HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1984-05-15 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MAY 15 , 1984
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , May 15 , 1984 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , Edward Mazza ,
James Baker , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Peter M .
Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : William E . Murray , Tom McCarthy , Pauline Sharp ,
Carl Roe , Donovan Benninger , Walter J . Wiggins ,
Esq . , William Downing , Architect , Joel Rabinowitz ,
Elizabeth Mulholland , Francis Moon , Deborah
Gesensway ( The Ithaca Journal ) , Bruce Ryan ( WHCU
News ) , Jim McKinley ( WTKO News ) , Karen Huxtable
( WKRT / WOKW Cortland News ) , Jeremy Howe ( WQNY
[ Qol04 . FMI News ) .
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 31 p . m .
and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on May 7 , 1984 and May 10 , 1984 , respectively ,
• together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of
said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties
in question , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public
Works , upon the Director of the Finger Lakes State Parks and
Recreation Commission , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning , and upon each of the applicants , on May 8 , 1984 .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR A TWO - LOT SUBDIVISION AT 308 CODDINGTON RD . , TAX
PARCEL NUMBER 6 - 42 - 1 - 1 , 1 . 6 ACRES , AND CONSIDERATION OF A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO VARY THE MINIMUM
FRONTAGE AND SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR AN R15 RESIDENCE
DISTRICT . WILLIAM E . MURRAY , OWNER/ DEVELOPER ,
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 33 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as published and as noted above .
Mrs . Schultz stated , for the record , that she would not be
participating in the discussion of this matter because of
conflict of interest , it being that she knew Mr . Murray .
The Board members each had before him/ her a copy of a Survey
Map of 308 Coddington Road , prepared by Kenneth A . Baker , L . L . S . ,
[ undated , however , showing Magnetic North 1982 , and showing
• recording in the County Clerk ' s Office in Liber 591 at page 8711 ,
a copy of Short Environmental Assessment Form as submitted and
signed by Mr . Murray under date of May 4 , 1984 , a copy of the
Planning Board 2 May 15 , 1984
' Town Planner ' s review under SEQR and recommendation therefor , a
copy of the subdivision proposal being presented by Mr . Murray
showing existing house and existing building with proposed
addition thereto , and a copy of a draft resolution for Planning
Board consideration as prepared by the Town Planner . Mr . Murray
appeared before the Board and stated that he knew he had 1 . 6
acres of land with about 179 ' of frontage , but he also knew that
if he made the division he had less than 100 ' on the highway for
one lot . Mr . Murray stated that he did know that he would have
around 29 , 300 square feet on that proposed parcel . Mr . Murray
stated that he had so much unusable land and he would really like
to split the lot so he could use the property and he would have
around 37 , 700 square feet on the one side and the other one would
be over 29 , 000 square feet . Mr . Murray commented that he knew
the area calls for 15 , 000 square feet . Mr . Murray stated that he
has an existing structure there and he would like to add to it
toward the bigger lot for a single family dwelling .
Chairman May asked Mr . Murray if he had two structures or
just one . Mr . Murray stated that , actually , there is one with
regard to the proposed lot . He noted that the other one shown on
the Survey is in bad need of repair and he planned to tear that
down and put something there . Chairman May , indicating on the
Survey , noted that the " back " building is the one to be torn
down . Mr . Murray stated that that was correct , adding that he
would like to leave that as a " patio " and storage area . Mr .
• Murray commented that the back " square " is a shed ; the " square "
in front is in good shape and is the one proposed to be added to .
Chairman May inquired as to the use for the new house . Mr .
Murray stated that it would be a three bedroom home . Mr . Murray
showed to the Board members what he termed at this point as his
ideas for the proposed " new " house . Mr . Murray stated that he
tried to measure the distance from the lot line to the existing
home to the north , Mrs . Sharp , and it is , he would guess , 25 ' to
30 ' away from the lot line .
Chairman May asked Mr . Murray if he planned to sell the
proposed second lot . Mr . Murray stated that he did not , adding
that he would like it for rent . Mr . Murray commented that he
lives down the road at 678 .
Mr . Mazza. stated that it appears that the frontage on the
one lot is proposed at 79 ' at the centerline of the road and then
it gets narrower as it goes back by the existing structure . Mr .
Lovi stated that he thought Mr . Murray ' s intent was to try to
split the lot in such a manner that the one lot , with the
existing house on it , would comply with the 100 - foot frontage
requirement and then only one lot would need variances for the
frontage and for the 7 ' 7 " side yard . Mr . Mazza stated that the
lot which shows the 100 - foot frontage is not 100 feet at the
setback . Mr . Lovi commented that the split line is a proposed
• line , adding that a legal lot could be cut by redrawing that
line .
Planning Board 3 May 15 , 1984
• Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished
to speak to this matter .
Mrs . Pauline Sharp , 264 Coddington Road , spoke from the
floor and stated that she is the next door neighbor and that the
north side of his garage is 7 ' 7 " from the stake dividing their
property . Mrs . Sharp stated that she understood that Mr . Murray
is going to change the garage into an apartment building which he
would rent to students . Mrs . Sharp stated that he already has an
apartment building there and there is a lot of noise . Mrs .
Murray stated that they are all senior citizens up there and they
do not like it very much . Mrs . Sharp stated that there are four
apartments , four meters , in the house at 308 .
Mr . Murray stated that he would like to say that there are
only two meters on the house . Chairman May asked Mr . Murray if
308 Coddington Road was a two - family house or not . Mr . Murray
stated that it is a two - family house . Mrs . Sharp stated that
there were cars and bottles in her driveway , adding that it was
not very pleasant and that she has to keep her windows shades
pulled down .
Mr . Donovan Benninger , 263 Coddington Road , spoke from the
floor and stated that there is an existing creek down Mr .
Murray ' s property between the garage and the existing building .
Mr . Benninger stated that he has owned property across the street
• for a long time and there were no problems until the creek was
cleaned and the sod taken out . Mr . Benninger described certain
drains , commenting that if they dig he will get more water . Mr .
Benninger stated that there is not enough parking .
Mr . Murray stated that he was a resident of the area too and
knew of Mr . Benninger ' s problem . Mr . Murray stated that when he
bought this house he had , at times , three to four feet of water
in the basement because the ditch was blocked up and needed to be
taken care of . Mr . Murray stated that that ditch had not been
taken care of for twenty years , commenting that on the other side
there is nothing there . Mr . Benninger spoke of a 20 " sluice
pipe . Mr . Murray described the 36 " culvert which runs from his
property across to the other side of Coddington Road . Mr . Murray
spoke of a ditch running from there between Gray ' s and
Benninger ' s and then a 20 " pipe under Gray ' s driveway and then
another ditch and then a 16 " pipe as being part of the problem .
Mr . Murray stated that he could not afford to install a pipe for
Mr . Benninger , Mr . Benninger stated that the water is coming
from where Mr . Murray is . Mr . Murray commented that before the
ditch was cleaned up ,, Mrs . Sharp was washed out .
Chairman May asked if there were anyone else who wished to
speak to this matter . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the
public hearing at 7 : 58 p . m . and asked for Board discussion .
• Mr . Mazza commented that this two - lot subdivision was not
quite the same as Mr . Sapa ' s which the Board had just had before
Planning Board 4 May 15 , 1984
• it , Mr . Sapa having a frontage deficiency but much more land .
Mr . Murray stated that on the side where the stake is by Mrs .
Sharp ' s house , that side of the proposed single family dwelling
will have no windows . Mr . Murray stated that he will face the
house toward the proposed lot line and to the back for the sake
of the neighbor to the other side . Mr . Murray commented that
Mrs . Sharp has always had her shades pulled long before he bought
the property .
Chairman May asked if the Board wished to look at the EAF ,
noting that all the questions had been answered " no " and Mr . Lovi
had presented his review . The Board members spoke briefly about
the stream discussions which had taken place which might pertain
to question # 5 and they wondered about questions number 14 and
15 .
Mr . Mazza noted that there is a ditch between the road and
the proposed structure and asked Mr . Murray how he was going to
get people back to that structure . Mr . Murray stated that there
is a gravel driveway there , adding that the driveway is to the
north of the ditch and there could be parking in front of the
existing building on that proposed lot . Mr . Mazza wondered where
the driveway and parking are for the other lot . Mr . Murray
indicated those areas on the drawing .
It was the general feeling of the Board members that they
• would like to go up and look at the site .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
RESOLVED , by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca , that
the Public Hearing in the matter of the Murray Two- Lot
Subdivision be and hereby is adjourned until Tuesday , June 5 ,
1984 , at 7 : 45 p . m .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Mazza , Baker , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Schultz .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Chairman May declared the matter of the Murray Two- Lot
Subdivision request duly adjourned at 8 : 05 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PHASE I OF " THE CHATEAU "
DEVELOPMENT AND RECONSIDERATIN OF A PRIOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE
TOWN BOARD TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO
PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 80 - UNIT " BED AND BREAKFAST " - STYLE
HOTEL . A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 36 - 1 - 4 . 2 , 1152 DANBY ROAD ,
WALTER J . WIGGINS , OWNER / DEVELOPER .
Planning Board 5 May 15 , 1984
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 06 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as published and as noted above .
Mr . William Downing , Architect , appeared before the Board on
behalf of Mr . Wiggins , who was also present . Mr . Downing pointed
out that this time Mr . Wiggins ' proposed building is on his own
land - - it is 30 feet from the farthest corner of the proposed
building to Mr . Wiggins ' daughter ' s lot line . Mr . Downing
distributed among the Board members copies of a set of three
drawings dated 5 / 7 / 84 , entitled " La Tourelle " and consisting of
" Landscape Plan " [ including all existing structures and features
of all of Mr . Wiggins ' property ] , Site Plan , and East Elevation ,
with each drawing marked " Progress Print - - Date of Issue
5 / 15 / 84 " .
Mr . Downing pointed out the revisions made as to the
configuration of the " Country Inn " , pointed out the future
addition of 55 units as shown by broken lines , and noted that the
first phase , shown in solid lines , is to consist of 24 units plus
the manager ' s office . Referring to the elevation drawing , Mr .
Downing noted that the gable is 521 ; it is a 3 - story building at
one point , but most of the building is , in fact , 2 - stories . Mr .
Downing stated that there are four units in the ground level .
Chairman May wondered what was going to be in the roof area .
Mr . Downing explained that that area is all trusses , stating that
there is no use for that space but for the appearance that they
are trying to achieve , that high line is important to the
character and ambience of L ' Auberge which is a Four - Star
restaurant .
Mr . Wiggins stated that they have abandoned what he termed
their " hold - back " position with respect to having apartments
should the venture fail , commenting that it was creating problems
with trying to establish a local law amending the zoning
ordinance , so , he is not going to be asking for that , thus , he
and the Board need not be concerned about converting back to
apartments . Mr . Wiggins commented that he felt this should
eliminate that problem of 22 units or 24 units , or whatever . Mr .
Downing noted that , on this building , in this particular site , it
is 30 feet to the north side lot line , and the gable at its
maximim height is 52 ' only at one area , however , the ordinance
indicates a side yard as no less than the height of the nearest
structure and , in addition , the plan indicates the 25 " units " .
Chairman May wondered why the plan shows the placement of
the dumpster in the proposed area of the future addition . Mr .
Downing stated that the dumpster has to be somewhere , commenting
that architects like to hide those kinds of things as much as
possible , and adding that , also , there is a door to the basement
at that point . Mr . Downing stated that there really is a small
amount of refuse that will come out of the Inn in any case .
Planning Board 6 May 15 , 1984
Chairman May wondered where it will go later . Mr . Downing
indicated several options for the future placement of refuse .
Mr . Mazza inquired if the matter of the proposed expansion
of the restaurant - - L ' Auberge itself - - had been attended to or
was a part of this discussion . The Secretary stated that the
Zoning Board of Appeals had given special approval to permit the
proposed expansion of L ' Auberge du Cochon Rouge [ March 14 , 1984 ] .
Mr . Downing concurred , commenting that the restaurant is not an
issue at this meeting .
Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished
to speak to this matter . No one spoke .
Referring to the " future access road " indicated on the
drawing. before the Board , Mrs . Langhans inquired where it went .
It was stated that it went to the back of the property - - the
remaining 30 + acres .
Mr . Downing stated that the thrust of their effort tonight
is to get ready for the issuance of a building permit . Chairman
May noted that that would involve Phase 1 , site plan approval .
Mr . Lovi stated that there should be recommendations to the Town
Board with respect to the proposed height . Mrs . Langhans noted
that the main part is about 42 ' high and one area is 521 . Mr .
Lovi stated that he thought there were a couple of aspects with
which he had some problems , although they did not concern the
30 - foot side yard , given the amount of land owned by Mr . Wiggins '
daughter and the scale of the project . Mr . Lovi stated that what
he did think is , with respect to the landscaping plan , that the
trees should at least be " adolescent " or mature trees . Mr .
Downing stated that their specifications are 3z " to 4 " and that
is about a twenty - foot tree . Mr . Downing described the trees he
had placed at the DeWitt Building just a few years ago of similar
specification and commented on their proportions now . Mr .
Downing expressed his concern with the question of very large
" mature " being able to live . Mr . Lovi agreed but pointed out
that trees in that north line area should be mature - - perhaps 4 "
to 5 " . Mr . Lovi stated that he was troubled by the " future
access road " as mapped which is about five or six feet from the
Barn . Mr . Downing stated that he had thought that was what Mr .
Lovi had wanted . Mr . Lovi stated that that was not the case .
Upon discussion , it was decided that " access " would be through
the parking lot as had been indicated on earlier drawings . Mr .
Lovi now spoke of the land that was " lost " when it was clear that
the original plans had placed part of the proposed building on
Mr . Wiggins ' daughter ' s land and pointed out that that " lost "
land should be made up and could be by the inclusion of land
farther to the south , such that the involved portion of Mr .
Wiggins ' land would still be around 20 acres . After some working
with the drawings on the table , it was agreed that the line could
be moved down a little . Mr . Lovi stated that approximately 20
acres of land devoted to this project would be on the same order
of magnitude as what the Boards had seen before .
Planning Board 7 May 15 , 1984
Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi if he and Mr . Fabbroni were
comfortable with the utilities . Mr . Lovi indicated that they
were , asking , however , if there would be some pumping involved
with the sewer usage . Mr . Downing described the process planned
for sewage disposal , noting that pumping would be necessary in
the case of the four units plus the manager ' s office in the lower
level and adding that insofar as the additional units are
concerned , pumping would have to be involved there also . Mr .
Lovi stated that he and Mr . Cartee [ Town Building Inspector ] had
discussed with Mr . Downing and his associate , Mr . Parsons , the
matter of fire safety with respect to such things as hydrants and
access around the building . Mr . Lovi stated that the Architect
has obliged them by indicating fire lanes to the west and a
future fire lane around the back and has shown on the drawing the
fire hydrant location west of L ' Auberge and the future fire
hydrant west of the proposed Inn . Mr . Lovi suggested that when
they are considering future additions , they also consider another
fire lane , although the one indicated may be okay . Mr . Lovi also
suggested a hydrant in the back of the building and perhaps one
up near the Barn . Mr . Downing stated that they had been to the
City of Ithaca Fire Department and they instructed them to put
the fire hydrant where they did , that being sufficient with them .
Mr . Downing stated that the plan before the Board , in that
respect , is all in accordance with their requests and
recommendations .
At this juncture , Mr . Downing wanted to be sure in his mind
where things stood and what needs to be approved by the Board .
Mr . Downing mentioned the 52 - foot height , the 30 - foot side yard ,
25 units which will ultimately be 80 . Mr . Lovi added , the
wording with respect to the " apartments " needs to be changed and
the size and caliper of trees should be indicated . The Secretary
reminded the Board of the discussion of the change in the
perimeters of that portion of Mr . Wiggins ' land which is to be
devoted to this project .
Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 35 p . m .
Mr . Wiggins wondered if he were correct in that he sensed
that this proposal is appropriate as it is now presented so that
he could go out to bid . It appeared that that was a concern of
Mr . Wiggins ' consultants . Chairman May asked that Mr . Lovi
prepare a draft of a resolution for the Board to consider .
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Barbara
Schultz :
RESOLVED , by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca , that
the Public Hearing with respect to the Wiggins ' development at
1152 Danby Road be and hereby is adjourned until Tuesday , June 5 ,
1984 , at 8 : 15 p . m .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Planning Board 8 May 15 , 1984
Aye - May , Schultz , Mazza , Baker , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None ,
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously ,
Chairman May declared the matter of the Wiggins ' development
duly adjourned at 8 : 42 p . m .
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr . Lovi stated that , as the Board knew , there have been
discussions with the representatives of the City of Ithaca with
respect to the Six Mile Creek Study Committee Report and the
proposals for the implementation of certain recommendations . Mr .
Lovi stated that there have been discussions also following a
letter from the Town Supervisor that some actions be reviewed by
the Town before actions are taken by the City . Mr . Lovi stated
that meetings were held with Mr . Daniel Hoffman of Common
Council , Mr . Francis Moon of the Study Committee , and Beth
Mulholland of The Circle Greenway , where different areas of
significance were discussed and out of which there appears to be
a difference of opinion as to action which falls under SEQR . Mr .
Lovi stated that the matter was left with the City to complete a
Town of Ithaca Environmental Assessment Form , they completed a
City of Ithaca Short Form and Long Form EAF and have given us a
copy as of late this afternoon [ May 15th ] . Mr . Lovi commented
• that there was not time to make copies for the Board members ,
however , as he has been keeping the Chairman of the Planning
Board , the Supervisor , and the Planning Board informed , he wished
to point out to the Board at this time that an EAF was presented
today , with the decision whether to support this or not being up
to the Board . Mr . Lovi noted that Mrs . Mulholland , Mr . Moon , and
Mr . Joel Rabinowitz of the Study Committee , were here this
evening and prepared to discuss the matter ,
Chairman May stated that the representatives were welcome ,
and they and the Board could talk about this if they want ,
however , he wished to make it clear where the matter stands ,
Chairman May stated that he could not accept this Environmental
Assessment Form dated May 15 , 1984 as submitted on the City of
Ithaca ' a Long Environmental Assessment Form . Chairman May stated
that the Town of Ithaca will act as lead agency in the review of
this matter . Chairman May reiterated that he will not accept
this form , stating that the EAF must be completed on a Town of
Ithaca form and submitted to the Town for review ,
Mr . Joel Rabinowitz stated that he would like , at this time ,
to submit a Memorandum dated May 15 , 1984 , from L . Richard
Stumbar , Corporate Counsel , City of Ithaca , addressed to the Six
Mile Creek Study Group in re " Environmental Impact Statement " .
Mr . Rabinowitz read the Memorandum aloud , noting that the
secretary had made a typographical error in the first sentence by
referring to " Fall Creek " , as follows : " I have been asked for my
opinion concerning the ' lead agency ' for the environmental review
Planning Board 9 May 15 , 1984
process concerning implementation of new Fall Creek regulations .
TIt is my opinion that the lead agency in this matter is the City
of Ithaca . I ' Lead Agency ' is defined in the Environmental
Conservation Law Section 8 - 0111 ( 6 ) as the agency - - having
principal responsibility for carrying out or approving such
action . IThe action referred to here , of course , is the action
of City Council directed at the use of the Six Mile Creek area .
Thus , even though the area in question is within the Town of
Ithaca it is the action of the City of Ithaca which is to be
examined visavis [ sic . ] impact on the environment . 50f course ,
the spirit of the law calls for cooperation between both agencies
( City and Town ) and I ' m sure all input from the Town would be
welcomed . "
Mr . Rabinowitz apologized for the secretary ' s error in
typing Fall Creek , adding that Mr . Stumbar was speaking of Six
Mile Creek . Chairman May stated that Mr . Rabinowitz may be
right , however , the memorandum will go into the record as he
signed it . Mr . Rabinowitz asked if the matter of lead agency was
open for discussion . Chairman May stated that it was not .
Mr . Francis Moon stated that he knew nothing about
environmental law but , what he was trying to find out is what the
intent of the Town is with regard to this review . Mr . Moon
stated that there have been three members of the Town on this
Committee for over a year and at no time were they advised that
• it would have to go through the Town . Mr . Moon stated that they
want something in place before the swimming season and spoke of
several strategies to get through Common Council , Mr . Moon
stated that they were told that a review by the Town would be pro
forma . Mr . Moon spoke of some four recommendations in the March
1984 Summary Report wherein there is mention of cooperation with
the Town . Mr . Moon stated that by delay we are risking the
safety of the public with regard to the coming season . Mr . Moon
stated that the public has had access through The Circle Greenway
for eight years , adding that there is no new use in any dramatic
way . Mr . Moon stated that the Committee recommends that the City
open up some new trails and put some teeth into prohibitions
against swimming and also recommended gorge ranger patrol . Mr .
Moon stated that the EAF form says that there be no exit into the
Town . Mr . Moon pointed out that there are existing paths which
have been used for eight years . Mr . Moon noted that the idea is
to let people use a few more paths than were used for the past
eight years ; no swimming ; no entrances or exits in the Town . Mr .
Moon stated that they hope to negotiate with the Town and The
Circle Greenway some access in the future . Mr . Moon stated that
if this is held up for Town hearings , there will be nothing in
place before summer and the public will be thoroughly confused
because they will think they can use the area for walking and
hiking . Mr . Moon stated that a very dangerous situation can be
created by this . Mr . Moon stated that he would hope the Town
Board and the Planning Board recognized the situation and could ,
in some spirit of cooperation , proceed now . Mr . Moon commented
that it is not like the Town has not had input . Mr . Moon stated
Planning Board 10 May 15 , 1984
that he would like to know what the substantial concerns from the
Town are that would hold this up .
Mr . Lovi stated that , for over a year , he and Chairman May
were on the Six Mile Creek Study Committee which was created as a
lay board to provide then Mayor Shaw with a series of
recommendations on this area . Mr . Lovi stated that , in that
capacity , he was there as a staff liaison to keep the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board apprised as to what was taking place . Mr .
Lovi stated that once a final document was presented and , more
particularly , once actions are going to be taken , it is
important , at that point , for environmental review to begin . Mr .
Lovi commented that the City of Ithaca is a large landowner in
this case , not unlike other large landowners such as Therm or
Candlewyck Apartments , and when these corporations propose some
action in the Town , then it is customary for the Town to have
review powers . Mr . Lovi spoke of the Town Supervisor ' s letter of
May 1 , 1984 , to the Mayor , a copy of which the Planning Board
members had been sent , which indicates that , once actions are
proposed to be taken , based on the report , then it is time to get
together , isolate areas of concern , and provide a forum for the
citizens of the Town to have input and speak to this matter of
the Six Mile Creek area also . Mr . Lovi stated that the residents
of the Town are concerned that a lay board and a City board are
making decisions without their input and feel that it is now time
for Town residents , for Town concerns , to be heard and somebody
. is going to have to take responsibility to weigh the impact of
these concerns . Mr . Lovi pointed out that it is the opinion of
the Town Supervisor and the Planning Board Chairman that it
should be the Town ; it is apparently the opinion of the City
Attorney , Mr . Stumbar , that it should be the City .
Chairman May commented that Mr . Lovi had stated the matter
very well , adding that this is not an adversarial program and
stating that he was merely complying with the Town SEQR Law which
comes into play when an action is proposed to be taken in the
Town requiring the filing of a Town of Ithaca Environmental
Assessment Form ,
Mrs . Mulholland asked Chairman May why he did not tell the
Committee that earlier since he knew this was the critical year
and May is the critical month . Chairman May stated that he
believed it was spoken of and , apparently , was not heard .
Mr . Lovi asked permission to read into the record the
following letter , dated May 10 , 1984 , to Town Supervisor Noel
Desch , signed by Claudia Weisburd , President , Commonland
Community Residents ' Association , with Paula Dougan , William
Petrillose , members of the Board , with copies to Hon . J .
Gutenberger , Clausen , R . Marion , D . Marion , J . Marion , Howser ,
Tauber , Lowe , Battistella , and Pierro . Mr . Lovi read as follows :
" We are writing for the Board of Directors and the residents
of Commonland Community concerning current proposals for the Six
Planning Board 11 May 15 , 1984
• Mile Creek watershed land . At two meetings of the thirty
families now resident at Commonland , we discussed the subject and
some concerns and questions were raised . Subsequently , the Board
of Directors decided that it was important that we express these
concerns to the Town . Further , we feel strongly that it is
important that Town residents be made fully aware of the
proposals and have ample opportunity to assess , discuss , and
analyze the various impacts of the plans .
Our concerns centered on the question of public access ,
specifically : where would Town entrances be located , how would
use of presently used ( and possible new ) illegal access points be
controlled , what might be the effect on liability of adjacent
landowners , and what would the overall impact be of opening this
property to the public ? Instinctively , it would seem that
opening access to the public would increase public use . How much
might the useage increase ? ' What provisions will be made for
parking , already a problem in some areas ? How will this increase
affect trespassing on private property , with attendent problems
of liability , litter , damage , and disturbance ?
Because the major portion of the watershed property lies
within Town boundaries and adjacent to Town residents , we are
very anxious that consideration be given to the impact on Town
residents , and that a forum exist for public exchange on these
questions .
• Thank you .
Sincerely ,
( sgd . ) Claudia Weisburd "
Mr . Lovi stated , by way of addition to this letter , that he
would like to say that the environmental review that was gone
through on the Commonland project was very extensive and was at
great length concerning the effect of Commonland residents upon
the watershed . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town was clearly the
lead agency in that project in the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Lovi
noted that now there is before us a project of even greater
magnitude and now it is being propounded that the Town should not
be the lead agent . Mr . Lovi commented that , frankly , he was
stunned .
Chairman May stated that this matter must not be addressed
in a fragmented manner even though Mr . Moon has mentioned that
they are taking out access in the Town . Chairman May stated that
the environmental review should be based on the report involving
some 14 points and all of those questions should be addressed
now .
Mr . Rabinowitz stated that , with all due respect to Mr .
• Moon , he believed the environmental review process is very
appropriate and he did believe that many of the Six Mile Creek
Study Committee recommendations will have to undergo
Planning Board 12 May 15 , 1984
• environmental review . Mr . Rabinowitz stated that in some cases ,
in some of these recommendations , the Town would have to be the
lead agency , however , in recommendations " 1 " and " 2 " of the
Report , it is quite clear , from the New York State SEQR Law that
the Town is not the lead agency or involved .
Chairman May stated that he did not believe we should be
addressing items 1 and 2 - - we should be addressing items 1
through 14 .
Mr . Rabinowitz stated that the City has the right to decide
which ones are to be done now and which ones can wait . Mr .
Rabinowitz stated that one that can wait is the conservation zone
matter , suggesting the initiation of discussions with the Town to
create such a conservation zone , then begin and the Town is the
lead agency . Mr . Rabinowitz stated that to ask the City of
Ithaca to make an environmental assessment of simply a report of
a lay committee - - a report that is simply a set of
recommendations until such time as the City should decide to
implement these recommendations - - is inappropriate . Mr .
Rabinowitz stated that items 1 and 2 were voted on and are out of
a committee of Common Council , adding that it was realized that
environmental assessment should be made of them , there being no
question who is lead agent if one examines the SEQR law . Mr .
Rabinowitz quoted - - " fund , approve , or undertake " , and stated
that that clearly means the City .
• Chairman May stated that he heard Mr . Rabinowitz and
he
disagreed , adding that the review should not be fragmented or
segmented , but should be as a total approach .
Mr . Moon stated that he could not understand , pointing out
that there was a public hearing and , further , there were two
residents of Commonland participating in the Committee . Mr . Moon
asked what substantive issue was the problem . Mr . Lovi pointed
out that it was a public informational meeting that was held by
the City .
Chairman May stated that the substantive issue is that we
are going to comply with the Town of Ithaca SEQR Law .
Mrs . Mulholland described telephone calls she has had with
respect to there being no access to the area for people on the
north side of Slaterville Road , whereas people from the south
side of Route 79 can walk down into the area . Chairman May
stated that all of that points to the difficulty in fragmenting
the environmental review . Mr . Moon countered that the City is
not proposing to put an exit there at this season . Mr . Moon
stated that he was very disappointed .
Mr . Rabinowitz stated that Ms . Leslie Dotson wrote the
recommendation for item # 1 . Mr . Rabinowitz stated that there
were two professional planners in regular attendance at the
meetings of the Committee and they spoke and were listened to .
y
, • Planning Board 13 May 15 , 1984
• Mr . Rabinowitz stated that bringing this issue up at this time
makes people wonder .
Chairman May stated that he had difficulty with Mr .
Rabinowitz saying that this issue is coming up now in view of the
letter written by the Supervisor to the Mayor some five or six
weeks ago in the early part of April .
Mrs . Schultz posed the following , stating that , as she
understood what was being said , if she owned 100 acres of
property , until such time as she actually planned to build , say
an amusement park , on it , nobody does an environmental review on
it . Mrs . Schultz commented that that seems to be the problem ,
noting that the City is a landowner in the Town . Mrs . Schultz
stated that the Planning Board learned a lot listening to people
about their concerns about Commonland and the Board has that
responsibility . Mr . Rabinowitz stated that he agreed and that
there will be review , however , at this point , they are not
changing the environment . Mrs . Schultz stated that she thought
there was an adjudication procedure in cases where there is
conflict as to lead agency status .
Mr . Lovi stated that , if there is disagreement as to who
should be the lead agency , the Commissioner of the NYS Department
of Conservation acts as the adjudicator and decides who is to be
the lead agency . Mr . Lovi commented that he was asked to be on
• this lay board - - as a staff member - - and to mix the formal
requirements of the SEQR process with the more fluid dynamics of
a board discussion is a good question that could be raised ,
however , we are not doing that . Mr . Lovi stated that there are
specific proposals being put forth ; opening of trails is being
proposed ; public access is being proposed ; conservation zone is
being proposed , critical area designation is being proposed
all directly involving the Town .
Mrs . Mulholland wondered what happens now . Mr . Lovi
suggested that it would appear that either an officer of the City
or the Town , or both , should write to the Commissioner for
adjudication of the lead agency dispute .
Mr . Moon spoke of 50 acres with access and 75 acres with
four entrances .
Mr . Rabinowitz noted that it seems to be the Board ' s
position - that the entire report should be subject to review as an
entire body of recommendations , adding that he wondered how that
can happen when some portions are simply recommendations to have
discussions with the Town . Mr . Rabinowitz stated that he would
also point out that Supervisor Desch ' s letter looked at specific
recommendations and singled them out as " should be significant . "
Mr . Rabinowitz stated that Common Council has addressed one area
in connection with The Circle Greenway .
. , Planning Board 14 May 15 , 1984
• Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Rabinowitz why he thought the City of
Ithaca has to do the Environmental Assessment Form . Mr .
Rabinowitz stated that the City of Ithaca does not have to do an
Environmental Impact Statement on items # 1 and # 2 , noting that
the City did a Short Form EAF for # 1 and # 2 and then filled out a
Long Form EAF , which it has done , and a copy was given to Mr .
Lovi . Mr . Mazza asked , " Why did you think it needs to be done ? "
Mr . Rabinowitz responded , " We thought it needed to be done . " Mr .
Mazza wondered why , if he thought it needed to be done , should
not the Town do it . Mr . Rabinowitz described how " they " filled
out the Short Form leading to the Long Form . Mr . Mazza stated
that he did not agree .
Mr . Lovi stated that it is clear that in cases where DEC has
had permitting powers they can attach conditions to its permit
even if such is outside of their review and there should be a way
that the public of both the City and the Town have a forum , a
proper forum , between the City and the Town so that both are
aware of what the impacts are or may be . Mr . Rabinowitz stated
that they could set that up . Chairman May stated that there was
no way they could set that up because the Town is the lead agency
and will do so when the City prepares the proper forms . Mr . Moon
wondered if the City did fill out what the Chairman considers the
proper form , what the time would be in order to move ahead .
Chairman May replied that , after the EAF was submitted , it could
be reviewed and if it were accepted , it could possibly be all
• done at one meeting - - possibly even at the next meeting in two
weeks , June 5th . Mr . Moon stated that he was distressed with
citizens arguing over a form . Chairman May stated that he was
taking the only position that he can under the law . Mr . Moon
warned of greater impact on the Town with respect to hurting the
public by holding this up .
Mr . Mazza stated that some kind of notice was given by the
Supervisor to the Mayor about a month or month and a half ago ,
adding that if the proper procedure had been followed then the
Board could have had the Public Hearing and all this would be
over and done with . Mr . Mazza indicated his objection to
statements inferring that the Town is holding things up . Mr .
Rabinowitz stated that Common Council felt some things could go
ahead ; others , such as items # 1 and # 2 , it was realized that an
EAF was needed to be done .
No further discussion took place .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 17 , 1984
MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board Meeting of April 17 , 1984 , be and hereby are approved as
written .
, ^ Planning Board 15 May 15 , 1984
9
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Mazza , Baker , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Schultz .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 1 , 1984
MOTION by Mr . James Baker , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board Meeting of May 1 , 1984 , be and hereby are approved as
written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Schultz , Mazza , Baker , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the May 15 1984
y meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9 : 55 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•