HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1984-04-03 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
APRIL 3 , 1984
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , April 3 , 1984 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Vice - Chairman Carolyn Grigorov , Barbara Schultz , James
Baker , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Bernard Stanton ,
Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Peter M . Lovi
( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : I . Stanley Goldberg , Joan G . Allen , Noel Desch ,
Supervisor , Town of Ithaca , Steve Lucente , Rocco
P . Lucente , R . A . Boehlecke Jr . , Henry Aron ,
Chairman , Zoning Board of Appeals , Town of Ithaca ,
Diane Walker , Marge Giannella , Mario Giannella ,
Peter J . Rider , Gerardo Sciarra , Peter Jackson ,
Jerry Weisburd , John Novarr , Shirley
Raffensperger , Councilwoman , Town of Ithaca , Nancy
Jackson , Larry Caldwell , Scott Camazine , Ed Hooks ,
Esq . , Larry Rosenberg , Pamela Rosenberg , Wayne
Corapi , Roger Allen , Bernard A . Hutchins Jr . ,
Frank Walker , Gilbert W . Gillespie , Gerald Crance ,
James Clapp , Steve Muka , Donna Duncan , Martin A .
Shapiro , Esq . , Robert Bartholf , Councilman , Town
of Ithaca , Karen Huxtable ( OK / 100 Radio ,
Cortland ) , Brian G . Bourle ( Q - 104 FM ) , Robert
Jason ( WTKO News ) , Mary Earle ( WHCU News ) , Deborah
Gesensway ( Ithaca Journal ) .
Vice -Chairman Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at
7 : 30 p . m .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board Meeting of March 6 , 1984 , be and hereby are approved as
written .
There being no further discussion , the Vice -Chair called for
a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Stanton .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
REPORT OF THE TOWN ENGINEER , LAWRENCE P . FABBRONI
Planning Board 2 April 3 , 1984
• The Secretary announced that Mr . Fabbroni would be late due
to conflict in meetings ; there would be no report from the Town
Engineer this evening .
REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER , PETER M . LOVI
Mr . Lovi reported that a public informational meeting was
held last night by the Six Mile Creek Study Committee at Central
Fire Station , Mr . Lovi stated that the full report of that
Committee is contained in a tome which he passed around for Board
member review , commenting that it is the culmination of about 14
months of meetings and about 1 , 000 man - hours of effort . Mr . Lovi
stated that it now goes to the City of Ithaca Common Council
meeting tomorrow night , April 4th , where it will be presented by
the Committee , and then parceled out among the various committees
of Common Council , Mr . Lovi stated that at some point , since
there would have to be some policy changes if this were
implemented , there would no doubt be some environmental review
also before this Board . Mr . Lovi commented on the single item
which was the most controversial , that being the no swimming
issue . Mr . Lovi stated that access to all the area of the gorge
at present is prohibited with the exception of The Circle
Greenway and the Wildflower Trail , commented that that is not
commonly understood , and added that the ironic presumption was in
order to make the area less restrictive it was necessary to make
• it open which is what was seen as the problem in the first place .
Mr . Lovi distributed a pamphlet advertising the Common Council
meeting , stating that he thought the Board members might want to
attend since the discussions are quite interesting . Mr . Lovi
noted that it had been suggested and there was considerable
discussion on alternative areas for swimming , such as Beebe Lake ,
a rejuvinated Stewart Park , etc . , adding that they are referred
to in the report as " natural swimming areas " , not to be confused
with swimming " au naturel " .
On other planning matters , Mr . Lovi stated that work is
proceeding on the zoning ordinance now that the subdivision
regulations have been adopted . Referring to those subdivision
regulations , the Secretary , Mrs . Fuller , stated that she would
like to compliment Mr . Lovi one the work he put into the
development and passage of the new subdivision regulations and ,
in addition to that , on his utilization of the IBM Displaywriter
System ' s capabilities to print the document in booklet form , the
cover for which was designed by Michael Ocello , The Board
members fully agreed and expressed their appreciation also .
Turning to the upcoming Agenda matters , Mr . Lovi stated that
it had been requested at the last meeting and on other occasions
it had been mentioned that it was helpful to have draft
resolutions prepared for Board consideration at the meetings as a
kind of overall architecture to hang on . Mr . Lovi stated that he
. had tried as best as is possible to put these together along with
his recommendations as a staff person professionally . Noting
that draft resolutions had been forwarded to the Board members by
a
Planning Board 3 April 3 , 1984
• the Secretary with their meeting material , Mr . Lovi stated that ,
in the interim , it has also been suggested that as a matter of
fairness a contrary recommendation should be drafted for Board
consideration so as to not appear as though staff were leading
the Board . The Secretary distributed such proposed resolutions
to the Board .
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY , NANCY M . FULLER
Mrs . Fuller stated that she had obtained four copies of the
Summary Report of the Six Mile Creek Study Committee and
distributed them to those members who wished to have them at the
moment to share with other Board members . The Secretary
distributed copies of a Petition and a letter , just received ,
with respect to the Lucente Public Hearing , The Secretary
commented on an article in the New York Planning Federation
Planning News , copies of which she had mailed to the Board ,
stating that it was well worth reading as it presents rather
nicely the history of planning and zoning and their relationship
with the courts .
REVIEW OF REPORT OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR , LEWIS D . CARTEE
The Secretary noted that Mr . Cartee ' s Report indicates the
issuance of 5 building permits in the month of March for
$ 115 , 847 . 00 in improvements , as compared with 8 permits in March
• of 1983 for $ 176 , 850 . 00 in improvements .
REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD , CAROLYN GRIGOROV
Mrs . Grigorov reported on the March 14 , 1984 meeting of the
CPB , as follows :
WETLANDS - There is concern in Dryden that designation could
inhibit expansion of the Senior Citizen Housing . Mr . Liguori
said that there could be a problem with the Landstrom landfill
and some places in the City . Land is classified by the plants
growing there ( certain sedges , grasses , trees ) . Before draining
or filling , a permit from the State must be obtained . Value of a
Wetland : besides wildlife ( important habitat ) , it protects
ground water and can aid in soil conservation and flood controls
wetlands act as filters for acquifers . Maps showing all
designated lands can be seen in the County Planning Office with
public hearing on March 14th and March 21st .
METERED PARKING AREA Will be between Planning Building and
Court Houses developed by County ; to be run by the City , not
finalized .
PASNY & MARCY SOUTH Quebec Power ( both hydro and nuclear ) would
• save New York State $ 186 , 000 , 000 a year and z billion gallons of
oil . All but 200 of the line would be over existing rights of
way . ( The Town of Marcy is above Utica and the line goes from
Planning Board 4 April 3 , 1984
there to East Fishkill in Dutchess County . ) The right of way is
200 - 300 feet wide . Towns impacted by transmission line will get
$ 12 million in grants to be used for any municipal project . No
tax loss . Decision next week or two . 10 % of New York State ' s
total demand could come from Canada - - new power plants not
needed as soon . The line ' s voltage will not be as high as the
765 and 800 KV that has been objected to in Massena - - it will be
345 KV with 4 or 5 poles per mile ; the cables are high , impact
always debatable , but certainly preferable to new power plant .
U -FAIR PARCEL - Pending architectural survey , if land okay , will
build 55 - person jail .
ROUTE 96 - Refer to Minutes , copies of which Mrs . Fuller sends to
Board , for detailed description to route for Route 96 ,
LIBRARY FACILITIES - Will be at Challenge Industries while the
asbestos is being removed .
TOMTRAN - The great response from the public concerning Greyhound
and TOMTRAN was gratifying and helpful . Greyhound has withdrawn
its objection .
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING : SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF
A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO REQUEST TO
REZONE TAX PARCELS NUMBER 6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 12 THROUGH 6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 25 FROM
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . 108
THROUGH 230 SAPSUCKER WOODS ROAD . ROCCO P . LUCENTE ,
OWNER / DEVELOPER ,
Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Adjourned Public Hearing
in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 50 p . m . The Secretary
read aloud both the Petition and letter which had been received
this date , April 3 , 1984 , as follows :
( 1 ) Petition - - " April 1 , 1984
Suggestions to be considered by the Ithaca Town Planning
Board when considering Rocco Lucente ' s application for
rezoning of his properties on Sapsucker Woods Road from R- 15
to Multifamily .
1 . If the properties in question are rezoned to
Multifamily it is imperative that they be owner
occupied .
2 . If a property is 40 % destroyed that property may be
rebuilt only under the terms and use of today ' s R- 15
ordinance .
3 . There must be a population limit for each property and
housing unit .
4 . There must be well defined parking spots for each unit
of housing and formally assigned to a particular unit .
5 . There must be permanent barriers such as anchored
• railroad ties between parking areas and green areas .
( grass etc . )
Planning Board 5 April 3 , 1984
6 . New plantings will include several larger trees with a
minimum DBH of 5 inches . This would apply to each
property .
7 . Each property will be provided with an attractive
' garbage house ' that has four walls , roof and can be
properly latched . It must be animal proof and of
adequate size to accommodate each unit of housing and
will be located at the rear of each building .
8 . There will be periodic compliance inspections by the
zoning officer .
9 . Loss of value to neighboring and surrounding properties
will be recognized and accepted by the Tompkins County
Assessment Department .
( sgd . ) David G . Allen , 254 Sapsucker Woods Road
Joan G . Allen , 254 Sapsucker Woods Road
Charles R . Smith , 159 Sapsucker Woods Road , Laboratory
of Ornithology
Ernie C . Cohen [ ? ] , 67 Sapsucker Woods Road
Lida Mitchell , 51 Sapsucker Woods Road
Brian F . Chabot , 246 Sapsucker Woods Road
Jean F . Chabot , 246 Sapsucker Woods Road
Teresa J . Caterfylus [ ? ] , 67 Sapsucker Woods Road
Nancy C . Miller , 65 Sapsucker Woods Road
Francis F . Miller , 65 Sapsucker Woods Road
Geoff & Cindy Wright , 55 Sapsucker Woods Road
Neil F . Brown , 1502 Hanshaw Road
Steve Kress , 15 Sapsucker Woods Road
Patricia H . Ostrander , 1460 Hanshaw Road
Joan H . Carlson , 1464 Hanshaw Road
Genetta Cade , 412 Virgil Dryden Road , Dryden
Tom J . Cade , 412 Virgil Dryden Road , Dryden
A . J . Ledner
Marie Read
Sandra L . Gilbert
James S . Gulley [ ? ] , 115 Dearborn Place , City
Karen L . Snaker -Confer [ ? ] , R . D . 1 , Hammond Hill Road ,
John E . Thompson Brooktondale
Margaret L . Shepherd , 101 Valley Road , City
Helen Hedlund , 110 Homestead Road , City
Sally Stutz , 49 Woodcrest Avenue , City
John Confer , Hammond Hill , Brooktondale
Dorothy W . McIlroy , 419 Triphammer Road , Cayuga Heights
Mr . & Mrs . Tanaka Hashimoto , 1462 Hanshaw Road
Mr . & Mrs . Mario Perfetti , 1466 Hanshaw Road
Audrey H . O ' Connor , 151 Sapsucker Woods Road
Lynne McKeon , 162 South Street Extension , Dryden
Donna Jo Cressman , 159 Sapsucker Woods Road , Laboratory
of Ornithology
M . M . Barclay , 159 Sapsucker Woods Road , Laboratory of
Ornithology
. Janet Christopher , 159 Sapsucker Woods Road , Laboratory
of Ornithology "
Planning Board 6 April 3 , 1984
• ( 2 ) Letter - - " April 2 , 1984
Ithaca Town Planning Board . . .
The following suggestions relate to Rocco Lucente ' s
application for rezoning of his properties on Sapsucker
Woods Road from R- 15 to Multifamily , The suggestions are
intended to improve the appearance of these properties and
thereby increase property values on adjacent and neighboring
real estate ,
1 . If the properties are rezoned to multifamily , they
should be owner occupied .
2 . There should be a population limit for each housing
unit .
3 . The buildings should be repainted ( from bright blue ,
green and pink ) to colors that permit the buildings to
blend into the landscape such as white , yellow , beige ,
brown or grey . Brick facing or cedar siding are other
appropriate alternatives .
4 . There should be well defined parking areas for each
building . These should be separated from lawn areas by
anchored railroad ties .
5 . Evergreen trees such as arborvitae , blue spruce and
hemlock should be planted to separate each property and
screen it from Sapsucker Road , The number of
foundation shrubs should be increased . Trees used for
screening should include several large specimens with
DBH of 3 - 5 inches .
• 6 . Garbage collection areas must be vermin - proof and
located to the rear of the buildings ,
7 . There should be periodic compliance inspections by the
town zoning officer .
8 . Loss of value to neighboring and surrounding properties
should be recognized by the Tompkins County Assessment
Department .
( sgd . ) Stephen W . Kress
15 Sapsucker Woods Road "
Mr . Lovi stated that the draft resolution which he prepared
in this matter and which was mailed with the Board members '
agendas has two parts , the first of which has , in itself , three
parts relating to Section 78 of the Zoning Ordinance wherein
determinations to be made by the Planning Board in making
recommendations to the Town Board are specifically set forth .
Mr . Lovi read aloud the draft resolution in its entirety , as
follows :
" DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATION : Lucente
Rezoning
RESOLVED , that concerning the proposal of Mr . Rocco Lucente to
rezone lands on Sapsucker Woods Road , tax parcels number
6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 12 through 6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 25 from Residence District R15 to
• Multiple Residence Distrct , the Planning Board make and hereby
does make the following determinations , findings , and recom-
mendations to the Town Board :
Planning Board 7 April 3 , 1984
• 1 . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location in order to reduce the number of unrelated persons
presently permitted to live in the 14 properties . At
present , there may be as many as 14 unrelated persons
residing in each of the 14 structures . The parking areas ,
garbage facilities , size of lots , and landscaping , are
insufficient to properly accommodate such a number of
unrelated persons in a manner harmonious with the general
character of the surrounding neighborhood .
It is the developer ' s plan to partition each level of the
building into a one -bedroom and a two -bedroom dwelling unit ,
each with a full bathroom and kitchen . The Planning Board
understands that the utilities necessary for such a
conversion are largely in place .
The present proposal would reduce the number of unrelated
persons permitted in each of the 14 structures . The
developer has indicated his willingness to accept
restrictive covenants in each of the deeds , each covenant to
list each of the 13 other properties and the Town as bene -
ficiaries with full powers of enforcement . These covenants
would restrict the occupancy to one household for each of
the one - bedroom dwelling units per building and a household
and one unrelated person for each unit with two or more
bedrooms . A household would be defined as ' Any number of
• related persons , but no more than two unrelated persons
occupying a single dwelling unit . As a result of these
occupancy restrictions , a maximum number of 10 unrelated
persons would be permitted to live in each of the 14
structures .
The Planning Board further recommends that , in the event
that a subsequent owner remodels any of the 14 buildings to
have less than 4 dwelling units , such a change shall be
irreversible , and such an owner shall forfeit any prior ,
non - conforming right to maintain 4 dwelling units on the
property . The sole exception to this provision should be in
case of destruction by fire or act of God , the owner shall
have the opportunity to rebuild a structure , of similar
dimensions , and maintain 4 dwelling units . If , however , the
owner rebuilds with a structure of different dimensions or
less than 4 dwelling units , the owner shall have forfeited
the right to subsequently remodel the building and maintain
4 dwelling units .
2 . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood will be improved as a result of this proposal .
At present and in the past , large numbers of automobiles
have parked in the front yards and alongside the street ,
refuse has been strewn around the garbage receptacles , and
. the receptacles themselves are not appropriately landscaped .
Planning Board 8 April 3 , 1984
Following the proposed site plan and landscaping scheme , and
in conjunction with the occupancy restrictions , the
aesthetic quality of Sapsucker Woods Road will be improved .
New trees and shrubs will be planted , parking areas will be
improved , graded , defined , and paved with oil and stone .
The reduction in the number of unrelated persons will reduce
the traffic through the neighborhood , and the partition of
the building into separate apartments should have the effect
of reducing overall noise in the area .
3 . The proposed change would be in accordance with a
comprehensive plan of development of the Town . A policy of
the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance is to allow for
a variety of land uses and residential alternatives in the
Town . In addition , it is desirable for non - conforming uses
to be gradually brought into substantial , if not actual ,
conformance with the accepted zoning pattern for the Town
and the immediate neighborhood character .
The present development scheme would permit the developer to
economically convert and sell these structures to as many as
14 independent owners . It is considered that competitive
pressures , and the requirements of final site plan approval ,
will result in a more attractive and conventionally
residential neighborhood than exists at present . Over the
longer run , a provision in the resolution of rezoning that
any subsequent conversion of these properties to a structure
with less than four dwelling units is irreversible will
result in gradual return of this neighborhood to an R15
residential character indistinguishable from the remainder
of the community , and the Town in general .
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and
hereby does recommend the following resolution for the
consideration of the Town Board :
' The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca resolves to amend the
Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca to permit the 14 buildings
located at 108 through 230 Sapsucker Woods Road , tax parcels
number 6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 12 through 6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 25 to be modified to permit
the conversion to 4 dwelling units subject to the following terms
and conditions :
i . The underlying zoning designation of the land shall remain
Residence District R15 and all yard , lot , and area
requirements , except as otherwise modified by this
resolution , shall remain in effect .
2 . The front yard and parking requirements of this district are
hereby modified to permit construction of a parking area as
described in a final site plan to be approved by the
• Planning Board .
Planning Board 9 April 3 , 1984
3 . Each of the 14 buildings affected by this amendment shall be
permitted to be remodeled as two , two -bedroom dwelling units
and two , one -bedroom dwelling units , as more particularly
detailed in a final building plan and final site plan to be
approved by the Planning Board .
4 . The occupancy of the one - bedroom dwelling units shall be
limited to one household , where a household is defined as ,
' any number of related persons , but no more than two
unrelated persons occupying a single dwelling unit . '
5 . The occupancy of the two - bedroom dwelling units shall be
limited to one household and one unrelated person .
6 . Covenants completely describing these occupancy restrictions
shall be placed in the deeds to each of the properties ,
naming each of the other 13 properties affected by this
amendment as principal beneficiaries of these covenants and
giving the Town of Ithaca the right , but not the obligation ,
of enforcement .
7 . An additional covenant shall be placed in all the deeds
setting forth that , in the event a building is subsequently
modified so as to have fewer than four dwelling units , such
modification is irreversible , and such an owner shall
forfeit any prior right to maintain 4 dwelling units on the
property .
8 . The sole exception to this provision shall be in case of
destruction by fire or act of God , the owner shall have the
opportunity to rebuild a similar structure , of similar
dimensions , and maintain 4 dwelling units . If , however , the
owner rebuilds with a structure of different dimensions or
less than 4 dwelling units , the owner shall have forfeited
the right to subsequently remodel the building and maintain
4 dwelling units .
9 . The present owner and developer accepts , in written form ,
that at such time as construction commences on the
modification of any property covered by this amendment , he
forever waives and forfeits any future right to rent that
particular building , or any structure which may be later
constructed on that particular site , to more unrelated
persons than permitted by the occupany restrictions
described above .
Referring to paragraph # 6 , above , Mr . Lovi stated that that
approach is somewhat sprung on the Board and has not been
particularly discussed , but it has come up in the Novarr
discussions . Mr . Lovi stated that that should be discussed
further .
• Mr . Lovi now read aloud the other draft resolution for Board
consideration , as follows :
Planning Board 10 April 3 , 1984
. " DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATION : Lucente
Rezoning
RESOLVED , that in the matter of site plan review and
consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board with respect
to request to rezone Tax Parcels number 6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 12 through
6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 25 from Residence District R15 to Multiple Residence
District , 108 through 230 Sapsucker Woods Road , Rocco P .
Lucente , owner / developer :
WHEREAS , the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has not been
able to determine whether :
1 . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location ,
2 . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood will not be adversely affected ,
3 . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development of the Town ,
THEREFORE , the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend
that the Town Board deny the request for rezoning in this
matter . "
• Mr . Lovi asked if there were any questions . Mrs . Langhans
pointed out that the petition and letter the Board received say
that if there were a fire , the neighborhood would prefer that the
zoning revert back to R15 . Mrs . Langhans noted that Mr . Lovi ' s
draft suggests that the building may be rebuilt as a 4 - dwelling
unit . Mr . Lovi commented that it was interesting that the two
documents the Board received today are very similar to the
proposed resolution . Mrs . Langhans pointed out , also , that the
draft resolution has no reference to owner - occupancy . Mr . Lovi
stated that that was correct , adding that he had no feelings
either way . Mr . Klein stated that his biggest question was in
regard to the issue of owner - occupancy that the Board had and
specifically asked the Town Attorney for an answer on . Vice
Chairman Grigorov commented that the Board could put that in its
resolution and , if the Town Board wanted to , it could take it
out . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town Attorney had told him if such
a condition were acceptable to the owner , put it in . Mr . Stanton
stated that one of his concerns , and also one of Mr . Klein ' s , was
that it would not hold up in court . Mr . Stanton stated that he
had his doubts that it would , adding that he had reservations
about putting it in without some opinion from the Town Attorney ,
Mr . Stanton stated that he thought , in a multiple residence
district , it is difficult to require owner -occupancy .
Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were anyone present
who wished to speak to the matter before the Board .
Planning Board 11 April 3 , 1984
. Town of Ithaca Supervisor Noel Desch spoke from the floor
and stated that the Town Board did deliberate to a considerable
extent about how many owners might be appropriate with respect to
this particular proposal . Supervisor Desch stated that the Board
agreed that no more than 14 owners , i . e . , one per structure , was
that appropriate number . Supervisor Desch stated that the Board
did not mean by that , owner - occupied , adding that the proposal is
not one of condominiums .
Mr . Klein commented that an " owner " might be a partnership
or , at least , an entity of some sort . Mrs . Langhans asked for
clarification as to the number of people there would be per
structure . Mr . Lovi replied , a maximum of 10 unrelated persons. .
Mrs . Schultz stated that she had a question with respect to # 1 on
page 2 of the draft resolution , which reads : " 1 . The underlying
zoning designation of the land shall remain Residence District
R15 and all yard , lot , and area requirements , except as otherwise
modified by this resolution , shall remain in effect . " , the
question being that she was not quite sure what it meant . Mr .
Lovi described it as being " neater " to leave the zone as R15 , for
example , there would not be the need for multi - variances from the
Zoning Board of Appeals and , further , is in keeping with the
developer ' s needs - - 4 units - - and keeps in context all of what
the community is looking for which is some traditional R15 level
of development . Mr . Stanton stated that , in that same light , the
draft resolution , in its opening sentence , refers to rezoning
from R15 to Multiple , even though the text does not . Mr . Stanton
stated that he thought this was misleading . Mr . Lovi agreed that
those words in the draft referring to rezoning should be removed .
Mr . Stanton stated that he thought the words " of each existing
building " should be added to the beginning of the second
" resolved " on page 2 .
Vice Chairman Grigorov MOVED the draft resolution with the
above - noted editorial changes . Mrs . Langhans seconded the
MOTION . Mr . Klein MOVED TO AMEND the MOTION on the floor by
adding to page 3 a paragraph , to be numbered 10 , reading , " Each
of the 14 buildings is to be owner - occupied . " Mrs . Langhans
seconded the MOTION TO AMEND . By way of discussion , Mr . Klein
stated that that additional paragraph , to him , was crucial . Mr .
Klein expressed his concern with there , perhaps , being 14
absentee owners who may or may not reside in Ithaca being
responsible for checking on their properties . Mr . Klein thought
the Town may have a far worse situation even though the
population had been lowered . Mr . Lucente stated that , if the
property is changed over as proposed , he would tend to sell to an
individual in any case , however , it would hurt the marketability
of the property if they have to be owner - occupied . Mr . Klein
wondered if Mr . Lucente could sell these properties as two units ,
the way they are . Mr . Lucente indicated that he could not ,
adding that that is why he wanted to do it this way . Mr .
Boehlecke commented that there is nothing preventing him from
selling them now , however , he prefers to go with this proposal .
Mr . Klein stated that Mr . Boehlecke was correct . Mr . Klein
Planning Board 12 April 3 , 1984
' stated that he could not approve of this proposal without that
condition in there . Mr . Stanton stated that he thought Mr .
Klein ' s intent was very good , however , he had some trouble with
whether the Town can do that . There being no further discussion ,
Vice Chairman Grigorov called for a vote on the MOTION TO AMEND .
Aye - Grigorov , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Stanton .
Nay - None .
Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if the Board were satisfied
that the draft resolution properly responded to the items of
concern in the petition and letter . It was the consensus of the
Board that the items of concern to the area residents could be ,
and would be , addressed during final site plan review . Mr .
Stanton commented that he did not think the Planning Board could
require anything of the Tompkins County Assessment Department .
Mr . Stanton called the question . The vote :
Aye - Grigorov , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Stanton .
Nay - None .
Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the MOTION , as amended , to
be CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . The Resolution thus adopted is as
follows :
RESOLVED , that concerning the proposal of Mr . Rocco Lucente
to rezone lands on Sapsucker Woods Road , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcels No . 6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 12 through 6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 25 , the Planning Board
make and hereby does make the following determinations , findings ,
and recommendations to the Town Board :
1 . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location in order to reduce the number of unrelated persons
presently permitted to live in the 14 properties . At
present , there may be as many as 14 unrelated persons
residing in each of the 14 structures . The parking areas ,
garbage facilities , size of lots , and landscaping , are
insufficient to properly accommodate such a number of
unrelated persons in a manner harmonious with the general
character of the surrounding neighborhood .
It is the developer ' s plan to partition each level of the
building into a one - bedroom and a two -bedroom dwelling unit ,
each with a full bathroom and kitchen . The Planning Board
understands that the utilities necessary for such a
conversion are largely in place .
The present proposal would reduce the number of unrelated
persons permitted in each of the 14 structures . The
developer has indicated his willingness to accept
restrictive covenants in each of the deeds , each covenant to
list each of the 13 other properties and the Town as bene -
ficiaries with full powers of enforcement . These covenants
Planning Board 13 April 3 , 1984
would restrict the occupancy to one household for each of
the one - bedroom dwelling units per building and a household
and one unrelated person for each unit with two or more
bedrooms . A household would be defined as " Any number of
related persons , but no more than two unrelated persons
occupying a single dwelling unit . " As a result of these
occupancy restrictions , a maximum number of 10 unrelated
persons would be permitted to live in each of the 14
structures .
The Planning Board further recommends that , in the event
that a subsequent owner remodels any of the 14 buildings to
have less than 4 dwelling units , such a change shall be
irreversible , and such an owner shall forfeit any prior ,
non - conforming right to maintain 4 dwelling units on the
property . The sole exception to this provision should be in
case of destruction by fire or act of God , the owner shall
have the opportunity to rebuild a structure , of similar
dimensions , and maintain 4 dwelling units . If , however , the
owner rebuilds with a structure of different dimensions or
less than 4 dwelling units , the owner shall have forfeited
the right to subsequently remodel the building and maintain
4 dwelling units .
2 . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood will be improved as a result of this proposal .
At present and in the past , large numbers of automobiles
have parked in the front yards and alongside the street ,
refuse has been strewn around the garbage receptacles , and
the receptacles themselves are not appropriately landscaped .
Following the proposed site plan and landscaping scheme , and
in conjunction with the occupancy restrictions , the
aesthetic quality of Sapsucker Woods Road will be improved .
New trees and shrubs will be planted , parking areas will be
improved , graded , defined , and paved with oil and stone .
The reduction in the number of unrelated persons will reduce
the traffic through the neighborhood , and the partition of
the building into separate apartments should have the effect
of reducing overall noise in the area .
3 . The proposed change would be in accordance with a
comprehensive plan of development of the Town . A policy of
the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance is to allow for
a variety of land uses and residential alternatives in the
Town . In addition , it is desirable for non - conforming uses
to be gradually brought into substantial , if not actual ,
conformance with the accepted zoning pattern for the Town
and the immediate neighborhood character .
The present development scheme would permit the developer to
economically convert and sell these structures to as many as
14 independent owners . It is considered that competitive
pressures , and the requirements of final site plan approval ,
Planning Board 14 April 3 , 1984
will result in a more attractive and conventionally
residential neighborhood than exists at present . Over the
longer run , a provision in the resolution that any
subsequent conversion of these properties to a structure
with less than four dwelling units is irreversible will
result in gradual return of this neighborhood to an R15
residential character indistinguishable from the remainder
of the community , and the Town in general .
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and
hereby does recommend the following resolution for the
consideration of the Town Board :
" The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca resolves to amend the
Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca to permit the 1. 4 buildings
located at 108 through 230 Sapsucker Woods Road , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcels No . 6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 12 through 6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 25 to be modified
to permit the conversion of each existing building to 4 dwelling
units subject to the following terms and conditions :
1 . The underlying zoning designation of the land shall remain
Residence District R15 and all yard , lot , and area
requirements , except as otherwise modified by this
resolution , shall remain in effect .
2 . The front yard and parking requirements of this district are
hereby modified to permit construction of a parking area as
described in a final site plan to be approved by the
Planning Board .
3 . Each of the 14 buildings affected by this amendment shall be
permitted to be remodeled as two , two -bedroom dwelling units
and two , one -bedroom dwelling units , as more particularly
detailed in a final building plan and final site plan to be
approved by the Planning Board .
4 . The occupancy of the one - bedroom dwelling units shall be
limited to one household , where a household is defined as ,
° any number of related persons , but no more than two
unrelated persons occupying a single dwelling unit . '
5 . The occupancy of the two - bedroom dwelling units shall be
limited to one household and one unrelated person .
6 . Covenants completely describing these occupancy restrictions
shall be placed in the deeds to each of the properties ,
naming each of the other 13 properties affected by this
amendment as principal beneficiaries of these covenants and
giving the Town of Ithaca the right , but not the obligation ,
of enforcement .
7 . An additional covenant shall be placed in all the deeds
setting forth that , in the event a building is subsequently
modified so as to have fewer than four dwelling units , such
Planning Board 15 April 3 , 1984
• modification is irreversible , and such an owner shall
forfeit any prior right to maintain 4 dwelling units on the
property .
8 . The sole exception to this provision shall be in case of
destruction by fire or act of God , the owner shall have the
opportunity to rebuild a similar structure , of similar
dimensions , and maintain 4 dwelling units . If , however , the
owner rebuilds with a structure of different dimensions or
less than 4 dwelling units , the owner shall have forfeited
the right to subsequently remodel the building and maintain
4 dwelling units .
9 . The present owner and developer accepts , in written form ,
that at such time as construction commences on the
modification of any property covered by this amendment , he
forever waives and forfeits any future right to rent that
particular building , or any structure which may be later
constructed on that particular site , to more unrelated
persons than permitted by the occupany restrictions
described above .
10 . Each of the 14 buildings is to be owner- occupied .
Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
matter of the Lucente request with respect to properties on
Sapsucker Woods Road duly closed at 8 : 33 p . m .
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 40 - UNIT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION
DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF DOVE DRIVE , OFF SNYDER HILL ROAD ,
TAX PARCEL NUMBER 6 - 61 - 1 - 8 . 12 , 14 . 32 ACRES . STANLEY GOLDBERG ,
OWNER / DEVELOPER ; JOHN NOVARR , BUILDER .
Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Adjourned Public Hearing
in the above noted matter duly opened at 8 : 35 p . m .
Mr . Lovi read aloud a draft resolution prepared for Board
consideration , as follows :
" DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATION : Novarr
Subdivision
RESOLVED , that concerning the proposal of Mr . John Novarr to
subdivide lands owned by Mr . Stanley Goldberg in the vicinity of
Dove Drive , tax parcel number 6 - 61 - 1 - 8 . 12 and construct 40
clustered townhouses , the Planning Board make and hereby does
make the following determinations , findings , and approvals :
1 . The parcel of land to be subdivided is a portion of a 43 - lot
subdivision proposed by Willis S . Hilker . Conditional Final
Approval for Phase I consisting of 21 lots was granted by
the Planning Board at Public Hearing May 4 , 1976 . The
Planning Board 16 April 3 , 1984
• remaining lands , consisting of 14 . 32 acres were never
granted final subdivision approval .
2 . The present development of said 14 . 32 acres has been
proposed as a clustered subdivision pursuant to Section 281
of Town Law , The Subdivision Regulations of the Town of
Ithaca grant the Planning Board the power to approve or
mandate clustered subdivisions which meet certain regula -
tions .
3 . The number of dwelling units to be clustered on the site has
been determined , as required by the Subdivision Regulations ,
by consideration of the number of dwelling units which might
be constructed in a conventional subdivision , a density
limit of 3 . 5 units per gross acre , limitations of
topography , and open space requirements .
4 . A maximum of 40 two - and three - bedroom units was determined
to be appropriate for this subdivision . The density of
development in the clustered subdivision is 2 . 8 units per
gross acre . For purposes of comparison , the permitted
density of development in the first phase of the original
subdivision is 2 . 7 units per gross acre if all the lots are
developed exclusively as single family houses , and 4 . 8 units
per gross acre if a similar proportion of these lots were to
add the permitted second dwelling unit . When fully
developed , the entire 22 . 22 acres could have no more than 82
dwelling units , for a density of 3 . 7 units per gross acre .
This calculation presumes that every owner in the
conventional subdivision were to add a second dwelling unit
on their lot . As a practical observation , this is unlikely
to happen and the actualy density of development in the Dove
Drive subdivision will be considerably lower .
5 . The developer has completed a Long Environmental Assessment
Form , as required by Local Law # 3 - 1980 . The Planning Board
has reviewed this form , determined the proposal to be a Type
I action , and made a negative declaration of environmental
significance at Public Hearing on March 20 , 1984 .
6 . The developer has presented a preliminary site plan in a
form acceptable to the Town Engineer showing the location of
dwelling units , lot lines , roads , sidewalks , and other
structures of interest to the Planning Board . This plan has
been reviewed at a properly posted and published Public
Hearing on March 20 , 1984 and April 3 , 1984 .
7 . The developer has presented a draft set of covenants and
restrictions to limit the occupancy of the 40 dwelling
units .
8 . The Planning Board grant and hereby does grant preliminary
subdivision approval to the cluster subdivision plan as
presented and revised April 3 , 1984 . The developer may
Planning Board 17 April 3 , 1984
' proceed with the staking of streets and lots , and the
preparation of a final subdivision plan which shall include
all necessary engineering information and a final draft of
all restrictive covenants and other representations . "
Mr . Lovi noted that the draft just read had been received by
the Board with their Agenda . Mr . Lovi stated that , as he had
mentioned in his report earlier , it has been suggested that a
second draft resolution be prepared in the negative . Mr . Lovi
noted that the Secretary had distributed this to the Board . Mr .
Lovi read aloud as follows :
" DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATION : Novarr
Subdivision
RESOLVED , that preliminary subdivision approval for a 40 - unit
clustered subdivision development in the vicinity of Dove Drive ,
off Snyder Hill Road , Tax Parcel number 6 - 61 - 1 - 8 . 12 , 14 . 32 acres ,
as proposed by Stanley Goldberg , owner / developer and John Novarr ,
builder , be and hereby is denied . "
Vice Chairman Grigorov asked the Secretary to read into the
record those letters and documents received by the Board at its
meeting on March 20 , 1984 with respect to the Public Hearing in
the Novarr matter . Mrs . Fuller read as follows :
( 1 ) " Scott Camazine , M . D .
36 Dove Drive . . .
Visiting Fellow
Department of Plant Science
Cornell University
3 / 20 / 84
As a resident of Dove Drive , I oppose the proposed change
in the Subdivision Plan detailed in the Environmental Assessment
Form of March 13 , 1984 for many reasons , and in particular for
the following :
1 ) I purchased my residence with the understanding that the
character of the neighborhood would not be changed , but would
continue to be single family detached housing similar to the
present residences . I am convinced that the proposed change will
result in a significant decrease in the market value of the
existing homes and will be detrimental to the use and enjoyment
of the present owners of homes in the Dove Drive neighborhood .
2 ) I believe that the increased density in the neighborhood
will be detrimental , not only to the enjoyment and desires of the
present owners , but also to the ecology of the nearby
environment . The area upon which the houses are to be
constructed and the adjoining wooded areas contain a number of
protected , rare and unusual native plants such as Trillium
species , fringed Polygala , the coralroot orchid , protected
species of ferns and clubmosses , bloodroot , and butterflyweed .
Excessive development of and traffic through these areas that
will result from the proposed changes will be detrimental to the
Planning Board 18 April 3 , 1984
• ecology of this area and its enjoyment by the present residents
and others . "
( 2 ) " 206 Tudor Rd .
. . . March 20 , 1984
. . . From : Diana Yee
Res Proposed change in Dove Drive Development
As a resident of the Eastern Heights area , I would like to
state my opposition to a proposed change affecting a
single - family atmosphere of the above Dove Drive development . "
( 3 ) " Jean B . Rider
2 , Pheasant Lane . . .
My Husband Daughter & I moved to Ithaca just over a year
ago .
We moved into town houses , and found after a fair trial it
was not our choice of a way of life , with the noise and
considerable traffic that goes with this type of housing .
Deciding to invest our capital into a home . We spent
considerable time looking for an area with a low density of
housing , and were delighted when we purchased our home in
Pheasant Lane , with the understanding that the North Section
would be developed on the lines that were detailed in the plans .
We do ask most fervently that the recent application for the
building of town houses be turned down to keep the area as it was
first intended to be developed , thus enhancing the Eastern
Heights area .
Yours faithfully "
( 4 ) " Peter J . & Jean B . Rider
21 Pheasant Lane . . .
March 20th , 1984 . 00
As residents and houseowners in Pheasant Lane , my wife and I
would like to comment and oppose the proposed 40 unit clustered
development in our area .
We purchased our home in a carefully chosen area of
particular character . We wanted to live in a quiet ,
thinly - populated neighbourhood on the fringe of the town . This
choice was made less than one year ago , safe , we believed , in the
knowledge that future neighbours would build their homes
according to the established and approved subdivision development
plan .
This proposed development alters that plan in a way that
makes the neighbourhood less attractive to us and without doubt ,
less attractive to others of similar outlook . The net result
being that the value of our property will decline .
Such a manouver [ sic . ] by the developer is unfair . It is
designed to enhance the value of his investment without regard to
• the established neighbourhood . We urge the Planning Board not to
allow this change in subdivision approval .
Yours faithfully ,
Planning Board 19 April 3 , 1984
• ( sgd . ) Peter J . Rider "
( 5 ) " 206 Tudor Road . . .
March 20 , 1984 . . .
From : Muriel S . Brink
Re : Proposed change in Dove Drive Development
I am opposed to the proposed change in the plot plan . The
proposed change would change the character of the entire Eastern
Heights area . Increased population density and traffic would
create a less desirable place to live . "
( 6 ) " Edward & Louise Redmond
210 Snyder Hill . . .
March 20 , 1984
To Whom It May Concern :
I am writing to object about the possibility of a 40 -unit
subdivision being planned in the vicinity of Dove Drive and
Pheasant Lane .
We originally purchased our home and property from Bill
Hilker in 1977 . At that time Hilker Construction Co . was in the
process of building more homes in the Dove Drive and Pheasant
Lane area . These were homes to be built for families or for
speculation . This neighborhood now is a good one , both for
raising a family and also a quiet one for us who have our
• families already grown . I can foresee many various problems
arising with units of this nature being erected . Once again we
would like to voice our disapproval with this proposal . "
( 7 ) " Maureen and David Blandford
108 Park Lane
Eastern Heights
Monday , 19th March . . .
A previous engagement prevents our attendance at this
meeting to state our objection to the proposed change in the
planned development of the Pheasant Lane / Dove Drive subdivision
of Eastern Heights .
The character of this neighborhood is clearly that of single
family residences . The current plan , already approved by the
Town of Ithaca , had indicated the proposed development would be
compatible with that already existing , i . e . , in terms of lot
size , housing usage and density of occupancy .
That this plan was to be implemented , and the current
character maintained , was understood by the current residents at
the time of purchase , and , undoubtedly , affected their decision
to purchase homes in this area .
We therefore feel that the proposed change in plans is so
radical as to be undesirable . "
. At this juncture , Mr . Fabbroni commenced reading as follows :
( 8 ) " 4 Dove Drive . . .
Planning Board 20 April 3 , 1984
• March 20 , 1984 . . .
To Whom It May Concern :
As owners of a single family residence located at 4 Dove
Drive , Town of Ithaca , we are opposed to the proposed 40 unit
clustered subdivision in our neighborhood for several reasons .
1 ) The proposed units are only 1000 sq . ft . per unit , which is
extremely small in comparison to the existing homes in the
subdivision .
2 ) The proposed sale price of $ 62 , 000 maximum is far below
current values of existing homes .
3 ) We bought this lot on the basis of an approved plot plan of
single family residences on large plots .
4 ) The existing proposal would depreciate the value of existing
homes .
5 ) The proposed high density would create additional heavy
traffic on a road already poorly constructed .
6 ) Drainage from the proposed housing would cause flooding of
existing homes . ( On two previous occasions we had water in
our lower level ) .
There are many more objections too numerous to list .
Very Truly yours ,
( sgd . ) Frank Walker
( sgd . ) Diane Walker "
( 9 ) " l Pheasant Lane . . .
March 20 , 1984 . 00
We have lived at 1 Pheasant Lane since September of 1977 .
We were the first to build on Pheasant Lane , and have watched the
area grow . We have been fortunate to enjoy comfortable and
attractive surroundings , and to have fine neighbors . Prior to
moving to 1 Pheasant Lane , we lived across the road at 203 Snyder
Hill Rd . from 1974 through 1977 , so we are quite familiar with
the area , and obviously we made a free choice to stay in the
Eastern Heights area , after coming there for the first time .
At the time we began looking for a building lot , we were
pleased to find that Bill Hilker was developing the land just
across the road from where we were . While arranging the deal
with Hilker , the town - approved subdivision plan was a prominent
wall display in his model home , and was a definite factor in our
choice to build there . We felt , and we continue to feel , that we
have every right to expect the existing plan to remain as it has
been since we purchased our lot . We feel this way first because
it was town - approved , and presumably was not arrived at without
due consideration on the part of town officials . Secondly , the
existing subdivision is convenient and attractive , and is
marketable as it is ; a totally logical extension of the Eastern
Heights neighborhood . Thirdly , we do not envision any
circumstances , let alone compelling reasons , that would suggest
that the subdivision needs to be changed , and we would assume
that town planners would require a compelling reason , based on
the interest of the entire neighborhood and community .
Planning Board 21 April 3 , 1984
We have recently become aware of a proposal of S . Goldberg
and J . Novarr to alter the upper half of the existing
subdivision . We are extremely concerned with the negative impact
that would result from their proposals , and we urge the town
planners to reject it .
We are concerned about the increased population density , the
resulting traffic and noise problems , and the excessive drain on
the available ' elbow room . ' We are further concerned that this
type of building , dispite [ sic . ] any claims to the contrary , is
primarily intended for a relatively transient population , those
of whom there will be at least some with relatively little
inclination or ability to adapt to accepted residential living
practices . We are yet further concerned about the very real loss
in the value of our property that would result from this change
of neighborhood character . The current concern in the
neighborhood , that has resulted just from the proposal of these
buildings , is real evidence that there is a substantial negative
impression associated with them , at least from the point of view
of those of us who looked for and invested in a residential
neighborhood .
We are unconvinced that there is a need for this type of
housing in our area , although it may be needed and more suitably
located closer to the city and campus . We have seen no
compelling evidence of a need for a change , as the claimed
' inability to market the land ' ( J . Novarr , Environmental
Assessment Form , March 5 , 1984 ) , or any similar financial concern
of a small group , is not our concern , nor do we feel it should be
a major concern to the town planners who represent the entire
community . We do perceive the proposed changes as significant
threats to our property value and to our comforts . We do expect
and encourage the town planners to recognize the inappropriate
nature of the proposed changes , and to carefully consider the
difficulties that would occur to our neighborhood , as balanced
against an uncertain convenience to the developers , and doubtful
benefits to the town as a whole .
Sincerely ,
( sgd . ) Bernard A . Hutchins Jr .
( sgd . ) Jinyong M . Hutchins "
( 10 ) " Lawrence A . Rosenberg , Ph . D .
Pamela J . Rosenberg , Ph . D .
38 Dove Drive
March 18 , 1984 . 00
Members of the Board :
We would like to express several of our concerns regarding the
proposed change in the Dove Drive - Pheasant Lane subdivision .
There are a number of issues involved , many of which have been
brought up in the petition which has been presented to the board .
We would like to address in more detail the issue of density , and
then briefly mention some other points relevant to the proposed
. change .
There are ( at least ) two density related issues pertaining to the
proposed change in subdivision . One concerns the density of
Planning Board 22 April 3 , 1984
' dwelling units ; the other concerns the density of unrelated
individuals . The existing approved subdivision plan is laid out
for 22 single family houses on the land in question . Under R- 15
zoning , each of these is permitted to have within it a subsidiary
dwelling unit - i . e . , an apartment . Thus , if a dwelling unit is
defined as having a kitchen and a bath , each house may include 2
dwelling units . The maximum density of dwelling units on the
land in question under the existing approved subdivision plan is
thus 44 .
Under R- 15 zoning , each of these 22 houses may have living in it
( in both parts ) a maximum total of 3 unrelated individuals .
Thus , a maximum density of 66 unrelated individuals is
permissible on the land in question under the existing approved
subdivision plan .
The change in subdivision plan calls for 40 units , which is
claimed to be within the allowable density for dwelling units and
no more than would be the case under the exising approved
subdivision plan . If this is true , it must be that each 2 units
is considered the equivalent of a house which includes within it
an apartment . Under R- 15 zoning , then , the number of unrelated
individuals permitted with the change in subdivision plan must be
no greater than 60 - 3 for each 2 units .
If , instead , the planning board ' s determination is that each of
the 40 proposed dwelling units may have 3 unrelated persons ,
allowing 120 for the proposed subdivision , then the planning
board should , in all consistency , allow a total of 6 unrelated
persons in any house which includes an apartment . Or , if the
planning board feels that each of the 40 proposed dwelling units
may have 3 unrelated persons , allowing 120 for the proposed
subdivision , then the planning board must be considering each
dwelling unit to be the equivalent of a whole house . In this
case , the proposed change in subdivision would be effectively
doubling the number of dwelling units from the approved plan .
We fail to see how 40 dwelling units do not constitute a doubling
of density , unless every 2 of those dwelling units are considered
the equivalent of a house - apartment combination , and , in keeping
with this , limited to a maximum of 3 unrelated individuals per 2
units - 60 for the entire proposed subdivision .
In addition to this extremely serious issue , there are several
issues we would like to briefly address :
We would like to point out several of the errors which are in the
Environmental Assessment Form : In response to # 21 , related to
land use describing the neighborhood character , Mr . Novarr has
chosen to ignore the box for ' Single - unit Residential ' - which
characterizes 1000 of the neighborhood ! Instead , he has marked
' Other : one or two family ' . There is not a single house in the
neighborhood which is two family . We assume that the planning
board will not permit such an incorrect and misleading statement
to affect its decisioon !
In response to # 34 , related to types of vegetation - much of the
Eastern portion of the land in question is covered by stands of
• young evergreens 4 to 6 feet tall . The box pertaining to this
was , however , marked ' no ' . There are , in addition , considerable
Planning Board 23 April 3 , 1984
numbers of shrubs and terrestrial plants . The increased density
could only harm these natural features .
In response to # 51 , Mr . Novarr states that the residence is
' intended for ' ' medium income ' ' families ' and ' elderly ' . The
' student ' box is not checked . First of all , units of 1 , 000
square feet are not likely to appeal to families . Second ,
elderly people are not likely to live in townhouses which have 2
storeys , nor in units which have detached carports . Third , this
type of housing is precisely what will appeal to students , either
as a short term investment to share with other students , or , more
likely , as a rental .
According to the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , Article
IV , Section 22 , pertaining to parks and recreational land , ' the
subdivider shall dedicate all such recreation areas to the Town . '
Is the town of Ithaca prepared to maintain the areas which are
proposed to be set aside ?
We are extremely concerned that Dove Drive ( s ) would become a
method of entry / egress for these town houses . Traffic would
increase substantially over what would be the case if the land
were developed with 22 single family houses as is its intended
and approved use . In particular , if the units were occupied by
unrelated individuals , rather than families , the number of adults
and thus vehicles per unit would increase substantially over the
one or two which would be expected with single family housing .
In addition , the priorities of these residents would likely be
different from those of families , such that they might not take
the same care for the safety of children as do residents of
traditional single family neighborhoods .
The only reason presented for the proposed change in subdivision
is the statement in the Environmental Assessment Form that ' due
to an inability to market the land , a needed change in the
planned use of the real estate is necessary in order to obtain
economic feasibility . ' An investor ' s economic difficulties
certainly do not constitute a valid reason for consideration of
any subdivision or change in subdivision . However , in response
to the inability to market the land , we would like to make two
points . To our knowledge Mr . Goldberg has never advertised the
land in question as being for sale , nor is it included in the
Multiple Listing book . Therefore , only the 12 lots at the
Southern end of the subdivision are relevant . The two and a half
year period during which Mr . Goldberg has sold 25 % of the
available lots has been marked nationwide by poor housing starts ;
this rate may be well within average .
Ithaca is an economically healthy area , characterized by a large
population of professionals who want the type of houses and
neighborhood that we currently have . These lots are among the
few , if not the only , available lots with city services . This
makes them quite desirable for building of single family houses .
House sales and housing starts have been picking up , a trend
which will most certainly be seen in increased marketability of
these lots . This will not happen , however , if the character of
• the neighborhood is substantially damaged by changing the
approved subdivision plan to allow the building of housing which
Planning Board 24 April 3 , 1984
• is aesthetically , economically , demographically , and socially not
in harmony with the prevailing pattern of development .
The town approved the existing subdivision plan ; we invested in
land and houses within it because we , also , approved of the
subdivision plan . The town has a responsibility to uphold the
decision that it made and that we based our investments on .
Neither we nor our neighbors wants this change in our existing
subdivision . No valid need for it has been presented . There are
many reasons why it would be damaging to our use and enjoyment of
our property , as well as to our property value . If , as is stated
in the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , ' the subdivision
regulations are adopted to guide , promote , and protect the
community ' s physical , social , and aesthetic develoment in order
to preserve the character of the Town as a beautiful and
desirable place in which to live ' and ' all proposed lots shall be
laid out in harmony with the prevailing pattern of development ' ,
then it is clear that the planning board should refuse to grant
permission for the change in subdivision .
Sincerely ,
( sgd . ) Lawrence Rosenberg
( sgd . ) Pamela J . Rosenberg "
Mr . Fabbroni now proceeded to read from the Petition , there
being a total of four duplicate copies thereof , bearing the
signatures of a total of 95 persons . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the
Petition ( s ) had been signed by most of the persons in the Dove
• Drive and Pheasant Lane area and by a substantial number of
persons residing in Eastern Heights , The Petition ( s ) reads as
follows :
" PETITION
IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED CHANGE IN SUBDIVISION
DOVE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA
1 ) WHEREAS , the Dove Drive and Pheasant Lane Neighborhood , in
the Eastern Heights subdivision , in the Town of Ithaca , is
characterized solely by owner occupied single family detached
houses , having 11800 to 2 , 700 square feet of living area , with
attached or integral garages , and with market values of
seventy - five thousand to ninety - five thousand dollars , clearly
defining the Neighborhood ' s Chosen Character ; and
2 ) WHEREAS , there exists an Approved Subdivision Plan , approved
by the Town of Ithaca , and shown on a May 3 , 1976 Plat Plan ,
which shows a total of 44 building lots , each of size
approximately one - third or more acre , 22 of which lots are
currently developed or available for development ( at the Southern
end of the Approved Subdivision Plan ) , and 22 laid out for future
development ( at the Northern end of the Approved Subdivision
Plan ) ; and
3 ) WHEREAS , the owner - occupants of the existing houses bought or
built their houses with the knowledge of the Approved Plat Plan
• and with the assurance of the developers and builders involved
that the completioon of the Southern end and the development of
Planning Board 25 April 3 , 1984
• the Northern end would continue with Single Family Detached
Housing in keeping with the Character of the Neighborhood ; and
4 ) WHEREAS , the Proposed Change in Subdivision Plan detailed in
the Environmental Assessment Form signed March 13 , 1984 , calls
for the construction of 40 Town Houses of 1 , 000 square feet each ,
comprised of 9 buildings of four dwelling units each and 2
buildings of two dwelling units each , with detached shared
carports , located in the Northern end of the area , and
5 ) WHEREAS , The Proposed Dwelling Units are expected to be sold
for no more than $ 62 , 000 each , and
6 ) WHEREAS , the Proposed Change in Subdivision Plan is a Major
Departure from the progression of the Current Development and
from the Approved Plan for the Development of the Northern end of
the area , which will impede the orderly development of land in
the Neighborhood , and which will not be in harmony with the
prevailing pattern of development , and
7 ) WHEREAS , the Proposed Density of 40 , as opposed to 22 ,
dwelling units will result in a doubling of the Real Density
which is characteristic of the Neighborhood ; and
8 ) WHEREAS , the building of attached housing of the size and
type being proposed is inappropriate in appearance and harmony
with the existing and intended character of the Established
Neighborhood ; and
9 ) WHEREAS , the proposed dwelling units of 1 , 000 square feet are
not feasible for non - transient family occupancy ; rather , dwelling
units of the size , type , and cost of those being proposed are
• likely to result in absentee ownership and occupancy by unrelated
individuals , and thus not be in keeping with the Character of the
Neighborhood , and
10 ) WHEREAS , the Eastern Heights Neighborhood has experienced
and is continuing to experience considerable problems arising
from absentee ownership , particularly of two - family dwelling
units occupied by unrelated individuals , in the general area of
lack of concern for the Property and the Neighborhood , and
specifically in the areas of inadequate control of pets and
garbage ; inadequate maintenance of buildings and grounds ;
excessive traffic , on - and off - street parking , and noise
pollution ; and
11 ) WHEREAS , despite Town and County Ordinances and Neighborhood
Covenants , and despite attempts by Town and County Officials and
law enforcement agencies , enforcement of Ordinances and Covenants
is difficult , frustrating the ability to adequately control
problems such as those listed above , relating to absentee
ownership and occupancy by unrelated individuals ; and
12 ) WHEREAS , the Dove Drive and Pheasant Lane Neighborhood is
free of the problems related to absentee ownership and occupancy
by unrelated individuals that Eastern Heights is experiencing ;
and
13 ) WHEREAS , there will be a Clear Negative Impact resulting
from the Proposed Change in Subdivision Plan on the desirability
of the Neighborhood for continued Single Family Owner Occupied
• Housing , such that this impact will be asserted in a halt to the
steady development of the building lots at the Southern end , and
in a substantial decrease in the market value both of these lots
Planning Board 26 April 3 , 1984
. and the existing Single Family Houses in the Neighborhood , such
that the Proposed Change in Subdivision will be substantially and
materially injurious to the ownership , use , and enjoyment of
other property in the Neighborhoods
We the undersigned are resolved that we oppose the Proposed
Change in Subdivision Plan .
We therefore petition the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca to
refuse to grant preliminary approval to Stanley Goldberg and John
Novarr for the proposed clustered subdivision in the Dove Drive
and Pheasant Lane Neighborhood , "
Mr . Stanton read aloud the following letter dated April 1 ,
1984 , received April 3 , 1984 , from Gilbert W . Gillespie , Jr . , 208
Tudor Road , as follows :
" I live in the Eastern Heights subdivision , the area adjacent to
the one which Goldberg and Novarr are proposing to develop .
Because potential buyers of my property are likely to look at the
development patterns of the surrounding area , the market value of
my property is affected by this proposed development . In
addition , a tract of undeveloped land sits to the south of my
property and developments such as that proposed may set unwanted
precedents for development of that area .
While I favor cluster housing in principle , I strongly oppose the
• cluster housing development proposed by Goldberg and Novarr for
the area north of Pheasant Lane and the existing portions of Dove
Drive .
First , I question the marketability of the proposed units since
their proposed price is $ 68 , 000 and their size is only 1 , 000
square feet . In addition , the proposal is for the owners of
units to be individually responsible for the maintenance of their
units and the small parcel of land which they would own . This
arrangement would seem to incorporate the worst features of
detached single family dwellings and condominiums . Owners would
have the maintenance and necessary investment in equipment , yet
would not have the privacy and space associated with single
family dwellings . It would seem that each individual owner would
have to be given considerable discretion in the level at which
his or her property would be maintained , thus creating
considerable potential for disputes and rancor among owners .
Given that both traditional single family dwellings and
condominiums are likely to be available at comparable prices , I
am unpersuaded that the proposed units would be marketable as
single family units . More likely , their fate would be to become
apartments , a use which would injure many of the current property
owners in the vicinity by reducing the market value of their
single family homes .
Second , the issue of what to do with the land that would remain
if the development proceeded as proposed is a very important one .
• Since no owners ' association responsible for maintenance of the
buildings and surrounding land is proposed , the only reasonable
alternative would be for the town to take possession of the land
Planning Board 27 April 3 , 1984
and maintain it as a public park for use of the residents of the
complex and the surrounding area . The alternatives would be
neglect ( since there would be little incentive for the builder or
the individual residents to maintain the area ) or fragmentation
( division into small tracts ) , neither of which would be conducive
to proper upkeep , and thus not desirable . Therefore , if this
development were to be approved , the town should also assume
responsibility for the left over land .
Third , I think that the apparent incompatibility between existing
zoning laws ( under which the owners of houses in the vicinity ,
including myself , bought their properties ) and the town cluster
regulations should be resolved before any new cluster
developments are approved . The cluster regulations include the
provision that up to six units may be attached in one structure .
This is in contrast to R- 15 zoning which permits only one and two
family dwellings , defined as detached structures . Clearly a
six - plex or a four - plex is not a one or two family dwelling .
Therefore , it appears that this part of cluster housing
regulations effectively subverts the zoning regulations . In the
case of such incompatibilities , the zoning ordinance should take
precedence .
Before the proposed development would be acceptable , the density
would have to be decreased to 22 units , the size of the units
increased to a size compatible with the houses in the immediate
area ( at least 11500 square feet ) and the organization changed to
a condominium style , i . e . , with maintenance provisions .
• Otherwise , it should not be approved and the area should be
developed as single family units . "
Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were anything else to
be read into the Minutes . Mr . Fabbroni stated that Attorney
Martin A . Shapiro , under date of March 29 , 1984 , received March
30 , 1984 , had submitted Proposed Restrictive Covenants and
Provisions in re Snyder Hill Development , reading as follows :
" I . RETAINED PARCEL
A . DEED RESTRICTIONS
1 . ' The premises conveyed herein are specifically made
subject to the restrictions that the premises shall
remain open and to be used only for recreational uses
and that no buildings or structures shall be placed or
permitted thereon . These deed restrictions shall
continue for a period of fifty years and shall run with
the land . The Town of Ithaca and each and every owner
of any parcel in the surrounding cluster development
are hereby made specific beneficiaries of these
restrictions and shall have the full right , but not the
obligation , to enforce same . '
Be COVENANTS OF DEVELOPER
1 . The developer agrees to insert the deed restrictions
set forth above in the first deed of the middle parcel
• to be retained by the developer upon transfer as set
forth below .
Planning Board 28 April 3 , 1984
2 . The developer agrees to grade , seed , and maintain
the retained parcel until the cluster development is
finished .
3 . The developer further agrees that as soon as may be
possible after the last structure of the cluster
development has been finished , the developer will offer
the said retained parcel for no cost either :
a . to the abutting owners in the cluster
development according to division that is mutally
agreeable , or
be to an association consisting of such owners of
parcels in said cluster development .
II . CLUSTER USE
A . DEED RESTRICTIONS
1 . ' The premises conveyed herein are specifically made
subject to the restriction that such premises may not
be occupied by more than two unrelated persons , as such
term ' unrelated persons ' may be defined in the Zoning
Ordinance or other applicable ordinance of the Town of
Ithaca from time to time . This deed restriction shall
run with the land . The Town of Ithaca and each and
every owner of any parcel in the surrounding cluster
development are hereby made specific beneficiaries of
this restriction , and shall have the full right , but
not the obligation , to enforce same . '
• Be COVENANTS OF DEVELOPER
1 . The developer agrees to insert the above restrictive
covenant in each and every deed of each and every
dwelling unit .
2 . The developer further agrees to comply with the
above set forth restrictive covenant prior to sale of
such dwelling units , except that the developer shall
have the right prior to sale to rent up to five ( 5 ) of
the three bedroom dwelling units at any given time to
no more than three unrelated persons .
III . ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
A . DEED RESTRICTIONS
1 . ' The premises conveyed herein are specifically made
subject to the restriction that no additional accessory
building or structure of any kind whatsoever may be
placed or permitted thereon . This restriction shall
run with the land and shall continue for a period of
twenty - five ( 25 ) years . The Town of Ithaca and each
and every owner of any parcel in the surrounding
cluster development are hereby made specific
beneficiaries of this restriction and shall have the
full right , but not the obligation , to enforce same . '
Be COVENANTS OF DEVELOPER
1 . The developer agrees to insert the above restrictive
• covenant in each and every deed of each and every
dwelling unit .
Planning Board 29 April 3 , 1984
IV . REBUILDING AND REPLACEMENT
A . DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROVISIONS
1 . ' The premises conveyed herein are specifically made
subject to the restrictions and obligations of the
grantee , his successors and assigns , that the premises
will be kept in good repair and with the same external
appearance and that upon the destruction of the
premises from whatever cause , the grantee , his
successors and assigns , shall rebuild and replace same
with a structure as similar as may be reasonable to the
original structure , considering changes in materials
and building techniques . This restriction and
obligation shall run with the land and shall continue
for a period of twenty - five ( 25 ) years . The Town of
Ithaca and each and every owner of any parcel in the
surrounding cluster development are hereby made
specific beneficiearies of this restriction and
obligation on the part of the grantee , his successors
and assigns , and shall have the full right , but not the
obligation , to enforce same . '
Be COVENANTS OF DEVELOPER
1 . The developer agrees to insert the above restrictive
covenant and obligation in each and every deed of each
and every dwelling unit .
V . RIGHTS OF WAY
A . DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROVISIONS
1 . ' The premises conveyed herein are specifically made
subject to a right of way over , across and through said
premises on the walkways and sidewalks existing at the
time of completion of the premises for the benefit of
the public . The grantee , his successors and assigns ,
shall have the obligation to keep said walkways and
sidewalks in good repair at all times and to keep said
walkways and sidewalks free and clear of ice , snow , and
other obstructions for the benefit of the public . The
Town of Ithaca and each and every owner of ' any parcel
in the surrounding cluster development are hereby
specifically made beneficiaries of these provisions ,
and shall have the full right , but not the obligation ,
to enforce same . These rights of way and other
provisions relating thereto shall run with the land and
shall continue so long as the cluster development
exists . '
Be COVENANTS OF DEVELOPER
1 . The developer agrees to insert the above provisions
in each and every deed of each and every dwelling
unit . "
Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that she would now open the
Public Hearing for public comment , requesting that persons
wishing to speak give their name and address and offer new
information only .
Planning Board 30 April 3 , 1984
' Mr . Bernard Hutchins , Jr . , 1 Pheasant Lane , spoke from the
floor and stated that a program had been prepared for
presentation to the Board . Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that
she did not wish to have a replay of all that is contained in the
letters and documents which have been read into the record . Mr .
Stanton requested that everyone keep calm . Vice Chairman
Grigorov stated that persons wishing to speak should address the
Chair and not each other .
Dr . Pamela Rosenberg , 38 Dove Drive , spoke from the floor
and stated that Attorney Edward Hooks was present and was
representing the neighborhood . Dr . Rosenberg stated that Mr .
Lawrence Caldwell was also present at the request of the
neighborhood , noting that Mr . Caldwell was in real estate and
also teaches real estate at Ithaca College . Dr . Rosenberg stated
that there are many problems to be discussed , however , she will
zero in on a few . Dr . Rosenberg stated that Mr . Hutchins will
show photographs of Dove Drive but , before that , Mr . Peter
Jackson will distribute to the Board three Town of Ithaca laws .
Mr . Jackson proceeded to pass out two very large pieces of paper
and one smaller piece and also appended same to the bulletin
board , reading : " Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance : I . 1 . 8 A
' one - family dwelling ' is a detached building designed for use and
in fact used for residential purposes by a single family . I . 1 . 9
A ' two - family dwelling ' is a detached building designed for use
and in fact used for residential purposes by two families only .
IV . 11 In Residence Districts R 15 no building shall be erected
. . . other than . . . 1 . A one family dwelling . 2 . A two - family
dwelling , . . . XIV . 78 . . . the Planning Board shall determine
that : a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location . b . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood in which the use is to be located will not be
adversely affected . Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations :
I . 2 . B The subdivision regulations are adopted to guide , promote ,
and protect the community ' s physical , social , and aesthetic
development in order to preserve the character of the town as a
beautiful and desirable place in which to live . I . 2 . 0 All
proposed lots shall be laid out in harmony with the prevailing
pattern of development . . . V . 32 . a will such a development be
substantially and materially injurious to the ownership , use and
enjoyment of other property in the vicinity or neighborhood ;
V . 32 . b will such a development impede the orderly development of
land in the vicinity or neighborhood , and will such use be
appropriate in appearance and harmony with the existing or
intended character of such land in the vicinity or neighborhoods
V . 32 . f is the environmental quality of the proposal , in terms of
site planning , design , and landscaping , compatible with the
character of the neighborhood ; and an excerpt from the Case Notes
section of Town Law , reading : 281 . 7 . Evidence that clustered
homes proposed by developer had a different appearance from
single - family dwellings which comprised all the homes in the
vicinity of the proposed development and opposition spread on the
record at public hearing by residents of the area who opposed the
change in the character of the neighborhood furnished rational
Planning Board 31 April 3 , 1984
• and substantial basis for decision of town planning board to deny
application for approval of a clustered subdivision . James L .
Garrett Co . , Inc . v . Guldenschuh , 1975 , 49 A . D . 2d 800 , 373
N . Y . S . 2d 238 . "
Mr . Hutchins displayed a very large cardboard containing
colored photographs of all the following houses of the Haven
Hills residents , noting that the owners of these houses were
mostly all presents
230 Snyder Hill Rd . Frank Backner ( original farmstead )
38 Dove Drive Pam and Larry Rosenberg
36 Dove Drive Carol Henderson and Scott Camazine
8 Pheasant Lane Emma and Jerry Sciarra ( two children )
6 Pheasant Lane Nancy and Peter Jackson ( four children )
4 Pheasant Lane Susan and Wayne Corapi ( one child )
2 Pheasant Lane Jean and Peter Rider ( daughter )
6 Dove Drive Marge and Mario Giannella
4 Dove Drive Diane and Frank Walker ( daughter )
208 Snyder Hill Rd . Jerry Crance
210 Snyder Hill Rd . Louise and Ed Redmond
1 Pheasant Lane Jinyong and Bernie Hutchins ( daughter ,
wife ' s mother )
Mr . Hutchins stated that the pictures were arranged in the
same position as the houses appear in the development , adding
that the five houses on the top ( indicating ) have all changed
hands in the past year , all are new neighbors , and also they are
those most affected . Mr . Hutchins commented that they definitely
moved here with the same expectations . Mr . Hutchins pointed out
pictures which formed a panoramic view of the area and views
which showed the area in the summertime , the vegetation , and four
pheasants . Mr . Hutchins pointed out a photograph of a pine tree
with Dr . Rosenberg standing by it , noting that it was taller than
she . Mr . Hutchins stated that there are no rentals at all , none
for rent , or offered for rent .
Dr . Rosenberg moved to the fore and showed additional
pictures or group of pictures of those types of housing which ,
she stated , were the closest thing to what is being proposed ,
pointing to pictures of housing on Summerhill Lane and housing on
Graham Road , and pointing out that they do not match with the
other pictures of houses on Dove Drive . Dr . Rosenberg stated
that they were different , they were out of character . Dr .
Rosenberg stated that she would not have built there with
anything like that ( indicating the pictures of other types of
housing ) that looked like town houses being there . Dr . Rosenberg
asked if anybody else agreed with her .
Mario Giannella , 6 Dove Drive , said , yes , and stood up . Mr .
Giannella stated that he moved from Eastern Heights and , further ,
that the proposal is out of character with the neighborhood ,
adding that he would not have purchased next door to town houses .
Planning Board 32 April 3 , 1984
• Peter Rider , 2 Pheasant Lane , said , yes , and stood up . Mr .
Rider stated that he bought his house recently and would make the
same statement as Mario [ Giannella ] that he would not have
purchased there either .
Jerry Sciarra , 8 Pheasant Lane , said , yes , and stood up .
Mr . Sciarra stated that he bought his house in 1982 and Mr .
Goldberg promised never to build something like this . Mr .
Sciarra stated that Mr . Goldberg had said they were all going to
be built as single houses , 15 , 000 square feet . Mr . Sciarra
stated that he had in his hand a xerox of the map presented to
him in 1982 by Mr . Goldberg . Mr . Sciarra presented the copy to
the Secretary . [ The map presented is entitled " Subdivision Plat
Plan of Lands on Snyder Hill Road " . . . May 3 , 1976 , revised June 3 ,
1976 , prepared by Howard R . Schlieder , P . E . , L . S . , showing the
Limit of Phase One , and showing Health Department Approval Stamp
for 22 lots , dated June 11 , 1976 , Joseph Viselli , Sanitary
Engineer , and Town of Ithaca Planning Board Approval Stamp dated
June 30 , 1976 , Barbara P . Holcomb , Chairman . ]
Dr . Rosenberg stated that there are several maps around .
Mr . Stanton stated that the map is on record but the back lots
have not been approved . Mr . Giannella asked what was approved .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that Phase 1 was granted conditional final
approval .
Dr . Rosenberg stated that the presentation got side - tracked .
Dr . Rosenberg introduced Ed Hooks as attorney for some of the
residents in the Dove Drive and Pheasant Lane neighborhood .
Attorney Hooks rose , commenting that the presentation got
somewhat derailed , and stated that the bottom line is what the
residents concluded on the basis of what was said and what they
saw , which was a subdivision approved by the Planning Board . Mr .
Hooks stated that there are crucial issues and they are framed by
the Town ' s very own subdivision regulations and that is why Mr .
Caldwell is here to speak to the three questions in those
regulations , # 1 of which is whether the development will be
injurious . Mr . Hooks stated that Mr . Caldwell has been retained
and has been told what the situation is .
Mr . Larry Caldwell , indicating the collection of photographs
on display , stated that , as one can see , each one of these houses
is approximately 26 ' x 40 ' or 42 ' x 461 , on two levels , of the
same size , with interior garage storage , etc . Mr . Caldwell noted
that the proposed plan of development indicates no accessory
buildings and asked where the people would store their stuff .
Mr . Caldwell stated that there would be distinct changes in the
character of the neighborhood , commenting , also , on lots of 25 ' x
100 ' or 25 ' x 80 ' as being completely different in character .
Mr . Caldwell spoke of cars in parking areas , outside , exposed in
contrast with cars having interior , covered , closed housing plus
storage . Mr . Caldwell stated that he must disagree with some of
the letters which were read that indicated that they will lose
Planning Board 33 April 3 , 1984
• property value , commenting that he has been in real estate since
1960 , now specializing in the field of appraisal , and stating
that he finds that , where there is a characteristic change ,
properties do not appreciate as fast , but they do not devaluate
on single family lots . Mr . Caldwell stated that the nation has
come through an economic downturn where there has been virtually
no building going on , however , within one -half mile there are
four buildings going - - two on Pine Tree Road , Mr . Caldwell
stated that a couple of lots in this development area are on
Multiple listing , at $ 11 , 500 which compares favorably with the
Blatchley lots at $ 13 , 000 . Mr . Caldwell stated that Commonland
Community is a true cluster , noting that Commonland also has a
homeowners ' association , minimum lot size , and a small area
outside the lots on common areas . Mr . Caldwell stated that he
could not conceive that this type of cluster would not be
injurious to these people and their homes and have a detrimental
effect .
Mr . Fabbroni asked Mr . Caldwell , other than one custom home
under construction here ( indicating ) , how many of the other four ,
two of which are substantially complete and the two on Pine Tree
Road , did he know of that have been sold . Mr . Caldwell stated
that the did not know anything about them . Mr . Fabbroni stated
that he knew that all four have been built on speculation and not
one has been sold . Mr . Caldwell stated that he did not know
whether they are on multiple listing or not . Mr . Fabbroni stated
that Mr . Weisburd , in his development , has sold in excess of 30
units this year , and Mr . Schickel , three or six in the last year .
Mr . Caldwell agreed that there is an upsurge in building of all
types . Mr . Fabbroni wondered if Mr . Caldwell knew , of all the
eight lots that were subdivided for Mrs . Blatchley , if any had
been sold in the approximately nine months they have been on the
market . Mr . Caldwell stated that he did not know . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that , to his knowledge , none have been sold .
Attorney Hooks stated that it was his understanding that the
proposed quad - plexes are approximately 1 , 000 square feet in size
per unit and priced at $ 68 , 000 . Mr . Hooks asked Mr . Caldwell if
he had an opinion , based on his experience , as to the liklihood
of sale . Mr . Caldwell stated that houses that have been sold are
significantly larger and sold in the low " 70s " and upper " 80s " .
Mr . Caldwell stated that the quality in the proposed units would
be somewhat lower and mentioned $ 42 , 500 . 00 . Mr . Caldwell
commented that the price seems high as far as replacement cost
goes . Mr . Fabbroni asked Mr . Caldwell if he knew about the
exterior , etc . , of the proposed units . Mr . Caldwell stated that
he did not know anything about the building other than what was
told to him . Dr . Rosenberg asked permission of the Chair to ask
Mr . Caldwell a question , the question was , what Mr . Caldwell
thought about the sale - ability of these units . Mr . Caldwell
stated that they would be harder to sell .
Mr . Stanton stated that he thought Mr . Novarr should give
his presentation and then questions be asked . Vice Chairman
Planning Board 34 April 3 , 1984
Grigorov asked Mr . Novarr to present his revised plans to the
Board now .
Mr . Novarr displayed his large drawings and pointed out the
only new drawing he brought which related to those questions
which the Board had at the last meeting and to which he was to
respond . Mr . Novarr recalled that one question had to do with
proposed covenants and stated that he would not read them again
since Mr . Fabbroni had already done that . Mr . Novarr stated that
if the Board had any further questions on the covenants , Attorney
Shapiro would be better equipped to answer . Mr . Novarr recalled
that another question the Board had related to night lighting and
stated that telephone calls were made and research was done , the
results being that the light poles need to be 30 feet high ,
approximately 150 ' to 160 ' apart , and metal . Mr . Novarr
described the lamps which needed to be used and , also , that they
were of 40 , 000 lumens , 400 watts . Mr . Novarr recalled that the
Board had asked about storage , commenting that Mr . Caldwell spoke
of that too . Mr . Novarr noted that the carports have been made
longer with a storage compartment in the back of each carport for
garbage , lawn mower , spade , etc . He commented that they are
presently designed at 9 ' x 6 ' , however , they could be bigger if
the Board wished , with 10 or 15 square feet more added . Mr .
Novarr commented that the carports were now somewhere between a
garage and a carport . Mr . Novarr spoke to the matter of the
garages having an opposite placing and indicated on the plan that
there is now 100 feet between carports , in case someone comes out
and bumps someone else coming out . Mr . Novarr commented that it
is not unusual to have garages opposite each other on such
streets . Mr . Novarr referred to his elevation drawing and stated
that people keep saying that the units are 1 , 000 square feet and
are priced in the high " 60s " . Mr . Novarr stated that the
two- bedroom units are 1 , 000 square feet and priced in the high
" 50s " ; the three -bedroom units are 1 , 200 square feet and priced
in the high " 60s " . Mr . Novarr , commenting that he had heard
someone question quality , stated that the plan for materials
includes brick and clapboard buildings with timbered - like front
porches to add to the residential quality of the development .
Mr . Novarr described the use of thermopane and 2 x 6 walls . Mr .
Novarr noted that air exchangers will not be used since the
buildings will not be super - insulated , however , they will be very
well insulated . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if the carports
will be similar to the houses , to which Mr . Novarr responded that
they will not be brick but will be clapboard . Mr . Stanton asked
if they would have a concrete floor , to which Mr . Novarr
responded that they could be the same as the driveway , but the
plans are not that far yet into the approval process . Mr .
Stanton asked how the garbage would be taken care of , to which
Mr . Novarr responded that he would not use dumpsters because he
really did not like them , adding that the garbage would be taken
care of in the area in the back of the carports . Mr . Fabbroni
asked Mr . Novarr if he could offer more specifics about the
landscaping plans . Mr . Novarr stated that the looks of any
development depend very much on landscaping , adding that Mr .
• Planning Board 35 April 3 , 1984
s
Tyndall , the architect on this proposal , is a Landscape Architect
and Planner . Mr . Novarr showed the landscaping plan , noted that
the proposed plantings are all named on the plan , and stated that
the plantings will all be of substantial enough size so that it
looks like a product is there . Mr . Novarr stated that their goal
is to make this development look as good as is possible . Vice
Chairman Grigorov asked about buffering between the existing
houses and these houses , commenting that the plantings should be
well planned to make a good buffer . Mr . Novarr stated that he
agreed , adding that that is their plan so that the residential
quality is enhanced and , further , that that is why they have
proposed the cul de sacs rather than wrapping the road around
because people like living on cul de sacs because they feel more
" residential " and more " private " with no traffic going around .
Mr . Novarr stated that they are not trying to build an apartment
complex here . Regarding trash , Mrs . Langhans wondered what made
Mr . Novarr think that people are going to walk to their carport ,
quite a distance away , to place their trash there . Mr . Novarr
responded that he thought , in any area , one could find people who
put their garbage on their front porch , however , most people do
not . Mr . Novarr stated that he did not think a detached garage
is foreign to people in America . A discussion about raccoons
followed . Mr . Novarr stated that , if the Board is entirely
dissatisfied with this aspect of the proposal , he did not think
it a difficulty that could not be resolved . With respect to the
cluster regulations , Mr . Stanton asked if the development were
30 ' from the nearest property line . Mr . Novarr stated that he
believed that requirement was met , adding that their architect
discussed that with Mr . Fabbroni . Mr . Klein asked about the
phasing aspects of the development . Mr . Novarr stated that they
would plan , the first time through , to build 4 to 8 to 10 to 12
units and hope to sell those , very quickly , of course . Mr .
Novarr stated that he would think they would not be inclined to
build any more until those are sold , and then hope to build again
starting in the Fall . Mrs . Langhans pointed out that the
proposed restrictive covenants , as drafted by Mr . Shapiro , state
in section II , B , 2 , [ page 1 of 3 ] , that " The developer further
agrees to comply with the above set forth restrictive covenant
prior to sale of such dwelling units , except that the developer
shall have the right prior to sale to rent up to five ( 5 ) of the
three bedroom dwelling units at any given time to no more than
three unrelated persons . " Mr . Novarr explained the reasoning for
permission to rent up to five of the three bedroom units ,
indicating , among other things , interest rates and an actual loss
if rental were to become necessary . Mrs . Langhans commented that
she was not sure they would lose money renting . Mr . Novarr
stated that he could put the figures on paper for Mrs . Langhans
if she wanted him to , adding that he wished to stress that this
is not a " College Town " project . Mr . Novarr referred to
something that cost $ 50 , 000 being rented to two people and
pointed out that the numbers just do not work out for this to be
a rental area . Vice Chairman Grigorov noted that the
restrictions here are similar to what the Planning Board did with
Mr . Wiggins ' proposal . Mr . Novarr stated that he was willing to
Planning Board 36 April 3 , 1984
• listen to any suggestions the Board may have as to the number it
would be possible to rent at any one time . Mr . Stanton commented
that one of the less desirable features of the project is the
setting for the cars , adding that , if he understood Mr . Novarr
correctly , the garages are to be of a pole barn type . Mr .
Stanton stated his personal opinion that , at those prices , they
will not sell , adding , however , that he is not a realtor . Mr .
Fabbroni noted that the cost of sheet rock has gone up some 50 %
and offered the suggestion that Mr . Novarr consider making them
garages , with doors , and so on . Mr . Novarr stated that , clearly ,
they want to put the money in the houses , however , if the Board
is clear on wanting that , that could be done . Mr . Novarr
wondered about pole barns with sides versus brick . Mr . Lovi
stated that a concern he would mention with respect to the
landscaping in the southern part where the development abutts the
subdivided lots , is that the planting plan and schedule therefor
take into consideration the kind of trees they put in there . Mr .
Lovi stated that it could be money well spent to install a more
substantial buffer for the people who already have houses and
suggested that , if they wished to discuss this with the
residents , they could be given a list of appropriate screening
materials .
Mr . Gilbert Gillespie , 208 Tudor Road , spoke from the floor ,
referred to a statement by Mr . Novarr with regard to lighting ,
and asked who was going to pay for that since there is not to be
a homeowners ' association . Mr . Fabbroni explained that lighting
of that sort is paid for by way of what is known as a lighting
district with a particular area taxed for lighting . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that Eastwood Commons is an example of such a lighting
district . Mr . Fabbroni also described the Town policy of
lighting intersections of Town roads , pointing out that in this
particular development there is no Town intersection so the
lighting would be totally at the cost of the lighting district .
Attorney Hooks asked Mr . Fabbroni what he was talking about in
terms of cost . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he did not have such
figures available for tonight ' s meeting , however , he would point
out that NYSEG only rents the equipment and sets up an
amortization schedule with the Town acting as the agent for each
lighting district and with the cost assessed per thousand dollars
of value . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , as an example , the Forest
Home Lighting District is assessed at two or three cents per
$ 1 , 000 . 00 of assessed value . As a guess , Mr . Fabbroni stated
that a lighting district for this development could be ten cents
a thousand . Mr . Rider commented from the floor on the
thirty - foot high poles . Mr . Novarr responded that his feeling
was that they are too high also , but that is the standard . Mr .
Fabbroni pointed out that there is no requirement for street
lighting .
Mr . Peter Jackson , spoke from the floor and stated that he
• was embarrassed to note that it is his house shown on the
pictures as being the one missing two shutters . Mr . Jackson
stated that there was a reason for this , being that they were
Planning Board 37 April 3 , 1984
' blown off . Mr . Jackson commented that the area has been commonly
known as " Windy Hill " . Mr . Jackson vividly described the
prevailing winds . Mr . Wayne Corapi , 4 Pheasant Lane , spoke from
the floor and pointed out that all the houses developed so far
are southerly oriented , however , the proposed development has
everyone opposite and right into the wind . Vice Chairman
Grigorov stated that the Planning Board discussed the matter of
the lack of solar orientation with the developers who pointed out
that they were aware of it but preferred to go with the views
afforded by this orientation . With regard to both the winds and
the orientation , Dr . Rosenberg stated that , with the way the snow
drifts up on " Windy Hill " , the snow is 'going to pile up right
into the doorless carports .
Dr . Rosenberg stated that she would like to speak to
something far more fundamental in regard to this proposal , adding
that she had written down the words of Mr . Lovi and Mrs . Grigorov
which were with regard to buffering and screening and planting
large trees to screen the neighbors . Dr . Rosenberg stated that
these words seemed to be an agreement with the neighbors '
position , the inference being that large trees are needed and the
developer really has to work hard at separating these places from
the existing homes . Dr . Rosenberg stated that this shows just
how disharmonious this project is with respect to the existing
development .
Mr . Caldwell wondered about the cluster regulations which
call for 20 - foot wide streets when most Town streets are 50 feet
wide . Mr . Caldwell stated that the streets are very narrow and
asked who is going to plow them and who is going to maintain
them . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the subdivision regulations call
for a 60 - foot right of way , a paved portion 20 feet wide ; 4 - foot
shoulders . Mr . Fabbroni stated that that is what is proposed
here and is proposed as a standard Town highway . Mr . Fabbroni
commented that it is conceivable with what is proposed here
tonight with respect to the placement of the carports that , if
there were a third car , it could be on the right of way . A
lengthy discussion followed with respect to the carports .
Dr . Larry Rosenberg , 38 Dove Drive , spoke from the floor and
stated that he believed everyone of the Planning Board members
owns a home , a single family home , and lives in it . Dr .
Rosenberg stated that Mr . Klein is an architect , adding that he
( Rosenberg ) is not , and he would like him to comment on this
project . Dr . Rosenberg spoke of diminished value of neighboring
property over a longer time . Dr . Rosenberg stated that he liked
the neighborhood he lived in ; he would like to stay there ; he did
not want to move because the neighborhood is in disharmony with
his life . Dr . Rosenberg stated that he would appreciate a
thorough going - over of what the neighborhood had presented and a
denial of this project . Dr . Rosenberg stated that this
neighborhood will thrive the way it was planned .
i
Planning Board 38 April 3 , 1984
' Mr . Rider spoke from the floor and pointed out that Mr .
Novarr wants to change the plan that was approved , adding that he
( Rider ) liked the plan the way it was . Mr . Rider stated that Mr .
Novarr is involved in another controversy with the City
involving student housing . Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that
the Board was discussing the development being proposed for the
Town of Ithaca .
Attorney Hooks offered the following as a summation of the
proceedings and noted that there had been talk earlier , through
Mr . Caldwell , about the logic of the language in the zoning
regulations , quoting " injurious to the residents " . Mr . Hooks
stated that he thought the Board had to assume injury here ,
certainly a good possibility thereof . Mr . Hooks noted that these
individuals here present have taken their evenings to attend
these hearings . Mr . Hooks stated that they are assuming , for
good cause , that they will suffer material injury if this
development is approved . Mr . Hooks stated that that is very
important for the Board to bear in mind . Mr . Hooks urged the
Board to look at the pictures of the homes that these people have
and then look at the drawings presented by the developers . Mr .
Hooks stated that there is no question that this is a change in
the character of the neighborhood . Mr . Hooks stated that it is a
change for the worse ; it is deleterious , it is inappropriate to
the homes that they have . Mr . Hooks stated that he would not
want to have that risk imposed on him by the Planning Board .
S Vice Chairman Gri orov declared
g the Public Hearing duly
closed at 10 : 35 p . m .
Mr . Giannella spoke from the floor and stated that the major
objection of the neighborhood is that this proposal is
disharmonious , however , if the Board should decide that it is not
disharmonious , the neighbors hope for further discussions . Mr .
Giannella stated that they did not want to be shut out , adding
that they have to live with it if it goes through . Mr . Fabbroni
described the approval process which the Planning Board follows
with respect to development proposals , mentioning Public Hearings
for preliminary approval , final approval , site plans , etc . , and
building permit application requirements . Mr . Fabbroni noted
that timeliness is important in order to reflect the concerns of
neighborhoods throughout the whole process . Mr . Giannella stated
that the neighborhood can raise these items now . Mr . Lovi stated
that , as a point of information , it might be useful for him to
explain what preliminary subdivision approval is . Mr . Lovi
stated that preliminary subdivision approval merely allows the
builder to proceed with staking of streets and lots and gives him
some indication that he should go ahead with the preparation of
engineering drawings . Mr . Lovi stated that what is not timely is
when the developer has spent considerable dollars , after he has
received preliminary approval . Mr . Lovi stated that detailed
engineering drawings take weeks to prepare and comments from
residents can be incorporated . Mr . Lovi urged that
• Planning Board 39 April 3 , 1984
' in all developments , not just this one , people should come into
the office and go over plans with the staff .
Dr . Rosenberg spoke from the floor and stated that she had
three things to add : ( 1 ) Two weeks ago it was stated that the
covenant would be single family and that is not there , ( 2 ) The
occupancy is not legal under the current zoning law ; ( 3 ) She had
a paper to submit . Dr . Rosenberg read the following paper in its
entirety :
" The Town of Ithaca implied acceptance , or at least intent of
acceptance , of the original Hilker Haven Hills Subdivision , by at
least the six actions . These actions provided homeowners who
invested in the Haven Hills Subdivision with security and
assurance that they were making an investment in a specific type
of area . The Town of Ithaca , therefore , should not betray the
trust that the homeowners placed in its actions by radically
changing the character of the original Hilker Haven Hills
Subdivision Plan .
1 ) There are several versions of maps of the original Hilker
plan publicly available at the Town Hall . Each homeowner in the
subdivision was at some time shown a version of these maps . Many
of these maps have on them a stamp : Certificate of Approval -
Approved by Planning Board Town of Ithaca ( signed and dated ) .
These maps show the lots in Phase II drawn in , around as the
curve of Dove Drive . A stamp such as this implies approval of
every mark on the piece of paer to which it is affixed .
2 ) Those same maps identify , with another stamp , the ' Haven
Hills Subdivision ' , and this identification appears in the Phase
II portion of the map , implying that those lots are indeed part
of the approved subdivision .
3 ) In 1976 , I . S . Goldberg deeded to the Town of Ithaca five
acres of Eastern Heights , to be used as a park , contingent on the
town approving ' Hilker ' s subdivision as generally submitted . '
The Town accepted the five acres of land .
4 ) The subdivision regulations state that no two streets shall
have the same name , and that street names must be approved by the
Planning Board . Thus it is clear that the two Dove Drives are
really two sections of an incomplete loop that the Town in intent
approved .
5 ) The Subdivision regulations also state that house numbers
shall be assigned by the Town Engineer . On the Western portion
of Dove Drive , we have 4 and 6 , and on the Eastern portion 36 and
38 . The undeveloped 34 in Phase I and the 13 lots around the
outer perimeter of Dove Drive , shown on the abovementioned map ,
make up the balance of the numbers between 6 and 36 . Thus , in
assigning house numbers , the Town Engineer acted as though the
entire subdivision had been approved .
6 ) In the summer of 1983 , the Town of Ithaca staked out the park
in the NorthEast corner of the subdivision , in accordance with
the plan of the Hilker subdivision , and planted trees in this
park . The arrangement of these trees follows the curve of the
incomplete loop of Dove Drive .
( sgd . ) Pamela J . Rosenberg , 38 Dove Drive . "
, w
4
- Planning Board 40 April 3 , 1984
' Speaking to Mr . Goldberg , Mrs . Langhans stated that it had
been brought up that he could not sell these lots and that is why
he was going to go into this approach and asked if Mr . Goldberg
had advertised lots for sale . Mr . Goldberg stated that they took
possession several years ago and there has been an ad in the
paper every night , without exception , adding that they also
listed four lots initially with multiple listing . Mrs . Langhans
wondered how a certain lot was sold , to which Mr . Goldberg
responded , from the ad in the paper , individually , by him .
Mr . Klein stated that he had some thoughts to share . Mr .
Klein stated that his feeling was that , when the Board went
through the cluster regulations last year , and the intent , it was
obviously to allow the Planning Board , and thus development , some
flexibility with regard to standard tract subdivision . Mr . Klein
stated that he always felt the Board should look at cluster when
there is a better way . Mr . Klein stated that , obviously , there
is a great deal of controversy from the neighborhood about this
project , however , when the Board looked at Commonland there was
also a great deal of controversy but the Board felt considerable
merit there , for example , solar , super insulation , common space ,
homeowners ' association , and so on , such that it bought the
concept and felt it worthy , particularly on that tract of land
where it was very harmonious . Mr . Klein stated that that , in his
opinion , was why the Board accepted that project . Mr . Klein
stated that he felt , from what the Board has discussed here on
this particular proposal , the Board has tended to zone in on
certain detail questions , such as lighting , garbage , buffering ,
landscaping , parking , carports , but he did not think the Board
has really addressed the concept for this type of cluster . Mr .
Klein stated that , from his personal viewpoint , it is lacking in
merit , adding that the idea for this type of town house ,
certainly in this type of neighborhood , is alien , and has put
units on the site which respond to the topography but not to
solar or general character . Mr . Klein stated that he thought the
developer got " hung up " on that topography with duplexes ,
quad - plexes and carports . Mr . Klein stated that what is
presented in the compounds creates intersections that are bigger
than our Town road intersections . Mr . Klein asked , where do you
put the snow , and commented on the open aspects of the plan for
the carports and their being unheated , open to weather , etc . Mr .
Klein stated that he is not opposed , per se , to using this site
for cluster , but he thought the Board had seen the wrong concept
presented here . Mr . Klein suggested , perhaps , more units for one
and two family and pushing the cluster farther back toward the
Cornell property , adding that a different type of cluster would
be more compatible . Mr . Klein stated that he saw a whole bunch
of weaknesses , adding that he was speaking three dimensionally
and not on aspects of architecture and commenting that he did not
think any benefit has been gained from this clustering proposal .
Mr . Klein stated that he appreciated the input from the public
which was , for the most part , rational , however , he would add
that he did not agree with all of it .
a,
s.
- Planning Board 41 April 3 , 1984
Mr . Stanton stated that he would like to add , at this
juncture , that he has lived here for a long time and has a lot of
respect for Mr . Novarr as a builder over a long time too . Mr .
Stanton stated that one of the things he has expressed ,
consistently , over and over again , was whether these units would
sell . Mr . Stanton stated that that had been his standard
response for three meetings on the project . Mr . Stanton
wondered , perhaps , since he is not a developer , whether he should
have these feelings but , nonetheless , he did . Mr . Stanton
wondered , in an area where houses are more expensive , whether
this is the kind of thing that will go . Mr . Stanton stated that
he , and he assumed nobody else would , did not want to see another
Beacon Hills where something is started and not finished .
Mrs . Schultz stated that she agreed a lot with what Mr .
Klein said , adding that to compare this particular subdivision to
Commonland is like comparing apples and oranges in terms of what
it is . Mrs . Schultz stated that she did not see where this
project fits here . Mrs . Langhans commented that the map the
residents were shown is better than this plan . Mrs . Schultz
stated that some combination of both individual lots and
clustering could be very nice if done well and could fit very
well . Mrs . Schultz stated that she was not sure the East Ithaca
neighborhood needs townhouses here .
Mr . Fabbroni asked the Chair if he could be permitted to
clarify a few things for the record , and was granted such
permission . Mr . Fabbroni said that he would like to speak first
to the matter of the maps and to what has been referred to as the
various versions thereof around . Mr . Fabbroni stated that three
maps are filed at the Tompkins County Court House , adding that
one of the unfortunate aspects of the bankruptcy faced by Mr .
Hilker was that the maps developed by his surveyor were
insufficient as to accuracy . Mr . Fabbroni noted that five acres
of parkland were referred to , stated that what those five acres
turned out to be were 14 acres across the road in the Eastern
Heights Subdivision , and commented that that should not be
confused with the area in question here . Mr . Fabbroni stated
that , yes , five acres was promised , but subsequently , 14 acres
across the road were donated , and that satisfied the committment .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that , again because of the bankruptcy , there
was grappling about with respect to obtaining sufficient deeds to
the roads . Mr . Fabbroni stated that this subdivision at least
had considerable understanding with regard to the 2 . 2 acre park
area and that is why 13 evergreens , as part of an SBA Grant , were
planted where they were .
There being no further comments , Vice Chairman Grigorov
asked if anyone were ready to make a motion on this matter .
MOTION by Mrs . Barbara Schultz , seconded by Mr . David Klein :
RESOLVED , that preliminary subdivision approval pp for a
40 - unit clustered subdivision development in the vicinity of Dove
ti
► H - Planning Board 42 April 3 , 1984
Drive , off Snyder Hill Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 61 - 1 - 8 . 12 , 14 . 32 acres , as proposed by I . Stanley Goldberg ,
owner / developer , and John Novarr , builder , be and hereby is
denied .
Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any discussion on
the Motion on the floor . Mr . Fabbroni asked if the Board wished
to make any findings in the matter . Mrs . Schultz stated that she
thought she had said all that was necessary in that regard prior
to making the Motion . Mr . Klein stated that he also thought that
what he said would be in the Minutes . Mrs . Langhans pointed out
as criteria those items set forth in Article V , Section 32 ,
paragraph 4 , of the Subdivision Regulations [ page 221 .
Attorney Shapiro asked permission of the Chair to speak and
was granted such permission . Mr . Shapiro stated that he was the
attorney for the landowner and the developer . Mr . Shapiro stated
that findings would not be necessary , although , as City Attorney
for eight years , he could well understand Boards ' desires to
" guard their flanks as it were " . Mr . Shapiro stated that it is
clear that there has been a serious attempt to be responsive to
the concerns of the neighborhood on everyone ' s part , the Planning
Board , the staff , the developer . Mr . Shapiro stated that he did
not think there was any need to hash it out any further . Mr .
Shapiro stated that there may be future proposals for this land ,
however , the proposal before the Board tonight is respectfully
withdrawn .
There being no further discussion , the Vice Chairman called
for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Schultz , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Stanton .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Everybody thanked everybody .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the April 3 ,
1984 Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned
at 11 : 15 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .