Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1984-02-21 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 21 , 1984 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , February 21 , 1984 in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , James Baker , Bernard Stanton , David Klein , Virginia Langhans , Carolyn Grigorov , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Stanley Goldberg , John Novarr , Bill Reed , Walter J . Wiggins , Esq . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and announced that there would be an additional item on the Agenda this evening , i . e . , an informal discussion with Mr . Wiggins with respect to a change in his Chateau proposal . INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH JOHN NOVARR TO CONSIDER SUBDIVISION ALTERNATIVES FOR LAND IN THE AREA OF DOVE DRIVE . Mr . Fabbroni outlined for the Board members what has been happening with respect to the former Hilker property . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , as the Board knew , he discussed this property and proposals for its development at the end of the last Planning Board meeting [ February 7 , 1984 ] . Mr . Fabbroni noted that both Mr . Goldberg and Mr . Novarr were here tonight to speak informally to their proposals . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , initially , he went back to Mr . Novarr and tried to express to him what the Planning Board ' s impressions were of what had been discussed on February 7th . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he had suggested to Mr . Novarr that he and Mr . Goldberg might want to come to the Board with their specific proposals and the density thereof . Mr . Fabbroni stated that one of the things they will present is an initial proposal for forty ( 40 ) units , clustered , in the back acreage . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the 3 . 5 units per acre requirement had been utilized , excluding the park , on those back 11 acres . Mr . Fabbroni spoke of 8 + park acres in excess of what was " owed " to the Town given by Mr . Goldberg et al on the other side , commenting that it , thus , seemed in order to exclude the park from the calculation , noting , in which case , that you would wind up with 43 units . Mr . Fabbroni spoke of 12 . 5 acres that remains and was part of the original 22 acres . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , in essence , they came back and said " alright " - - 18 units to the front lots but , the more staff thought about it , it became clear that considering the front lots actually reduced the number of units . Mr . Fabbroni stated that with his comments serving as a little background , he thought Mr . Novarr should take over at this point . • Planning Board 2 February 21 , 1984 Mr . Novarr stated that they have done a little thinking also , adding that when they had talked with Mr . Fabbroni last he had given them an impression of how he read the Board which was that he felt that 48 units would probably not sit very well , however , if they still wanted 48 units , come in and show the Board but be prepared to take less than 48 . Mr . Novarr stated that that is , in effect , what they have done . Mr . Novarr appended two drawings to the bulletin board and referred to them during his discussion . Mr . Novarr stated that these drawings show 48 units , however , he wished to make it clear that they do not , in fact , want 48 units even if the Board gave them the 48 . Mr . Novarr stated that they would like to do away with the one - bedroom units and go with two- and three -bedroom units . Mr . Novarr commented that the size and coverage would be the same but it will change the number of units , adding that there will be fewer front porches and fewer units and the square footage of living space would be slightly less . Mr . Novarr pointed out that the cluster proposal will involve two cul de sacs from Snyder - Hill Road with townhouses on either side of the roads . Mr . Novarr stated that the road is the right width , adding that Mr . Fabbroni wanted 28 feet and they show 30 feet . Mr . Novarr stated that there will be appropriate parking and pointed out garages , commenting that there will be parking space for one car off each Town highway - - the cul de sacs will be dedicated to the Town with one car in the garage , and , room for one parking space outside of the garage . Mr . Novarr stated that these units are meant to have , reference to what a residential community would look like , commenting that there will not be modern boxes here . Mr . Novarr described the feel of neighborhood and what people identify with as a sort of good living . Indicating on the drawing , Mr . Novarr pointed out a large area in the middle of the area proposed for development and stated that the area in here measures somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 . 3 acres . Mr . Novarr stated that they would see that area as the park , adding that he believed Mr . Goldberg was indebted to give the Town about half of that - - some 2 . 2 acres , however , they will double that . Pointing to the drawing , Mr . Novarr stated that the trees that are shown are not there , however , Mr . Fabbroni had asked them for a plan showing trees as they will be . Mr . Novarr stated that they would like to put the majority of trees as the Board can see here depicted if they get the money . Mr . Novarr stated that they do not want a bunch of buildings in an open field , which is what it would be without plantings . Mr . Novarr stated that the backs of the buildings are sizably different from the fronts , so that as one looks across , one sees something different . Mr . Novarr noted that they have on display typical first floor plans and second floor plans . He stated that those are pretty standard with kitchens , living rooms , dining rooms , bedrooms , and bathrooms . Mr . Novarr stated that they saw this development as a real alternative to the Commonland sort of thing which the Board has seen . Mr . Novarr stated that they think this is a more typical way to lives more Planning Board 3 February 21 , 1984 typically like a small home than what he had seen at Commonland . Mr . Novarr noted that the concept is zero - lot - line townhouses , i . e . , the people own the land underneath their home . Mr . Novarr described how each of the owner ' s unit ' s lot line extends out - - straight out , and commented that on the ends people could have more land ownership . Mr . Novarr described the kind of people who would appreciate this concept as those who would like a small yard , who work and want something with little upkeep . Using the map , Mr . Novarr pointed out the boundary lines of the land and the park in the middle which would be a Town of Ithaca park . Chairman May pointed out that the developer has not taken any advantage of solar energy at all , noting that only the ends of the buildings are toward the sun . Mr . Novarr stated that that was correct , adding that the structures will be brick and clapboard , highly insulated , although not the double envelope approach as in Commonland . Chairman May commented that that was all very fine , however , the orientation of the structures is such that there is no possibility for taking advantage of solar energy . Chairman May wondered if the reason was the roads . Mr . Novarr stated that the orientation chosen was for a number of reasons , one of which was that it gives the most buildings some kind of view . Utilizing the drawing , Mr . Novarr stated that if you put them " this " way , yes , there is a southern exposure , but the view would not be as good . Mr . Novarr talked about a college friend of his who attended the University of Vermont while he was there , Ian Tyndall , who is a landscape architect , now teaching at Harvard , and who drew the plans now before the Board . Mr . Novarr stated that Mr . Tyndall has done a good job in laying out this development so that people could live here nicely . Mr . Novarr stated that there is little southern exposure , but the site is such that to get this number of units properly scattered , it has to be done this way . Mr . Novarr stated that they have something nice here , adding that people like deadend streets . Mrs . Schultz spoke about a large open area near the center proposed park portion on the drawing . Mr . Novarr stated that that is a lot which has been sold . Mr . Goldberg stated that a Mr . Corapi is building a house there now . Chairman May noted that there is no land to be owned in common , it being private ownership of all of the lands with individual maintenance . Both Mr . Novarr and Mr . Goldberg stated that that was right . Chairman May noted that there were to be no restrictions on individual owners . Both Mr . Novarr and Mr . Goldberg stated that that was correct . Mrs . Shultz wondered who is to maintain the roads , garages , etc . Mr . Novarr stated that the Town will own the roads after they are built by the developer and then dedicated to the Town according to Town road specs . Mr . Novarr stated that the garages are just like anyone who has a garage on his property ; the owner maintains his property . Planning Board 4 February 21 , 1984 Mr . Stanton stated that it was not clear to him how the boundaries will be established . Mr . Novarr stated that the individual owner will own up to the line which he indicated on the drawing , stating that that line is a little hard to see on the drawing but it is vaguely seen there . Mr . Novarr pointed out the straight lines of ownership . Mr . Stanton noted that there will be no fences apparently and so the individual owner takes care of his property . Mr . Novarr stated that the development is no different from the way anyone deals with one ' s neighbor . Mr . Stanton wondered if the proposal was such that they were not going to build anything other than what he ( Stanton ) saw on the drawing . Mr . Novarr stated that that was right , adding that they will give them privacy fences , but beyond that , it is open . Mr . Stanton wondered if there were going to be a patio - like concrete slab out back . Mr . Novarr stated that Mr . Stanton was asking him things that they have not taken through the planning stage yet . Mr . Bill Reed spoke of it being normal in zero - lot- line development to have deed restrictions and agreement that things will be done tastefully and the purchaser agrees to those in the deed . Mr . Reed stated that there are basic deed restrictions in there to maintain the quality of life which is normally done in zero - lot - line development . Mr . Reed commented that whether there is to be a courtyard or just a divider , they have not taken the design to that stage yet , but there will be some simple deed restrictions - - for example , a restriction on someone being permitted to put a dog runner the whole width of their yard , or build a gothic dog house . Mr . Novarr stated that it is their intent to make things good for the individual but also for the group . Mrs . Langhans noted that each unit is to be two stories . Mr . Novarr stated that that was correct . Mrs . Langhans asked what the width of the individual property might be . Mr . Novarr stated that it would be about 20 feet . Mrs . Langhans wondered how far back such property might go , commenting that it looked to be about 30 feet . Mr . Novarr stated that the depth would be minimally 25 feet and at the greatest 50 or 60 feet . Mr . Novarr stated that what they would encourage , if the Town saw it this way , is that they would give the Town as much land as it is willing to take for obvious reasons . Chairman May stated that he was having difficulty with this park matter . Chairman May noted that what there will be is a public park - a Town park - together with individual maintenance by 40 some people - - plus the Town . Chairman May stated that this was a real problem for him . Mr . Lovi stated that he hoped not to see the " summer equivalent " of Town highway maintenance such as mowing the park when the grass grows in the manner we plow the roads when the snow falls . Mr . Lovi stated that the open area should be a fairly maintenance - free operation , adding that anyone who thinks it is a Town -maintained lawn is under a misconception . Mrs . Langhans pointed out that also it is a Town park which is being envisioned here and that means access to the public . Mr . Planning Board 5 February 21 , 1984 Fabbroni agreed that a Town park means that the public has access to the park . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the boundaries would have to be identified , adding , however , with respect to public parks situated such as this is proposed , it is not uncommon . Mr . Fabbroni described parks with which he , himself , was familiar in Ohio and also referenced walkways , bikeways , etc . , in the same light . Mr . Novarr stated that the park is , indeed , for people to use , adding that it seemed to him that this would work very well . Mr . Novarr stated that , essentially , the developer follows the lead here , adding that they have explored this idea with the Town Planning Department , adding that it seemed to make sense to them as developers . Mr . Novarr , indicating on the map , stated that the Town owns all the land " up here " . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Town does not own the referenced land , Cornell University does , adding that it just appears that way because the Town water tank is there . Mr . Novarr continued and indicated on the map that a park was talked about " up here " , 2 . 2 acres . Mr . Novarr stated that if that is what the Board wants , let them know because they do not want the Town to have to go into the mowing business . Chairman May stated that Mr . Novarr would have to have some better definition of the boundaries of the proposed park . Mr . Novarr stated that he thought they were afraid that if they put in a fence to define it , then it does not seem to be " open " to those who would use it . Mr . Klein stated that he was troubled as to the access by the public to what appears to be " private " space . Mr . Klein pointed out that a common area down the middle , territory defined by the townhouses , gives the appearance of " belonging " to the landowners . Mr . Klein stated that he was worried that people would be selfish about this Town park . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the staff was never overjoyed by that ( indicating on map ) northeast parcel of land as a park because the water line goes through the high point of that particular park area . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , in order to level off that particular parcel for use as a park , it means lowering the water line , adding that the alternative is not using the land . Mr . Fabbroni stated that for that reason , the center portion - - slope -wise and otherwise - - presents a lot of opportunity . Mr . Fabbroni , recalling that a deed was written up for that original park , stated that , even if we could have levelled it off , the only use would be a ballfield , adding that that park originally proposed would be a limited purpose park because of its configuration and size . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that this area is the only flat part in this whole area . Mr . Goldberg stated that a very important aspect of this development has not been emphasized enough and he would like to speak definitively to that aspect which is the zero - lot- line concept . Mr . Goldberg spoke of deed restrictions , protective covenants , homeowners ' associations and the need to comply with whatever rules must be complied with . Mr . Goldberg stated that they have tried to absolutely stop that sort of thing . Mr . Goldberg stated that the concept offers another option for the Planning Board 6 February 21 , 1984 people who live in the Town of Ithaca , adding that many other communities are dealing with it and we should look toward the same . Mr . Goldberg stated that it is a decision for the Town to make as to who does what , when and how . Mr . Goldberg commented that almost 15 years ago was when the transferring of the park land began . Mr . Goldberg stated that whether the Town wants 2 . 2 acres , 3 . 4 acres , 4 . 7 acres - - they do not care , adding that they are going to deed land as part of the sale price and the purchaser may have land back to here or from here to here ( indicating on drawing ) . Mr . Goldberg spoke of restrictive covenants as to the amount of maintenance and land in the park as being up to the Town . Mr . Goldberg stated again that they do not care , pointing out that there is some 4 . 3 acres for the Town but if the Town says no , it will be deeded to prospective purchasers . Mr . Goldberg spoke of the marketing possibilities envisioned , stating that the two - bedroom units would be around $ 60 , 000 and the three -bedroom around the $ 68 , 000 range . Mr . Goldberg explained that this means there would have to be combined incomes of a family of $ 25 , 000 in order to qualify for the two - bedroom , or , a combined income of $ 30 , 000 to $ 32 , 000 to qualify for the three - bedroom . Mr . Goldberg noted that they are opening a new option in the Town of Ithaca , that is , it is new in Ithaca and not new to the world . Mr . Novarr stated that this proposal is for modest housing - - not low income - - for people who cannot afford the $ 100 , 000 place to live but who want something substantially more than a trailer . Mr . Novarr stated that their research has shown that appropriately priced homes are selling , mentioning Commonland again . Mr . Reed stated that there are two distinct markets which will be reached , one of which is the small family going for their first house where both the husband and wife work . Mr . Reed stated that their proposal to include a garage is an important part of this project because most people who work need a place for two cars . Mr . Reed stated that the open space and the green space are important aspects to these people . Mr . Reed stated that they do not think that these people necessarily emphasize the total square footage that they might own , but appreciate an appropriately sized piece of property and and appropriately sized unit . Mr . Reed stated that the other group of people are those who wish to stay here in Ithaca but want to move down in size perhaps because they winter in Florida but stay here in the summer . Mr . Reed stated that they very much hope to be a part of the SONYMA process , adding that if it still exists they will apply for that . Mr . Reed spoke of the SONYMA program limit of $ 68 , 000 . Mr . Reed commented on the way the project will look visually noting that one would see trees , and then garages , and then houses - - just like a neighborhood street . Mr . Novarr described again the makeup of the 40 units , noting that the units will be about 50 % two-bedroom and 50 % three -bedroom and approximately 8 clusters of 5 units each . Planning Board 7 February 21 , 1984 Mr . Goldberg pointed out that there is less density with . this plan than on the approved plan of March 31 , 1981 . Mr . Goldberg stated that they did not want to ruin something in the front by something in the back . Mr . Novarr agreed , adding that he is very careful about his reputation , Mr . Stanton stated that he thought the question of small back lots is crucial to people who buy as well as to the developer who wishes to sell them and to the Planning Board , Mr . Goldberg commented that he would like the Planning Board to tell them how much land it wants . Mr . Novarr stated that Mr . Stanton has valid questions but they do not have the answers to them at the moment , adding that they need to know the direction the Board is coming from . Chairman May stated that the Board does have concerns about the so - called park area or open area in the middle of the two clusters . Chairman May stated that he did too . Both Chairman May and Mr . Stanton indicated that they , personally , would not buy one of those places with a small lot and some sort of ill - defined open area . Chairman May suggested that Messrs . Goldberg and Novarr get together with Susan Beeners , Peter Lovi , and Larry Fabbroni and figure out how the maintenance would be handled . Mr . Goldberg stated that they were asking what the Board ' s pleasure is . Chairman May stated that the Board did not really know either , Mr . Goldberg stated that the land is there ; they have done their financing , the 40 units complies with the cluster regulations . Mrs . Grigorov commented that it was obviously better to have someone else taking care of the center portion , but she was not sure whether it should be the Town . Mr . Lovi referred to a comment that was made about there being a large amount of land which anyone is free to walk on and noted that Mr . Klein had made the point well that such an area would be seen as personal space , a common area for the owners only . Mr . Lovi stated that the developers ' wanting to have the " park " in the middle provides a very good amenity and bundling that amenity in with the project would make it more competitive with other projects in the Town , Mr . Novarr stated that if that is what the Town thinks , that is okay . Mr . Goldberg commented that it was fine with him also to have a " parkland " deeded to an association as opposed to the Town . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he thought he had said it clearly that a park in the center is the most desirable were it to be a Town park , adding that where it was previously designed to be under the Hilker plan is not good , Mr . Fabbroni stated that if it is the Board ' s wish not to have a park that is fine . Chairman May commented that there would have to be some line of demarcation , so to speak . Mrs . Langhans pointed out that it was pretty clear in the case of the Eastern Heights Park that the people see it as their private park , Mr . Fabbroni agreed that the problem was certainly somewhat the same but , at the same time , not similar , Mr . Fabbroni stated that the area that Mr . Goldberg is talking about is the only area which would meet the need that the Town has in the Eastern Heights area for soccer for field sports . Mr . Fabbroni stated that field sports are out Planning Board 8 February 21 , 1984 of the question with respect to the park designation on the . earlier subdivision , emphasizing that there is a need , but noting again that the topography is a mess up above . Mr . Fabbroni reiterated that the center portion of the site under discussion is the flattest part of the site . Chairman May pointed out to Mr . Goldberg that he would have everyone coming to a public park , adding , for sake of conversation , that it could be a soccer field , and asked Mr . Goldberg how that would affect the marketing of the townhouses . Mr . Goldberg indicated that he had not thought about that aspect . Mr . Klein questioned Mr . Goldberg as to having planned on there being a homeowners ' association . Mr . Goldberg stated that they did not plan to have a homeowners ' association prior to this evening ' s discussion . Mr . Klein wondered if he had been planning to have a separate deed for the house and garage . Mr . Goldberg replied , yes , with easements to the garages . Chairman May commented that there sometimes are problems with one person in a garage where one kid works on a car in his garage half the night . Mr . Reed stated that the possibility of a homeowners ' association exists but they do not want to have those surcharges that are often a part of that concept , adding that those kinds of maintenance fees take the project out of the range of persons who can afford to live there . Mr . Reed stated that they want it simple . Mr . Klein spoke of the ownership of the garages as being a good point of this potential project and wondered if the developer had studied putting the garage as a part of the unit where the definition of the lot line is , such that a person could say - - this is my garage and my unit . Mr . Klein commented that such an approach would also give a better back yard . Mr . Stanton commented on how people who live near Belle Sherman School tend to extend their property into the School grounds . Mrs . Langhans mentioned that those living near Northeast School do the same thing . Mr . Fabbroni stated that if what is being talked about for the " park " area is picnic tables and play areas , it should be clear that from the Town ' s point of view there is no interest in that , pointing out that the Town has 13 acres of park across the street . Mr . Lovi suggested that the developer should keep in mind , if the flat area is for active space , the question of whether that compromises the marketing . Mr . Lovi stated that the attitude of the Town with respect to an active site should be up front . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he wished to ask a couple of questions at this point having to do with the reason he had suggested to Mr . Goldberg that he come before the Board with his proposal informally - - ( 1 ) whether the Board wants to consider cluster development for this site ; ( 2 ) if the consensus is that the Board does not want a park interior to this development , what Planning Board 9 February 21 , 1984 • direction should the developer proceed , be it either some other approach to park development or no park and , at the same time adjust the site plan for a preliminary subdivision hearing to reflect that direction ; ( 3 ) whether he should try to make the lots a little bigger than 20 ' . Mr . Fabbroni stated that those general things are what should come from this informal meeting so that they can come in with a meaningful site plan and not just another alternative . Chairman May agreed that the Board should provide direction for the developer and asked for the opinion of the Board as to the cluster approach . Mrs . Grigorov indicated that the clustering was something she approved of but she would like to add that if the center area is the best place for an active park it would be too bad to pass it up . Mr . Goldberg wondered about the use of the area farther north as park and an open area under the aegis of a homeowners ' association in the center . Chairman May indicated that he felt the Board could respond to the matter of clustering , to the number of units , and should address to some extent the matter of the open space , however , the developer needs to do work on that question also as to how he would want to handle it . Chairman May asked for the Board ' s feeling as far as the cluster concept goes . Mr . Stanton stated that a 40 -unit clustered project is good as far as he is concerned . Chairman May stated that he liked cluster himself even though he did have trouble with the developer not utilizing the solar energy aspect as fully as he would like to see . Mr . Reed noted that the orientation of the project allows for the east light in the morning with good light in the unit all day . Mr . Reed stated that an east / west orientation is the best way to site this project on this property , adding that they had many discussions on this and noting that the project would have to be turned 90 degrees for solar . It was the consensus of the Board that the cluster approach was acceptable . Chairman May asked for the Board ' s feeling on the number of units being proposed - - 40 . It was noted that the number of units had been reduced to 40 from the earlier discussion of 48 which is below the 3 . 5 units per acre permitted assuming that a park area is not taken out . It was the consensus of the Board that this was a resonable number of units with which the Board had no problem . Chairman May asked for the Board ' s feeling as to the open space . Mr . Goldberg stated that the Board ' s discussion on this aspect has opened his eyes to problems and that the problems the Board noted are his concerns now . Mr . Goldberg stated that he really did not want a soccer field there either . Mr . Goldberg stated that he has no problem with that area run by a homeowner ' s association with whatever legalities , etc . , there need be , however , they need direction as to how much park the Board wants . Mr . Goldberg stated that they are obligated to 2 . 2 acres and asked if the Board wanted that or does it want more . Chairman f r Planning Board 10 February 21 , 1984 May stated that Mr . Goldberg needed to address how he is going to handle the back yards , adding that the Board would like as much parkland as makes sense . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it appears that the Board does not want a public park in the middle and if that is , indeed , the case , then staff can work on a usable area which could be their recommendation to the Board and the developer as to open space . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it is important to come out of here tonight knowing that the Board does not want a public park in the middle . Chairman May and Mrs . Grigorov indicated that they were not sure the Board said that , noting that the gradients are most desirable there . Mr . Klein wondered if the Board must take a park , pointing out that it has the right to take land but it can take money in lieu of parkland as long as that money goes into the park fund . Mr . Fabbroni noted a very recent court decision which would appear to indicate that a municipality can require the setting aside of open space but cannot require it being deeded to the municipality . The Secretary reminded the Chair that it has been the practice of the Town to have homeowners ' association agreements reviewed by the Town Attorney and presented to the Town Board for its approval . Mr . Reed stated that an agreement could also be dealt with within the deed . Messrs . Goldberg , Novarr , and Reed thanked the Board and Mr . Fabbroni for its time and consideration and indicated that they would be returning in the near future . NON -AGENDA ITEM PRESENTATION BY WALTER J . WIGGINS , ESQ . WITH RESPECT TO CHANGE IN THE SITE PLAN FOR PROPOSED COUNTRY INN DEVELOPMENT AT 1152 DANBY ROAD ADJACENT TO EXISTING L ' AUBERGE DU COCHON ROUGE , Mr . Wiggins appeared before the Board and thanked the members for allowing him to be included in the Agenda . Mr . Wiggins stated that he was somewhat embarrassed by the situation facing him , however , he did appreciate being able to discuss the matter with the Board immediately . Mr . Wiggins stated that when he and his architect started into the final drawings and when they had the property surveyed he realized that he had completely forgotten about a parcel of land which he had conveyed to his daughter , the unfortunate part being that three - quarters of the proposed Chateau was on that parcel - - his daughter ' s land and she lives in Tahiti . Mr . Wiggins stated that he contacted his daughter and she made it quite clear that she does not want The Chateau on her land . Mr . Wiggins appended to the bulletin board the site plan , dated February 1 , 1984 which the Board had reviewed at its February 7th meeting , together with the revised site plan dated February 21 , 1984 , and also the survey dated February 8 , 1984 as prepared by George C . Schlecht , L . P . E . , L . L . S . Indicating on the maps and commenting on necessity being the mother of invention , Mr . Wiggins stated that a new configuration • . Planning Board 11 February 21 , 1984 for The Chateau had been drawn . Mr . Wiggins noted that the project has been squeezed down and stated that it is actually better for everyone . Mr . Wiggins pointed out that The Chateau is now farther away from two residences and the acreage involved is 17 . 9 rather than 20 . 4 . Mr . Wiggins briefly described the new configuration of The Chateau , noting a center portion slightly separated from each of the two legs . Mr . Wiggins indicated on the drawing certain revised access ways , pathways , and parking . Mr . Wiggins indicated a more appropriate placement of the pool and pointed out the open tennis court . Mr . Wiggins asked if the Board had any questions . Chairman May commented that the removing of the land owned by Mr . Wiggins ' daughter from the area under consideration opened up that land to development . Mr . Wiggins responded that he supposed that was true , however , he had no qualms with getting restrictions . Mr . Klein noted that Phase 1 of The Chateau appears to be about 40 feet from the lot line of Mr . Wiggins ' daughter ' s parcel . Mr . Wiggins , indicating on the new drawing , stated that he was quite happy to have a certain area of the land he had conveyed to his daughter restricted . Mr . Stanton , Mrs . Schultz , and Mrs . Grigorov indicated that they had no problem with the revisions presented by Mr . Wiggins . Mr . Wiggins stated that he will represent to the Board that his daughter has no interest in developing this land , adding that she does not want it to be developed and is happy to have The Chateau farther away . Mr . Wiggins commented again on the three separated parts of The Chateau , separated and yet connected , and noted that the number of units is still 80 . Mr . Stanton stated that he rather liked the new plan . Mr . Klein agreed , commenting that there is better advantage taken of the views with this approach . Mr . Lovi stated that , also , there is an improvement in the way the parking is integrated into the site , commenting that , with the previous plan , one had to cross over the " street " . Mr . Lovi pointed out that previously 20 . 4 acres had been included in the multiple residence zone and stated that the Town Attorney will probably request modifying the zone to Mr . Wiggins ' actual parcel . Mr . Wiggins responded , yes . Mr . Lovi noted again that the architect had drawn the footprint of the tennis court and that it was shown as an open , two - court , tennis court . It was the clear consensus of the Board that the members had no problem with the drawing dated February 21 , 1984 and that Mr . Wiggins should proceed . Mr . Wiggins thanked the Board , explaining that he wanted to bring this matter right in because he did not want to appear before the Board for Site Plan Approval and suddenly have them looking at a different building . Chairman May asked that Mr . Wiggins show on the final site the landscaping f . Planning Board 12 February 21 , 1984 . plan . Mr . Wiggins noted the " tree legend " on the drawing before the Board . Mr . Lovi stated that , in order for the Board ' s feelings on this revised layout to be clear , he would appreciate the Board ' s considering the following statement which he would be presenting to the Town Supervisor , being that the Planning Board members agreed that the site plan drawing dated February 21 , 1984 , as presented by Mr . Wiggins , has the same elements and attributes as had been previously accepted by the Planning Board , arranged in a slightly different order . Each of the Board members present individually stated that he or she had no disagreement with Mr . Lovi ' s statement . At this point , Chairman May stated that he wished to speak with the Board members with respect to the Town Board Resolution adopted on February 13th having to do with Mr . Wiggins ' rezoning request . Chairman May noted that each Board member had received a copy of this Resolution prior to tonight ' s meeting and , he assumed , reviewed it . The Board indicated that they were familiar with the Resolution and it appeared to be in order . The members noted that the Resolution calls for the drafting of a Local Law to be approved by the Town Board as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish the Multiple Residence District , Chairman May pointed out that Section 3 , on page 3 , of the Resolution states " The Chairman of the Planning Board shall review this resoltuion and submit any comments , after discussion with the Planning Board , to the Supervisor and the Town Attorney . " The Board members discussed the Resolution with the Chairman and the following statement of consensus was stated by Chairman May . " With respect to the Resolution adopted by the Town Board on February 13 , 1984 , in the matter of the rezoning from Residence District R30 to Multiple Residence District , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed said Resolution , discussed it at its meeting of February 21 , 1984 , and indicated to the Chairman of the Planning Board that he may inform the Supervisor and the Town Attorney that the Planning Board has no problem with said Resolution as submitted for their comment . " WORKING REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND ZONING ORDINANCE . It being 9 : 25 p . m . , Chairman May suggested that the above - noted Agenda Item be postponed . Chairman May urged that these matters be taken up in the very near future and agreed with Mrs . Grigorov that they be placed first on the Agenda . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the February 21 , 1984 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9 : 30 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .