advised that no
additional consideration will be given by this Sign Review Board
( Planning Board ) for sign variances until such time as the signage
is brought into compliance with the Town of Ithaca Sign Law and
• permissions already granted , and
FURTHER , that the Sign Review Board ( Planning Board ) will be
glad to review any necessary additional signs after compliance has
been achieved .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Stanton , Klein , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
4 . Orchard Hill Subdivision , DuBois Road , Parcel No . 6 - 22 - 2 - 2 . 2 .
Mr . Cartee reported that the sign permit for the Orchard Hill
Subdivision sign will expire on July 15 , 1982 ( Permit # 89 ) , and
reminded the Board that the sign was originally permitted in 1980
with the understanding that it could be renewed for two additional
one -year periods upon Planning Board approval . He noted that this
would be the second renewal , if granted .
MOTION by M:r . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and
hereby does grant the renewal of the sign permit granted July 7 ,
1980 , renewal thereof having been granted on August 5 , 1981 , and
being the second grant of renewal , with said second grant of
35
4 ; planning Board June 15 , 1982
renewal constituting the final grant of renewal of sign permit for
Orchard Hill Subdivision , DuBois Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 6 - 22 - 2 - 2 . 2 , said Sign Permit being # 89 , such approval to
terminate on July 15 , 1983 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Stanton , Klein , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , the Chairman declared the June 15 , 1982 meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 35 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
36