Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1982-12-21 i TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 21 , 1982 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , December 21 , 1982 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , Virginia Langhans , James Baker , Carolyn Grigorov , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Dan Peterson , Bob Anderson , Maria Niederhofer , Jim Niederhofer , Neal A . Howard , Marty Newhart , Leslie Dotson , John A . Bentkowski , Chuck Crisell , Dan Street , Howard R . Schlieder , Marvin J . Adleman , F . Robert Wesley , Nancy L . Ostman , Peter G . Nickles , John Majeroni , Sam Bonanni , M . J . Monkemeyer , Evan N . Monkemeyer , Roger J . Smith , Bruce Ryan ( WHCU News ) , Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 38 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF REZONING PROPOSAL , FROM t RESIDENTIAL - 15 TO MULTIPLE FAMILY AND FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL , TOGETHER WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT , OF 121 UNITS ON 30 ACRES , EAST KING ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 . BILL J . MANOS . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . and accepted for the Record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on December 13 , 1982 and December 16 , 1982 , respectively . Chairman May read aloud the Notice of Public Hearing as published and as noted above . Richard B . Thaler , Esq . , of Thaler & Thaler , 309 North Tioga Street , attorney for Mr . Manos , stated that the developer is requesting a. rezoning of this 30 - acre parcel from R- 15 to multiple - family and what is contemplated overall is the development of 119 multi - family units , one permanent residence for the owner , Mr . Manos , and one support building for the purpose of the storage of equipment to take care of the maintenance of the premises and also as a storage facility for the resident; of the development where they could have a cubicle to keep baggage , winter clothes , or whatever else they wished to store . Mr . Thaler noted that this development is already serviced by municipal water and sewer , and by underground electrical facilities . He stated that the buildings will have �\ electric heat , would be energy efficient as much as man can do at this time . Mr . Thaler stated that Mr . Howard R . Schlieder , P . E . , land surveyor and engineer , was present to describe the plans and Planning Board 2 December 21 , 1982 usage , adding that Mr . Schlieder is a local resident who has been I in the community for many years and is fully familiar with the community and its needs . Utilizing drawings affixed to the bulletin board , Mr . Schlieder described the first phase of the project as being four " clusters " - - seven apartments in four structures - - and stated that upon completion the entire development will be comprised of 68 one -bedroom apartments and 51 two - bedroom apartments . He stated that the sewer has been built and water is there . Mr . Schlieder dE! scribed the proposed parking based on 1 . 3 spaces per unit as required by the zoning ordinance . Mr . Schlieder stated that most of the landscaping will be done with natural landscaping , however , there will be some decorative landscaping which will be similar to the area but not native to the area . Mr . Thaler pointed out that there will be a total of 17 buildings , Each with seven apartments - - four of which will be one - bedroom apartments and three of which will be two -bedroom apartments . Mr . Thaler stated that the area to the northwest and to the west. would remain as a vacant , buffer area ; the area between the service road and King Road East would not be buffered . Drainage was discussed by both Mr . Thaler and Mr . Schlieder ; a. swale indicated ; an increase of runoff discussed , but not in terms of the swale , with Mr . Thaler noting that the property itself has been skinned for about eight years . Mr . Schlieder , :referring to the possible runoff that had been indicated , stated that there will be an increase of runoff but that it will not affect neighbors ' properties because of the swale and , further , because this is a slow -moving creek . Mr . Schlieder stated that he did not anticipate any problems - - there will be an increase , but it will be a minimal increase . Mr . Thaler asked if there were any questions , pointing out that the utility , or support , building was proposed to be located to the west end of the site to the west of a drainage swale . [ For the record , the drawings referenced were received at the Planning Department Office on December 17 , 1982 and were delivered to the Planning Board members on the same date . Said drawings includes 1 . Sheet 1 - The Wm . Manos Housing Complex , King Road E . , Ithaca , NY - - Cover Sheet . 2 . Sheet 1P, - Site and Landscape Plan . 3 . Sheet 1B - First Floor Plan , Typical Longitudinal Section , Typical Rear Elevation , Typical End Elevation . 4 . Sheet 1C - Second Floor Plan Typical All Units , Entry Elevation . 5 . Sheet 2 - Grading Plan . 6 . Sheet 3 - Grading Plan , page 2 . 7 . Sheet 4 - Utility Plan with Profile . ^' 8 . Sheet 5 - Utility Plan , page 2 . Planning Board 3 December 21 , 1982 In addition , the Board members each received , along with the above - referenced drawings , Sheets 1 through 11 of the Beacon Hills Village , Phase I . Stage I . which had been approved by the Planning Board , by signature of Chairwoman Barbara P . Holcomb on June 7 , 197110 In addition , the Board members were each given , at this meeting ( December 21 , 1982 ) , an Addendum Drawing , dated December 20 , 1982 , received December 21 , 1982 , showing the " future maintenance / storage / laundry service building " and a drawing entitled " Exterior Lighting Plan " , received December 20 , 1982 . 1 Mr . Thaler introduced Mr . Chuck Crisell as the builder of this proposed development and stated that he would explain more of the specifics of construction . Mr . Crisell stated that the construction would meet all Codes and added that , rather than typical construction , there will be some random layouts , commenting that Mr . Manos will not have anything to do with what looks like a barracks situation or a regimented complex appearing like a dormitory , so it will be constructed in as attractive a way as possible . He stated that insofar as choice of materials goes , it will utilize shake shingle type and also there would be some stuccoing . He stated that there will be sliding glass doors which makes a nice difference in window treatment . He stated that more than the required amount parking was provided . Mr . Crisell described the roof pitches as 2 - 12 and 5 - 12 , noting that that gives a different concept in roof line . He noted that the construction will be energy efficient - - no chimneys or wood - burning stoves - - and mentioned 235 lb . shingles . Mr . Crisell described that each building will have the one - bedroom apartments at the ends of the building , with one apartment up and one apartment down . The two - bedroom apartments will be located in between the one -bedroom apartments . Mr . Thaler stated that Mr . Manos is asking the Board to give him the rezoning recommendation along with site plan approval and asking the Board to find that there is no necessity for an environmental impact study on this project , . it being rather pro forma in that it is their contention that this project will not significantly impact the environment , nor will there be any violation of the building code . Mr . Thaler stated that it is the intention to develop in stages based on demand in the community for this type of development . He stated that Mr . Manos intends starting foul- buildings in the Spring ( 28 units ) , if permission is given by this Board , and then depending on what the demand is , four more in six - eight - nine - months , and so on , keeping the buffer zone always intact . Chairman May asked if there were any questions or comments from the public . • Mr . Neal A . Howard , 309 East King Road , submitted a petition to the Board bearing the signatures of approximately 195 South Planning Board 4 December 21 , 1982 . Hill residents who signed the Petition between May 24 , 1982 and June 1 , 1982' . Said Petition reads as follows : " TO ITHACA TOWN BOARD AND TO TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD : We , the undersigned , are residents of the Town of Ithaca and we wish to herein state our objection to the proposal for rezoning the Sibley Real Estate 30 acres on East King Road from Residential - 15 to Multiple Family , We object to such density of population in this area . " Mr . J (Dhn Majeroni , Real Estate Department , Cornell University , stated that Mrs . Nancy Ostman , Natural Areas Committee , Cornell Plantations , had a written statement from Cornell University to present . Mrs . Ostman presented to the Board a letter from Shirley K . Egan , Associate University Counsel , Cornell University , dated December 21 , 1982 , and asked that it be entered into the record . Mrs . Ostman stated that , as has been pointed out in the past , Cornell University land is in the vicinity of the parcel under discussion . She stated that the South Hill Swamp is a natural area that is rare and unique and must be protected and the University will continue to defend it as it has in the past . Utilizing a large drawing on the bulletin board , Mrs . Ostman pointed out the approximately 6 acre parcel which , she stated , is considered unique and beneficial to Cornell • University , Mrs . Ostman stated that one area of concern is the drainage into the Swamp and noted that bedrock is very close to the top . Mrs . Ostman stated that , rather than read the entire letter from Ms . Egan , she would prefer to summarize the statement . She stated that , as Cornell sees the current proposal , it is favorable since they see good proposed drainage flow in the :sense that the Swamp Area is protected . Referring to the map , Mrs . Ostman stated that Cornell continues to ask that the area adjacent to the Swamp remain open and , further , Cornell opposes development toward the back on Ithaca College property , thus keeping all of the development to the east . She stated that they applaud the effort to build in this direction and added that , on the whole , this proposal is preferable to previous plans for developmE> nt of the land . For the record , Ms . Egan ' s letter is set forth below : " Mr . MontgomE! ry May , Chairman Planning Board Town of Ithaca . . . Re : Application of Bill J . Manos for Rezoning , from R - 15 to Multiple Family , for Tax Parcel No . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 , etc . Scheduled for December 21 , 1982 Dear Mr . Chairman : Planning Board 5 December 21 , 1982 • I regrE! t that the above - captioned hearing falls when I have planned to :be out of town and that I will be unable to attend , However , some of the people from the Cornell Plantations who are very knowledgeable about South Hill Swamp will be able to come . Nonetheless , I wanted this letter to go on the record as the position of the University . The University believes the Board will be gratified , and not a little relieved , to learn that several of us who have been involved in the protection of South Hill Swamp in the past , met with Mr . Manos last week , As a result we have reached some understandings which , I am pleased to say , enables us not to oppose Mr . Manos ' plans as they have been presented to us and I think , will be presented to you tonight . Mr . Manos has been commendable in his willingness to consult and cooperate with Cornell and to assist us in the preservation of South Hill Swamp . To that. end , we have been pleased to note , Mr . Manos does not plan any development for the portion of the tract west of the pond . As the Board will recall from last Spring ' s hearings , this portion provides drainage into the Swamp . It is therefore essential to the life of the Swamp that there be protection from fast runoff due to roofs and blacktopped surfaces , herbicides and fertilizers , and other hazards of development in this section . In addition , Mr . Manos has agreed to establish a protective planting at the edge of his property near the northwest end of • the pond . This should make passage by residents of the development into the Swamp difficult and so will go a long way toward alleviating our fears over the increased numbers and density associated with the requested zoning change . The University and Mr . Manos have agreed to continue to consult and cooperate with each other over the choice and location of the natural materials for this protective planting and over thin. course of construction and site work so as to minimize any adverse effect upon the South Hill Swamp . The University is gratified too , that Mr . Manos will be constructing the project in phases from east to west and that he will be locating the end of the access road no further west ( approximately ) than the western -most building . It is important that buildings , parking and roads not be placed near the ( approximately ) six ( 6 ) western -most acres of the site . This section should be left as natural as possible although some moving of brush to keep it tame looking could be done with care . We are further pleased by Mr . Manos ' statements that he plans a well- run and well - supervised development , with his own home next door . That no pets ( particularly cats ) , littering or dumping or other activities by the residents which could be detrimental to the Swamp will be permitted , is particularly • comforting . Likewise , Mr . Manos has said that any herbicides , pesticides or fertilizers will be used on the balance of his property ( i . e . the less critical eastern section ) in moderation Planning Board 6 December 21 , 1982 • so that no excess can drift through the air or flow through the water into -the South Hill Swamp or areas which provide drainage to it . In sum ,, Cornell hopes that in Mr . Manos it has found a new neighbor who is truly appreciative and protective of South Hill Swamp . We look forward to a mutually beneficial association with him , the Planning Board , and the Town of Ithaca in the preservation of this rare natural asset . Lastly , however , the University wishes to go on record with respect to two ( 2 ) additional points . They do not affect Mr . Manos ' appl _+_ cation or his proposed development . However , they are so vital to the very life of the South Hill Swamp that I trust I can have the Board ' s ear a moment longer . The University wants there to be a record established now as to its position and as fair notice to owners or prospective owners of other property in the area of South Hill Swamp . As the Board may recall , the South Hill Swamp encompasses approximately 50 acres , not merely the 5 which the University was fortunate enough to gain ownership of some 20 years ago . The area has been recognized since the 1820 ' s as a rare environment . The entire Swamp is listed in the County ' s Unique Natural Area ' s Inventory . Its geology , flora and fauna represent a combination . not known in these parts since prehistoric times . The Swamp is also very fragile . Unfortunately , it would be very easy to damage it inadvertently , thus destroying one of the area ' s true anomalies of nature . While some of the Cornell representatives present at the hearing will be able to explain the unique geology which has produced this , let me only point out that this is a swamp on topl of a hill , not in a valley as one would normally expect . Accordingly , what little drainage does flow into the South Hill Swamp is exceedingly vital to it , not only in quantity but in quality . Just as vital is the fact that the Swamp , through its unique basin - like configuration , is able to retain this hilltop water allowing it to escape only very slowly . The major source of water into the Swamp is from the southwest , over presently undeveloped lands owned by our sister institution , Ithaca College . As the Board can by now guess , any interference ( which includes virtually any development ) with that source of drainage over the greater portion of the Ithaca College property would spell irreparable harm to , if not the ruin of the South Hill Swamp . Likewise , the area from which the Swamp drains itself , if every so slourly , is located to the northeast of the 5 acre tract the University owns . This area is part of a 140 - odd acre parcel owned by Paul. Erdman who obtained subdivision approval from this Board last Spring for a section to the east of this vital • section . Any development or site work here which hastened the drainage from the Swamp would also cause irreparable harm or even the demise of the Swamp . Planning Board 7 December 21 , 1982 For these reasons , I wanted to put the Board and the public alike on notice that the University would be compelled to mount a vigorous opposition to any development of these parcels around the Swamp which endangers it . At the same time , I want to assure our neighbors and the community that Cornell University and the Natural Areas Subcommittee of the Cornell Plantations do not idly oppose development for opposition ' s sake . Rather by our words and deeds tonight in working with Mr . Manos , we trust we have shown that we can and will cooperate with our neighbor ' s wherever this is pos .; ible . With my best wishes to you and the members of the Planning Board for the holiday season and a good new year , I am Very truly yours , ( sgd . ) Shirley K . Egan Shirley K . Egan Associate University Counsel " Chairman May asked if there were any further comments . Mr . Roger J . Smith , 113 Ridgecrest Road , stated that he would ask the developers where they perceive their markets for . the potential renters of these apartments . Mr . Thaler responded that the market would be directed at people who have been unable to buy housing in the Ithaca area because of the mortgage market . He stated that people are renting a house or apartments in town only because there is no suitable escape from what the norm is and this development is going to give them an alternative - - a rustic , rural - type setting - - like a home but , an apartment . He stated that marketing would be directed toward the middle - income - type family , young couples at Cornell and Ithaca College , couples starting careers , 20 - to 30 - year - old age range . Mr . Smith stated that with 68 one - bedroom apartments and 51 two - bedroom apartments , .it would seem to be aimed toward attracting Ithaca College students . Mr . Thaler responded that the market was not exclusive of college students , that was not the intent . He stated that a one - bedroom apartment would be suitable for a young couple . He said that it was not the intent at all for the development to be Ithaca College students . Mr . Smith asked , in terms of traffic control on King Road in particular , if there were steps to be taken to deal wtih increased traffic in this area . Mr . Schlieder stated that they have considered this quite a bit and , using the map , pointed out to him the two entrances onto the development road and , noting that there will be about 120 cars involved , added that there should be no major problem at peak hours because of the secondary service road because there are two ways to go . • Mr . Smith pointed out that the previous developers of this land were a disaster , adding that they were out - of - town people . Planning Board 8 December 21 , 1982 He asked Mr ., Crissell what his financing plans were . Mr . Thaler explained to Mr . Smith that Mr . Manos is the developer , Mr . Crisell is the builder and he is from out of Town . Mr . Thaler stated that they will try to do the financing locally , adding that they have local architects , local surveyor and engineer all the people involved are local landowners except for the builder . Mr . Smith asked Mr . Crisell if he had any connection with the Sibley Corporation . Mr . Thaler responded , absolutely not . Mr . Thaler stated that Griffley owns the land and Mr . Manos has a contract to purchase subject to approvals from the Town of Ithaca . He stated that Mr . Manos had not completed the financing arrangements at this time . Mr . John Bentkowski asked Mr . Thaler who the present owner of record of this land is right now . Mr . Thaler described some of the history of the ownership of this land - - Erdman , Sibley , Griffley and so on . Mr . Bentkowski requested that he be informed as to who is on the record right now as owner . Mr . Thaler responded that he had not seen the Title and did not know right at this minute , however , Griffley Corporation has the authority to sell this property . Chairman May stated that he did not believe any further discussion of this to be quite relevant to the matter before the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and suggested to Mr . Bentkowski that he had gotten all the answer he was going to get at this point . Mr . Smith asked Mr . Crisell about his business reputation and financial stability . Mr . Crisell stated that he was from Rochester and has been in business since 1969 . He stated that he has built from 65 to 75 houses per year up to 279 houses , adding that he makes sure where the money is before starting to build . He stated that he has confidence in Mr . Manos and added that the concept in general is very solid , emphasizing the fact that Mr . Manos wants an attractive complex , not a dormitory - type complex , and would be using good materials . He stated that, as far as student housing goes , he has done 80 units on Campus in the last 18 months . He stated that he has built all over the State and pointed out that 13 years in business and 200 houses a year speaks for itself . Mr . Smith stated that the area that used to be owned by the Sibley Corporation currently is half undeveloped . He stated that it is swampy ;; it does not drain ; there are open pits , chunks of concrete ; it is dangerous . He asked if a development would assume responsibility for the entire parcel of land , develop it ecologically sound , and , does the current ownership and who has title to it affect that responsibility ? Mr . Thaler showed the diagram of everything that was at one time Beacon Hills and stated that Mr . Manos has contracted to purchase 30 acres - Phase I of the old Beacon Hills . Mr . • Fabbroni stated that he would like to point out , for clarification , that there is no building that was built , no pad that was constructed , that is not on the land Mr . Manos is Planning Board 9 December 21 , 1982 purchasing . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he wanted to clarify that because he thought he was hearing that the old construction goes beyond that „ Mr . Smith asked if Phase 1 will take care of the current problems . Mr . Thaler responded that he thought so , adding that he understood Mr . Smith ' s concern . Mr . Thaler stated that Mr . Manos is purchasing the whole site and , although the construction, will be done in phases , the site work , as far as removing eyesores , will be done at the start . Mr . Thaler pointed out that Mr . Manos lives in Ithaca and his business is here . He stated that no one would want to live there with these eyesores and no one would be able to rent the apartments if the renter had to look out his window and see an abandoned site . Mr . Thaler pointed out that six acres of the 30 acres Mr . Manos is buying will remain undeveloped open space . Mr . Smith asked about replanting . Mr . Schlieder said they will not replant the open area because they do not want any violation of the ecology of the area west of the stream ; it will be cleaned out of debris and will grow back itself naturally . He stated that the entire area will be cleaned up of debris during construction . Mr . Thaler apologized for thinking that that land had not been touched . Mr . Smith stated that he would like an answer to the direct question - - Is he going to clean up the area ? Mr . Thaler responded - yes . Mr . Howard asked about assurances of not building on , to which Mr . Thaler replied that such would be in a deed . Mr . Marty Newhart , 171 East King Road , commented that he would like to submit that if Cornell is so worried about that land , Cornell should take care of that land and put it back to its original state . Ms . Leslie Dotson , Tompkins County Department of Planning liaison to the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council , stated that they would like to express a certain discomfort with some of the errors and inconsistencies in the EAF in describing the neighborhood character . Ms . Dotson stated that what she had to say could be termed comments which may or may not be significant but do refer to the EAF . Chairman May stated that the Board would be reviewing the EAF later in the discussion . Mr . Smith stated that there are currently alleged violations of the current zoning ordinance in that neighborhood which there has been difficulty in addressing effectively . He wondered if , with the concern about rezoning this particular parcel , it could be linked to alleged violations in the neighborhood . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he did not know what Mr . Smith meant by linked , however , if he could surmise what premises Mr . Smith was referring to , he would point out that the matter has gone through the Courts twice and could go again . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Court had full control of the situation and could have made the penalty harder than it was . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he did not know what: more the Town can do . Mr . Fabbroni stated to Mr . Smith that if: he knew of violations - - let us know . Mr . Smith Planning Board 10 December 21 , 1982 •� . commented that it was a matter of credibility . Mr . Fabbroni stated again that the party was taken to Court twice ; the first time he was declared guilty , the second time he was found in contempt of Court . Mr . Fabbroni stated that our problem , if you consider the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals staff , is that we cannot do much more than take it to the Court . Mr . Fabbroni commented that , when Mr . Smith speaks of credibility , maybe it is the credibility of the Court in this instance . Chairman May asked if there were any further comments . There were none . Chairman May asked for Board discussion . Mrs . Grigorov asked if the density were too great to be considered for cluster development . Mr . May stated that the proposal is for 7 units in one structure which exceeds the Cluster Regulations which require no more than six . Mrs . Langhans wondered how Beacon Hills could have happened . Mr . Fabbroni briefly described the Beacon Hills cluster proposal in 1972 and the rezoning from R - 30 to R - 15 . Mr . Fabbroni noted also , in connection with Mrs . Grigorov ' s question about clustering , that the Manos proposal exceeds the 3 . 5 units per acre requirement of the Cluster Regulations , Mrs . Grigorov wondered , if the parcel is rezoned , can it be held to that which is proposed . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that the rezoning is based on a specific site plan . • Mr . Fabbroni asked what the landscaping entailed and if this were a definite planting schedule that had been presented . Mr . Fabbroni also asked that the type of exterior lighting be described a little more . Mr . Schleider , noting that he was speaking for the architect , briefly described the lighting plan presented and indicated that the lights would be 12 foot high , however , he did not know the type and more details would be submitted for final approval . Referring again to the landscaping , Mr . Fabbroni asked if the developer is committed to the schedule presented . Mr . Schlieder stated that they may use red maple rather than scarlet . Mr . Thaler stated that they were committed to this schedule but they could not say positively the exact type . Mr . Fabbroni stated that his main concern about exterior lighting was that they be shielded . Mrs . Grigorov asked what the energy efficient aspects of the building are . Mr . Crisell described a " sandwich " effect in that the two - bedroom units are located between the one -bedroom units . He described R- 13 insulated exterior walls and R- 30 insulated ceilings with 9 inches of insulation in the ceiling , wood frame windows - combination storm and screen , 2 X 4 studded walls - interior and exterior walls . Mrs . Lan. ghans asked if there were just one entrance to the second floor . Mr . Crisell stated that that was correct , adding • that there will be an exterior deck with entrance onto the one - bedroom units on the ends of the buildings ; there is no common entrance ; one entrance and one exit for each apartment . Planning Board 11 December 21 , 1982 C• Mr . May stated that he was concerned about there not being any roofs over the outside stairs which he thought could be a potential hazard . Mr . Manos stated that they would look carefully at covering the stairways . Mr . May asked if the sidewalks would be paved . Mr . Schlieder Stated that they would . Mr . May asked if the " courtyard " would be grass . It was stated that it would be . Mrs . Grigorov inquired about the golf course idea ; Mr . Manos stated that he is not going to touch that - - they will not be going ahead with the golf course as suggested in the first preliminary plans . Mrs . Grigorov asked if the Board were going to discuss the EAF . Mr . May stated that it would be discussed following this discussion period . Mr . May asked if it were still in their plans to break up all the pads and remove the concrete . Mr . Thaler responded that that was still their intention , adding that they will all be gone . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the drainage plan for the old Beacon Hills proposal which had been utilized speaks for itself , however , it would be nice if the buildings were taken off the grading plan . He pointed out to the Board that they should require that so that there is a complete set of building plans on • file . In terms of drainage , Mr . Fabbroni commented that the pond has been there for eight years and if he understood Cornell ' s position without reading through the statement , they feel that if nothing further is done , the pond works - - has been there for some time - - and is serving a useful purpose . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would have to agree with Mr . Schlieder with respect to the diversion ditch , but , the diversion ditch would have to be well - sodded . Mr . Fabbroni suggested , if the builder has no expertise in this area , consulting with the Soil Conservation Service on their seeding recommendations , adding , really for everything - - including the developer and the University . He noted the area west of the stream and said he thought it could be done with fairly minimal cost . He suggested seeds that could survive even in the soil that is left and stated that the SCS could give them good recommendations . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the overall drainage , other than natural drainage , can be concentrated so that it stays away from going directly to the swamp . Mr . Fabbroni commented , in terms of other houses in the area , the proposal does not heavily impact the area as far as the view , noting that the open space is most adjacent to the existing homes . With respect to parking , Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would like to see more spaces because the residents are more likely to have two cars than one . He stated that another 40 spaces tastefully located would not hurt a bit . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the developer has supplied the minimum number required , commenting that that minimum is sort of out of date . • Some materials were mentioned , such as Texture I - 11 or plain old aluminum siding , noting that with all the angles and cuts one would not be looking at a massive structure . It was noted also Planning Board 12 December 21 , 1982 that , by halving seven units in one structure , a lot is saved in terms of meE! ting codes , etc . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he thought a covered walkway on the ends of each building would be practical , :if nothing else . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would like to see a little more drainage detail from the parking areas , commenting that he could not really tell what was being described from what he saw on the plan . He stated that a final drainage contour map would give the Board a little more information to show them where the developer is going to have the storm drains , noting that this can control flow better than down into a sodded ditch . Mrs . LZ�inghans stated that she would like to ask about the size of the service building which appears to be 125 ' x 801 . Mr . Thaler stated that it is to be a one - story building with storage area for all of the residents as an assigned cubicle , and laundry . He stated that it will be constructed with the last of the phases ELfter everything is done . Mr . Lovi noted that there appeared to be no plans for a recreation room . Mr . Thaler agreed , stating , absolutely not , adding that the service building would also be used for storage of maintenance equipment . Mr . Fabbroni asked if garbage areas had been shown . Mr . Schlieder pointed out that there are four dumpsters on four of the five lots - - one for each cluster . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Board should see more detail on the sewer and water laterals . Dir . Lovi stated that he agreed with Mr . Fabbroni ' s comments , adding that he felt if the developer continues to work with the people at Cornell , with their interests in the Swamp , together they can maintain the area they are concerned with . Mr . Lovi stated that he wanted to make sure he heard what he thought he heard about herbicides and recommended that the developer consult with Cornell about any use of herbicides or pesticides in order to avoid contamination of the Swamp Area , Chairman May then directed everyone to look at the Environmental. Assessment Form . Mr . May stated that he felt it would be inappropriate at this time for the Board to recommend this plan to the Town Board with respect to the rezoning , adding that it should be brought up to anticipated design prior to Planning Board recommendation . Mr . May pointed out that , since the EAF Short Form had delineated one " yes " answer , a Long Form EAF was required . The Board began its review of the EAF Long Form as submitted , dated December 16 , 1982 . Chairman May asked for Ms . Dotson ' s comments . Ms . Dotson directed the Board ' s attention to the following : ' 1 . Page 3 , question # 20 - - " Unique Natural Area " should be checked , even though the words " Next to " are there . Mr . Planning Board 13 December 21 , 1982 • Thaler stated that he agreed . It was decided that no check mark need be by " Freshwater Wetland " . 2 . Page 3 , question # 21 - - Wildlife / Conservation , and , Forestry Woodland should be checked . Ms . Dotson stated that this is an active site for pheasant and deer . 3 . Page 4 , question # 31 - - Ms . Dotson pointed out that this is answered " No " and stated that she was uncomfortable with this . Mr . Thaler stated that he had answered " no " because the information he had indicated that with the way the land has beE: n for eight years now , the pond has taken care of runoff and has not affected adjacent land , and , he presumed , will continue to take care of it . Ms . Dotson pointed out that the land use plans indicate revegetation and possible herbicide use . Ms . Dotson pointed out that Mr . Thaler had said that they would be working with Cornell , and stated that it would be helpful to put that in the written record . Mr . Thaler stated that they will consult with Cornell University , under question # 31 , adding that they are not trying to modify any adjacent areas . He stated that they will consult with Cornell as to herbicides and vegetation . Mr . Thaler stated that the answer remains " no " with possible expansion . 4 . Page 4 , question # 34 - - Ms . Dotson noted that all the boxes • were checked " no " , so it would seem that there is no vegetation there at all . Mr . Thaler stated that he agreed . Mr . Thaler agreed that " shrubs " , and , " ferns , grasses , sedges , rushes " should be changed to " yes " . Ms . Dotson stated that she had no further comments . Mr . Thaler indicated that he would request the following correction . 1 . Page 2 , question # 6 - - Change " THEIR " to " THERE " , and add , " Utility lines only . " Mr . Lovi stated that the record should show that this Environmental. Assessment Form is covering two actions which are segmented but joined - - the rezoning and the development - - therefore , question # 8 , on Page 2 , should be 30 ± acres . Mr . Thaler agreed . Mr . Thaler requested the following correction , in addition to that just suggested by Mr . Lovi : Page 2 , question # 8 - - Delete " 14 " and " PLUS , RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT " , so as to read : " 30 ± ACRES . " Mrs . Gri. gorov pointed out that there might be more parking spaces . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he was suggesting a number more like 200 . Mr . Thaler stated that he would have to defer to the Planning Board 14 December 21 , 1982 planners , adding that he thought there was room . Mr . Schlieder stated that more parking will be put in and the parking acreage recomputed . Mr . Thaler suggested adding 25 % for now . Thus , Page 2 , question # 9 - - Parking acreage indicated as 1 . 075 acres - - add " + 25011 . Mr . Thaler requested that # 9 be changed , additionally , as follows : Page 2 , question # 9 - - Add " and 1 service building " after private residence " . Mr . Thaler requested that # 3 and # 5 on Page 1 be changed , as follows : Page 1 , question # 3 - - Change 120 to " 119 " and add " , 1 RESIDENCE AND 1 SERVICE BUILDING . " Page 1 , question # 5 - - Change construction date from MARCH 1982 " MARCH 1983 " . Mr . Thaler requested that # 10 be changed , as follows : Page 2 , question # 10 - - Add , in both instances where the no . of floors is indicated as " 2 " , " except a single story service building and single story residence " . and Add , after " * + 1 PRIVATE RESIDENCE " , and one service building " . Mr . Thaler requested that # 11 be changed , as follows : Page 2 , question # 11 - - Change " 120 " to " 119 " . Mrs . Larighans pointed out , with reference to question # 10 - - future total sq . ft . - - that that would change . Mr . Thaler agreed . Mr . Smith questioned the answers to question # 51 on page 6 , where " medium income segment " and " students " were checked . Mr . Thaler stated that he thought that was the focus , adding that he thought he had to put that in since they are talking about graduate students , married persons , etc . He wondered just how technical he had to be . Mr . Smith suggested at this point that there should be some type of recreational area , playgrounds , etc . , for the residents ' children , something large enough that children would be attracted to it . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he assumed the intent of Mr . • Smith ' s suggestion was to have some place for residents for recreation , such as a tot lot , in the vicinity of the building . Mr . Smith wondered what direction the developer is being asked to Planning Board 15 December 21 , 1982 • go to . Mr . Schlieder indicated that he had a problem with this , mentioning basketball . Mr . Thaler pointed out to Mr . Schlieder that what was being asked for was somewhere an area that could be dedicated to a recreation area , if needed , so that everything on site has not: been used up . Mr . Fabbroni suggested an area north of Building 3 or north of Building 10 as potential areas . Mr . Schlieder noted that everything north of the sewer line to remain a designated. open area . Mr . Thaler stated that he did not think this is a problem - - what kind , depends on the tenant mix . Mr . Thaler said they would get together with the architect and work something out where an area can be set aside for this type of thing . Mr . Robert Wesley of Cornell Plantations said there were several rare and unique plant species on the Cornell University parcel , the Ithaca College parcel north and northwest , and in the northwest corner of the property boundaries of this 30 - acres parcel but within the area designated as the open area . Mr . May noted that there is quite a buffer . Mr . Wesley stated that none of the rare species lie in the building area , adding that the most critical species are not on this site at all but some unusual species are in the northwest corner . Mrl . Thaler stated that he really did not know and would defer to the experts . The following change was suggested and agreed to by Mr . Thaler : Page 5 , question # 38 - - Delete " May be " and add " as well as northwest corner of the 30 - acre parcel . " It was agreed that question # 41 was answered properly . Chairman May closed the public input session at 9 : 18 p . m . and asked for Board discussion of the Environmental Assessment Form . The following took place : Page 1 - - No additional changes . Page 2 - - # 12 : Proposed parking spaces should be " 200 " not " 155 " . Traffic generated / day should be " 650 " . - - # 13 : Delete " Pending " and add " Must comply with Town of Ithaca Sign Law . " - - # 14 : " footcandes " should be " footcandles " . - - # 15 : Delete " NONE ANTICIPATED " , replace with " Some blasting may be necessary for installation of utility lines . " - - Those changes previously made . Page 3 - - # 15 : Add at top of page - - " For utility lines . " • - - # 22 : Delete " x " by Gas . • Planning Board 16 December 21 , 1982 Page 4 - - # 29 : Change " Tiller " to " Tuller " ; change " loudstown " " lordstown " ; change " ovis " to " ovid " . - - # 30 : Noting that the answer here was " minimum " , Mr . Lovi commented that for the final presentation the Board would expect more complete drainage plans . Mr . Thaler responded , yes . - - # 34 : As changed previously . Page 5 - - # 38 : As changed previously . - - No additional changes . Page 6 - - # 48 : Mr . Lovi pointed out , based on the 1980 Census , that there are 2 . 26 persons per dwelling unit . He suggested that 270 would be a better number . Mr . Thaler stated that he accepted that . Change " 170 " to " 270 " . Page 7 - - The Board questioned " Blasting " not being checked as a required Town permit . It was noted that the Town has no process for issuing blasting permits . Mrs . Schultz pointed out that a person has to be licensed to be a blaster . • es .Page 7 was accepted as submitted ; no chap g P g Chairman May stated that he believed it would be wise for the applicant to make the changes indicated and to amplify and redo the drawings where and if they have been suggested for change and possibly bring back the matter to the Board at its next meeting in January . Mr . Thaler asked when the Board next met ; Mr . May replied , January 4 , 1983 . Mr . Thaler requested to be placed on the agenda and stated that they would be back with the information and drawings in order . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adjourn and hereby does adjourn the Public Hearing in the matter of the Bill J . Manos application for rezoning to multiple family and site plan approval. , together with environmental assessment , 30 acres , 119 units plus one private residence and one service building , East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 , to January 4 , 1983 , at 7 : 45 p . m . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Schultz , Langhans , May , Baker . Nay - None . Planning Board 17 December 21 , 1982 • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing duly adjourned at 9 : 45 p . m . and stated that this action constitutes Public Notice of the meeting . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 19 , 1982 MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of October 19 , 1982 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Schultz , Langhans , May , Baker . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 7 , 1982 Mrs . Grigorov noted a correction needed on Page 5 , first line , i . e . , " They are applying for a Gannett Foundation grant to develop the proposal further . " ( Not a H . U . D . grant . ) MOTION b Mr . James Baker , seconded b Mr . Montgomery Mayo Y Y g Y Y RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of December 7 , 1982 , be and hereby are approved as written with the noted correction on Page 5 , line 1 , i . e . , delete " H . U . D . " , add " Gannett Foundation " . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Schultz , Langhans , May , Baker . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING BOARD CHAIRPERSON FOR 1983 MOTION by Firs . Barbara Schultz , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the appointment of Mr . Montgomery May as Planning Board Chairperson for 1983 . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Planning Board 18 December 21 , 1982 Aye - Grigorov , Schultz , Langhans , May , Baker . Nay - None . The MO'T' ION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING BOARD VICE -CHAIRPERSON FOR 1983 MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the appointment of Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov as Planning Board Vice - Chairperson for 1983 . There Being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Schultz , Langhans , May , Baker . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPOINTMENT OF TWO ( 2 ) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS TO THE CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN BOARD MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the appointment of Mrs . Virginia Langhans and Mr . Bernard Stanton to the Codes and Ordinances Committee of the Town Board for 1983 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Schultz , Langhans , May , Baker . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPOINTMENT OF ONE ( 1 ) PLANNING BOARD MEMBER TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION PLANNING COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN BOARD MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the appointment of Mrs . Barbara Schultz to the Parks and Recreation Planning is Committee of the Town Board for 1983 . Planning Board 19 December 21 , 1982 There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Schultz , Langhans , May , Baker . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . REPORT OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - CAROLYN GRIGOROV . Mrs . Grigorov reported on the County Planning Board Meeting of December 8 , 1982 . She stated that they want more information on the Areawide Planning Issues . The members were reluctant to decide on five issues only and suggested that Mrs . Grigorov offer the several issues the Board has discussed but to include specifically the Biggs Complex , Flood Damage , Solid Waste , and Rail Service . Mrs . Grigorov reported that the EMC is monitoring the Hector Land Use issue . She reported that , in addition , this year ' s priorities for the EMC are ( 1 ) salt on roads , ( 2 ) fly ash , ( 3 ) erosion and how present land use practices contribute to sedimentation . With reference to local access to PASNY Power , Mrs . Grigorov ' reported , regarding redistribution of hydropower after 1985 , a " region " cannot form an agency to distribute it , it has to be a municipality ., She reported that County Planners think that the County is the most appropriate level to form an agency to buy from PASNY to sell to NYSEG , who would then distribute . Mrs . Grigorov stated that , at the next meeting , Dan Collins of NYSEG will make a presentation and Frank Slattery of the Town of Groton will make the case for the consumer - owned side . Mrs . Grigorov commented that a consulting agency called " Betel Corporation " suggests that: municipalities could do their own distributing . Mrs . Grigorov reported that most of the meeting was a presentation by Social Services of the effect the move to Biggs would have on their staff and clients . Mrs . Grigorov mentioned some of the problems that had been pointed out with respect to any such move , e . g . , transit and time and also communication with other agencies located downtown . Mrs . Grigorov stated that the Commissioner of Planning , Frank Liguori , suggested , among other things , that half - hour bus schedule , daycare center , restaurant , banks , might well be part of the picture at the hospital to support the offices . CHRISTMAS Mrs . Langhans gave out Christmas candy to all present at • this meeting and stated that she had enjoyed her first year on the Planning :Board , and the members ' company , very much . l ,, Planning Board 20 December 21 , 1982 Chairman May wished everyone a " Very Merry Christmas and a Very , Very Happy New Year . " ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , the Chair declared the December 21 , 1982 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9 : 57 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . s