Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1984-06-05 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD JUNE 5 , 1984 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , June 5 , 1984 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , Carolyn Grigorov , David Klein , Bernard Stanton , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Carl Roe , Myrtle Spencer , Donovan Benninger , Thomas J . McCarthy , William E . Murray , Walter J . Wiggins , Esq . , Elmer Ewing , Royal D . Colle , Hermogenes Mecenas , Bruce Turnbull , Shirley Raffensperger , Mark Schultz ( WHCU News ) , Mike Clark ( WTKO News ) , Name , illegible ( OK / 100 News ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 55 p . m . upon the arrival of Mr . Stanton making a quorum . ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( FROM MAY 151, 1984 ) : 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 Adjourned Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 55 p . m . , and read aloud from the Agenda as mailed and as noted above . Mr . Murray was present . Mrs . Schultz reminded the Board that she would not be participating in the discussion of this matter due to conflict of interest . Chairman May noted that Planning Board members had each received , with his / her Agenda prior to this meeting , a copy of a " Statement of Drainage Problems and Solutions - - Coddington Road " as prepared by Jeff Finn , Larry Fabbroni , and Susan Beeners , together with three letters in support of Mr . Murray ' s application and , also that members of the Board had looked at the site as they had been requested to do at the last meeting on this matter [May 15 , 1984 ] . Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi to speak to the Drainage Problems and Solutions Report , Mr . Lovi stated that there is erosion on the lot on the far side of Coddington Road . Mr . Lovi stated that the pipe in place is considerably smaller than the one going across and is not in good repair . Mr . Lovi stated that , as the Report says , there is nowhere • near the amount of cross - section to carry the flow . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought some work would have to be done on Mr . Benninger ' s lot to control the drainage . With respect to Mr . Murray ' s lot , Mr . Planning Board 2 June 5 , 1984 Lovi stated that something he ( Murray ) could do , because there is some erosion on his own ditch , is a tie wall on the embankment to prevent further erosion of the soil , somewhat like that at Commonland Community , and plantings above the wall and along the embankment to further support the soil and , in order to slow down the water flow as it comes into the turn to head into the pipe into Coddington Road , a single check dam should be built with rock splash pan in front of the turn . Mr . Lovi commented that these improvements would cut down the erosion problems on the north side of that ditch . Mr . Lovi stated that , apart from that , the other matter raised at the last meeting by Mr . Mazza was parking and its relationship to the ditch . Mr . Lovi stated that there are two ways to go - - ( 1 ) consolidate all the parking on the single lot on the south side of the ditch , which is really where most of the gravelled area is , with the check dam making a nice footbridge to the second lot . Mr . Lovi commented that this would eliminate the need for two driveways so close together . - - ( 2 ) maintain a driveway on the second lot . Mr . Lovi commented that this would not look as nice . Mr . Lovi stated that his feelings remain unchanged insofar as the recommendation he made at the last meeting is concerned . Mr . Lovi stated that he walked to the headwaters of that stream and found that it disappears into a lot of tangle . Chairman May inquired about the County pipe running under Coddington Road , asking if it were clear . Mr . Lovi stated that it is clear , adding that the County pipe is not the problem . • Mr . Murray stated that he believed Mr . Benninger had changed his pipe over this past weekend . Mr . Benninger appeared before the Board and passed out several photographs of his property across the road from Mr . Murray . Mr . Benninger stated that he had spent about $ 600 . 00 putting in a new 20 " pipe and generally cleaning up . Mr . Murray commented that he was afraid Mr . Benninger could still have the same problem because of the 36 " County pipe . Considerable discussion took place among Messrs . Murray , Benninger , and Lovi , using the pictures , with respect to pipes in place and new pipe installed and sides of ditches , etc . Mr . Lovi commented that there are some things which Mr . Murray could do with a check dam and also through the use of plantings , noting that the Town Landscape Consultant , Susan Beeners , could give him a list of modest varieties of plants that would take care of supporting the soil along the embankment . Mr . Lovi stated that it should also be noted that we did have a pretty darn wet spring . Chairman May asked if there were any other persons who wished to speak . Mrs . Myrtle Spencer , 265 Coddington Road , spoke from the floor and stated that they never had this problem , never , adding that this is the third time this year . • Chairman May asked if there any other comments . There were none . Planning Board 3 June 5 , 1984 Chairman May asked that the Board now turn to the matter of the environmental review . Chairman May stated that a Short Environmental Assessment Form had been filled out and signed by William E . Murray under date of May 4 , 1984 , with all questions answered " no " ; the Town Planner reviewed the EAF on May 9 , 1984 , and made a recommendation , as follows . Chairman May read : " This minor subdivision will not present any significant environmental impacts . The subdivision , as proposed , will provide 100 feet of road frontage for lot 6 - 42 - 1 - 1 and 79 feet of frontage for the ' new ' lot , however , there will be approximately 35 , 000 square feet of acreage for each lot , far in excess of the 15 , 000 required for an R15 zone . A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be necessary in order to permit this subdivision with one lot having substandard frontage . In addition , a side yard variance is needed to permit the renovation of the existing structure on the substandard lot . I recommend a negative declaration of environmental significance . " Mr . Stanton noted that , in terms of " substandard " the new lot is only substandard insofar as road frontage . Mr . Lovi agreed , commenting that that was a bad choice of words there , and stated that he would suggest removing the word substandard with respect to the lot . The Secretary noted that the frontage of the " new " lot is also somewhat less than 79 feet , more like 72 feet , and the acreage • in each lot is about 38 , 000 / 28 , 000 square feet . The Board agreed to the changes noted . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton * RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as lead agency in the environmental review of the proposed 2 - lot subdivision development at 308 Coddington Road ( tax parcel # 6 - 42 - 1 - 1 , 1 . 6 acres ) , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Short Form as completed , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that , pursuant to Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 3 - 1980 , this action is classified as Unlisted , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has determined from the Environmental Assessment Short Form and all pertinent information that the above -mentioned action will not significantly impact the environment and , therefore , will not require further environmental review . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None . Abstain - Schultz . • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Planning Board 4 June 5 , 1984 The Secretary presented three letters which had been received at the Town Office with regard to the Murray property . The letters read : ( 1 ) " David P . Barnes 2 Hudson Place Ithaca , New York 14850 5 / 24 / 84 Dear Sir : I am a lifelong resident of South Hill in the City . Over the last several years I have noticed the nice job Bill Murray has done in cleaning up houses he owns on Hudson St . and Coddington Rd . He has changed eyesores into nice looking homes . Bill tells me that he wants to make an addition at 308 Coddington Rd . I know Bill to be a responsible business person and know that his addition , if approved , would be appropriate for the area . It ' s for that reason that I hope the Town Board grant Bill the requested variances . Sincerely , ( sgd . ) D . P . Barnes " ( 2 ) " Mr . & Mrs . Charles E . Paucke • 643 Coddington Road Ithaca , New York 14850 May 25 , 1984 . . . Dear Mr . Cartee : I am writing this letter on behalf of Mr . William E . Murray , a neighbor of mine , who is trying to get a variance to build an additional house on the property he owns on Coddington Road . My wife and I pass the present house on Coddington Rd . every day to and from work . We ' ve seen it from the beginning in various stages from cleaning it up to the finished product that it is at present . Not only did Mr . Murray work to improve on the property but his family helped as well . It was very nice seeing a whole family unit pitching in and acting together . They have , in my opinion , made a big improvement on what the house and grounds were like before . I think it is a definite plus for the neighborhood , too . The house and grounds are well kept up and clean , leaving an impression of having attentive and diligent care . We would like to see Mr . Murray granted the variance to " build since he has proven to be a conscientious addition to the neighborhood and strives only to continue to do so . • Sincerely , ( sgd . ) Charles E . Paucke ( sgd . ) Patricia V . Paucke " Planning Board 5 June 5 , 1984 ( 3 ) ° 115 Northview Road Ithaca , New York 14850 May 19 , 1984 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals • • • Thank you for sendingus the Notice of Public Hearings in re g three properties near our home on Northview Road . I ' m sorry we were unable to attend the meeting on May 16 . In case any of the matters were not resolved at that meeting , we would like to express the following : . . . We would approve of William E . Murray being enabled to convert the structure on his property to a one - family dwelling . There is so much space around the properties that such a variance seems reasonable . The property has been so much improved since the Murray ' s purchased it and it is so well cared for that such use seems positive . . . . Sincerely , ( sgd . ) Barbara Cotts ( sgd . ) R . W . Cotts " Mr . Stanton commented that all three letters are positive to the matter at hand . Mr . Stanton stated that he was not at the May 15th meeting when Mr . Murray ' s proposal was first discussed , however , it seemed to him that the solutions to whatever problems there may be are that the Murray lot must produce some plantings and a check dam to reduce erosion . Mr . Lovi agreed and suggested putting in a motion with respect to the matter that at such time a building permit is applied for , plantings and check dam should be in place . Mr . Klein stated that he would like to offer the comment that one thing discussed at the earlier meeting was the parking . Mr . Klein stated that he went up there and there does not seem to be any particular problem with the proposed addition other than it is a little narrow with the creek going through there , however , he felt six cars could be accommodated . Mr . Lovi commented that he had envisioned four during discussions with Mr . Murray . Chairman May suggested that perhaps all parking should be developed on the south side of the creek . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . David Klein * RESOLVED , that , concerning the proposal of William E . Murray to • subdivide his lands at 308 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 42 - 1 - 1 , 1 . 6 acres , the Planning Board make and hereby Planning Board 6 June 5 , 1984 • does make the following determinations , approvals , conditions , and recommendations : 1 . That the developer has completed an Environmental Assessment Short Form , as required by Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 3 - 1980 , The Planning Board has reviewed this form , determined the proposal to be an Unlisted Action , and made a negative declaration of environmental significance at an Adjourned Public Hearing ( from May 15 , 1984 ) on June 5 , 1984 . 2 . That the developer has presented a preliminary subdivision plan in a form acceptable to the Town Engineer showing the location of lot lines , and other structures of interest to the Planning Board . This plan has been reviewed at a properly posted and published Public Hearing on May 15 , 1984 and at an Adjourned Public Hearing on June 5 , 1984 . 3 . That no further subdivision of these lands shall be permitted and a notice to this effect shall be placed by the subdivider in all deeds to this property and shall also be placed on the final subdivision plan to be filed in the Office of the County Clerk . 4 . That a single check dam with rock splash pan be built in front of the turn in the creek such that the water flow is slowed • down and a wall of some sort ( e . g . , rock , ties , gabions ) should be built on the embankment to prevent further erosion of the soil and coupled with such wall should be the planting of water - loving greenery ( e . g . , day lilies , pachysandra ) above the wall and along the embankment to further support the soil . 5 . That the Planning Board recommends that at such time as a building permit is applied for , for the construction of the single family residence proposed to be located upon the newly created lot , the plantings and check dam hereinabove described be in place . 6 . That the Planning Board recommends that a single , defined , and gravelled parking area be developed on the south side of the creek . 7 . That , with respect to such newly created lot , the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals the granting of variances for substandard frontage on Coddington Road and for side yard deficiency , subject to the restriction that no further subdivision of these lands be permitted . 8 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant preliminary subdivision approval to the subdivision plan as presented and revised at Public Hearing May 15 , 1984 and at Adjourned Public Hearing on June 5 , 1984 , subject to the grant of variances as hereinabove described . Planning Board 7 June 5 , 1984 • FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive final subdivision approval for this project contingent upon the preparation of a final subdivision plan in a form acceptable to the Town Engineer which shall include all notices and provisions required by this resolution and the action of the Zoning Board of Appeals . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None . Abstain - Schultz . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in and the matter of the Murray Subdivision proposal duly closed at 8 : 30 p . m . ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( FROM MAY 151 1984 ) : SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PHASE I OF " THE CHATEAU " DEVELOPMENT AND RECONSIDERATION 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 . Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the • above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 30 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as mailed and as noted above . Mr . Wiggins was present . Mr . Wiggins distributed the revised site plan , entitled " Landscape Plan - - La Tourelle " , prepared by William Downing Associates Architects , dated ( in red ) 6 - 4 - 84 . Mr . Wiggins noted that the drawing shows the new property line such that an approximately 23 - acre portion of parcel number 6 - 36 - 1 - 42 will be devoted to this project . Mr . Wiggins noted that the drawing identifies the landscaping material , shows a new location for the dumpster , and relocates the future access road through the parking lot as recommended . Mr . Lovi stated that he had only a couple of points to speak to which were that a metes and bounds survey of the approximately 23 acre portion of Mr . Wiggins ' land should be prepared for the Town Board so that there be no question as to the particular property involved in this project , and , that Mr . Wiggins should know that the Town Board has not scheduled a Public Hearing , Mr . Wiggins stated that he was really getting a little concerned about time and getting the building under construction so that it could be closed in before winter . After discussion , it was suggested to Mr . Wiggins that he write a letter to the Supervisor requesting that a Public Hearing be scheduled at the June 11th Town Board meeting to be held at a special meeting of the Town Board later in June . MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : Planning Board 8 June 5 , 1984 • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board rescind and hereby does rescind the resolution of December 14 , 1983 and the Statement of Clarification dated February 7 , 1984 concerning the rezoning of approximately 20 . 4 acres on Danby Road from Residence District R30 to Multiple Residence District , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that the uses permitted in an approximately 20 . 4 - acre portion of the lands of Walter J . and Joyce Wiggins , fronting on Danby Road , and known as 1152 Danby Road , said 20 . 4 acres ( approximately ) being a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 1 - 4 . 2 containing approximately 55 . 19 acres and presently zoned Residence District R- 30 , be amended to permit the construction of a hotel or motel containing no more than 80 dwelling units as requested by Walter J . and Joyce Wiggins and as generally set forth on Map entitled - - " Landscape Plan , La Tourelle " - - prepared by William Downing Associates Architects , dated 6 - 4 - 84 , said Map having been reviewed by said Planning Board at Public Hearing , this date , June 5 , 1984 , and with said Planning Board having found that : I . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location . At present , there is no comparable hotel / motel in the Town or in the Greater Ithaca area . As presented , La Tourelle would fill a need for premium transient accommodations while preserving the essentially rural character of the Route 96B • entrance to the Ithaca valley . II . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be located will not be adversely affected . The siting and landscaping of the facility preserve the open , provincial aspects of the surrounding one and two - family neighborhood . Architecturally , the structure complements L ' Auberge du Cochon Rouge . Our impression and expectation is that such a development will enhance the value of surrounding properties without compromising the quality of existing or future developments . III . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance in this instance is necessary to permit a desirable development ; a thoughtful and well - considered site plan has been reviewed in connection with this amendment . The compre - hensive planning process accepts that limited , particular amendments may be made to the general Zoning Ordinance when , in the opinion of the Town Board , such changes are in the long - term interest of the community and are neither arbitrary nor capricious nor systematically discriminatory , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that the yard and height require - • ments for this parcel be amended as follows : 1 . Side Yards : not less than 30 feet . Planning Board 9 June 5 , 1984 • 2 . Spaces Between Buildings : the distance between any two structures shall be no less than the average height of both , except that a shorter distance may be allowed if the resulting space is to be used and maintained as a fire lane . 3 . Height : no structure shall be greater than 55 feet from the lowest point at grade to the highest point on the roof line , and 4 . Storeys : no more than two storeys ; however , as many as four dwelling units may be constructed in the basement of first phase of the development , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant final site plan approval for the first phase of this project subject to the provision by the developer of a survey map of the property in a form acceptable to the Town Engineer . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Grigorov , Stanton . Nay - None . Abstain - Klein ( conflict of interest ) . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in and the matter of the Wiggins development at 1152 Danby Road duly closed at 8 : 45 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 15 , 1984 MOTION by Mrs . Barbara Schultz , seconded by Mr . Montgomery May : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of May 15 , 1984 be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Grigorov , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . STAFF REPORT - PETER M . LOVI Mr . Lovi stated that it had been his intention to prepare a written report on staff activities , however , the past weeks have been quite busy . Mr . Lovi stated that he would like to keep the Board abreast of activities with respect to the Six Mile Creek Committee , as he has been doing at each meeting . Mr . Lovi detailed at length the status of the environmental review of the recommendations to Common Council . Planning Board 10 June 5 , 1984 Mr . Lovi described the recommendation made by the Planning and Development Committee of Common Council to make a negative declaration with mitigation measures . Mr . Lovi stated that he would immediately seek to do an environmental review for The Circle Greenway in the Town which would address the problems addressed by all involved , such as parking and safety . Mr . Lovi stated that he will try to have this out this week , noting that the Planning Board will be lead agent here and adding that it might be before the Board at its June 19th meeting . Mr . Lovi stated that there will be a committee to come up with an access for review by the Planning Board , Mr . Lovi stated that a lot of this is somewhat up in the air . Mr . Lovi spoke about possible access in two areas Honness Lane , and ( 2 ) via a City right of way through Commonland Community , although , as he understood it , that is only a maintenance easement . A lengthy discussion followed among the members of the Planning Board and Mr . Lovi of various proposals which could be discussed with respect to the Final Report of the Six Mile Creek Committee . • Some of the discussion centered on the City DPW entrance . Problems with the terrain were discussed . Discussion took place with respect to keeping the area above the 60 - foot dam " off limits " , the result of which could be some middle - ground approach possible on the land directly to the east of Commonland . Access to Potter ' s Falls was discussed . There was considerable Board comment with regard to permitting access to the watershed area . Mrs . Grigorov , for one , stated that the way things were moving seemed to be contrary to the initial desires of the Six Mile Creek Committee , as it was begun , of protecting the gorge . Mr . Lovi described at length the options for entering the area , noting that there were several possibilities . Mr . Lovi stated that he wanted to kick around ideas with this " group " and get back to the Planning Board at its next meeting . During this discussion , Mr . Stanton commented that he got the impression , from the radio , that the City was going to be the lead agent and he wondered if that impression was wrong . Mr . Lovi explained that there are essentially two actions here . ( 1 ) a new access with the Town as Lead Agent . ( 2 ) proposals 1 through 6 with the City as Lead Agent . Planning Board 11 June 5 , 1984 • Mr . Stanton stated that it seemed to him that , since part of the Six Mile Creek area is in the City and part is in the Town , the City will do the environmental review of their part in the City and the Town will do its part . Mr . Lovi stated that the problem is , quite frankly , when push comes to shove , that it is not clear that the Town has funding , permitting , or approval authority so that it can be lead agent in this case . Mr . Lovi offered his opinion that , with this approach , the Town is getting a chance to take on the substantive issues and work together with the City . Mr . Lovi noted that the City is moving toward a determination on recommendations 1 and 2 . Mr . Lovi informed the Board that he had spoken with DEC and , unfortunately , the Town has no hook in terms of establishing itself as lead agent in this matter under the present zoning ordinance . Mr . Lovi stated that the Commissioner had indicated that this was unfortunate because the Town should be the lead agent , however , it is unlikely that the Town would be determined to be the lead agent were the Commissioner asked to adjudicate the lead agency status . Chairman May thanked Mr . Lovi for keeping the Board so well informed . REPORT OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR - LEWIS D . CARTEE The Secretary distributed the Building Inspector ' s Report of • Building Permits Issued which showed that 16 permits were issued in May 1984 for a total construction cost of $ 336 , 050 . 00 , as compared to 29 permits issued in May 1983 . for a total construction cost of $ 1 , 516 , 607 . 00 . SIGN REVIEW BOARD - SUMMERHILL APTS . OFF - PREMISES SIGN The Secretary stated that Mr . Cartee had requested that the Board be informed that this Agenda item had been cancelled . REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - CAROLYN GRIGOROV . Mrs . Grigorov stated that she had been unable to attend the May 9th meeting of the CPB so no report could be given , however , the Board members will be receiving a copy of the CPB Minutes from Mrs . Fuller as usual . DISCUSSION WITH PINE TREE ASSOCIATES CONCERNING PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 11 AND THE CONFLICT OF SAID SUBDIVISION WITH THE EXISTING TOWN OF ITHACA MASTER HIGHWAY MAP . For the record , as a part of the basis of discussion , the Board members had before them a copy of the following statement presented by Pine Tree Associates . • " June 1 , 1984 Planning Board 12 June 5 , 1984 • Pine Tree Associates - Development Plan Subject land * This document concerns approximately 20 acres of the former Marion Estate property located between Eastern Heights , the back property lines of Pine Tree Road residences numbered 105 - 125 , and Slaterville Road residences numbered 1512 - 1518 . The parcel is outlined on an accompanying map . Background * In late 1983 a group of residents on Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road held a series of meetings to discuss issues related to the 43 acre plot of Marion Estate property that was then on the market . Among the residents ' concerns were * 1s the water drainage pattern in the area which had previously resulted in thousands of dollars of damage to neighboring homes , and continues to threaten those properties with flooding and erosion 2e the possibility of intensive building which might depress neighborhood values and threaten the character of the community and the environment 3e the possibility of roadways being built which might channel excessive vehicular traffic to Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road Purchase by Pine Tree Associates * To deal with these problems , F . C . Baldwin , Jr . , R . D . Colle , and H . J . Mecenas , all residents of Pine Tree Road , agreed to purchase the 43 acre parcel from the Marion Estate , and resell at cost to residents on Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road pieces of land contiguous to their property lines . The intent was that this land would be left as open space . As Pine Tree Associates , Baldwin , Colle and Mecenas agreed in principle with the Town Engineer , Mr . Larry Fabbroni , to make available land that would make possible the orderly and systematic construction of a suitable drainage system for the area . Present plan for development : Pine Tree Associates has prepared a plan for the approximately 20 acres outlined on the attached map which will deal with some of the issues outlined on page 1 . The development plan has the following features , some of which are partly illustrated on the map * 1 . Low density home construction consisting of approximately 26 houses which will be at least comparable in quality and character with homes in the contiguous Pine Tree Road and Planning Board 13 June 5 , 1984 • Slaterville Road area . The homes would be designed in a way that will make each house unique , yet coordinated in style . They will be priced $ 100 , 000 and up . 2 . One central roadway with access / egress at Regency Lane and Park Lane , with one spur ending in the south in a cul -de - sac . This relatively level road would be simpler to maintain than the steeper ( 100 ) grades plotted around 1968 on the Town road map . 3 . Establishment of ski trails , walkways , and other recreational areas for use particularly by all families in the surrounding area . 4 . Land designated for drainage control . 5 . Land deeded over to the Town around its water tower in the northeast corner of the property . Other considerations : The Hewetts and the Ewings have agreed to provide the Town a right- of -way at approximately the spot marked W on the map to gain access to the creek bordering the Ewing property . In addition , they have agreed to cooperate with the Town in making available land at the northeast extremity of their parcels ( see spot marked U ) for water drainage purposes . • Proposal to the Town of Ithaca : Pine Tree Associates requests that the Town Planning Board consider the following actions : 1 . Approve , in principle , the development plan described herein , and which includes specifically : a . Pine Tree Associates deeding over to the Town a parcel of land near the water tower in the northeast conrer , and indicated on the attached map by the letter R . b . Pine Tree Associates , through deeding - over or easements , making available to the Town suitable strips of land for purpose of establishing and maintaining a comprehensive water drainage system . These are indicated on the map by S , and appear on the border of Eastern Heights , and on the rear border of Pine Tree residences continuing down to Slaterville Road . In addition , a spur running from the cul - de - sac to the Hewett property is included to provide vehicular access to the creek bordering the Ewing property . Planning Board 14 June 5 , 1984 • c . The Town of Ithaca erasing the right - of -way indicated at T on the map , including both the north - south and east-west alleys . d . The Town accepting the road pattern approximately as laid out on the map . e . The Town accepting the approximate layout of the residences and the resulting density of the development . f . Pine Tree Associates making provision for a ski trail cum walkway around the perimeter of the development , and a recreation area as indicated on the map . 2 . Endorse and forward to the Town Board the plan outlined , with a recommendation that the Board approve it . Summary : This proposal presents an opportunity for conditions to be corrected which threaten the existing residences in the area , and at the same time maintain a high quality neighborhood through low density and systematically planned housing and recreation areas and open space . At the same time , the Town gains the advantages of access to land to carry out its activities , and a road system that will be relatively simple to maintain . [ Attachment ) - Development Plan , June 1984 ( Preliminary ) Pine Tree Associates " Mr . Fabbroni began the discussion with respect to Pine Tree Associates proposed subdivision by displaying a map which he stated attempts to show , in one drawing , the substantive location of the road as proposed by Dr . Colle and his colleagues , the subdivision , and the lots along that proposed road . Mr . Fabbroni described the map in detail , mentioning , among other things , how the drawing ties in with the Frandsen proposed development , Quick land , Eastern Heights , Blatchley land , and that what shows in dashed lines thereon is what now exists on the Official Highway Map of the Town which was adopted in 1968 and shows a number of mapped roads . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he could not speak to that history except to say that certain roads are on the official map which was probably done with the best thinking as to that particular point in history . Mr . Fabbroni commented that official maps have come into some heavy attack in the courts with there being some indication that mapped roads set down for more than twelve months without action may present a thorny issue . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would leave to the developers the making of the case for change in the map at this point in history . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the map he has prepared shows the profile if you were to extend the cul de sac as proposed with the one shown as the Edwin Drive cul de sac , adding - - compare that profile to Park Lane profile as both tie into a second connection to Route 79 . Planning Board 15 June 5 , 1984 Chairman May wondered , if these cul de sacs are tied together , where the most logical location would be . Mr . Fabbroni responded that it would be as an extension of upper Park Lane , and suggested that the plan view be looked at where the intersection is . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that , in either case , that section would have to be completed . Mr . Fabbroni noted that , aside from that , the profile shows the grades one is dealing with . Mr . Fabbroni described in detail the reasons for a portion of Edwin Drive ( Frandsen ) being at a 10 % gradient , such as topo , and bend in road , and having lots above and below . Mr . Fabbroni noted that that 100 piece has to do with the physical location of the lots there and the existing terrain itself . Chairman May wondered if it were possible to turn Edwin Drive to Park Lane in the center . Mr . Fabbroni spoke of two lots owned by Frandsen , pointing them out fronting on Slaterville Road . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the grade would be 10 % - 12 % , not 8 % , as shown , across Frandsen into Quick . Chairman May asked what the grade of Pine Tree Road is . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he just guessed that the first part is getting close to 8 % - 10 % , then , when you get up about to where a local road to this subdivision was shown once , is about where it levels off . Chairman May invited Dr . Colle to speak to the Board at this • juncture . Dr . Colle began by stating that , other than what he and his colleagues have put in their Development Plan document which the Board had received , the fact that there was an Official Master Map with these roads dotted thereon came as a complete surprise and , as they looked at that master map with the kind of tic - tac - toe roads , it made them all the more concerned with drainage up there . Dr . Colle described the development plan of Pine Tree Associates as had been submitted in writing . He spoke of low density and a control of water system plan and their thinking that the plan they have , which essentially promotes that plan , is better than that which has been on a map since 1968 . Dr . Colle stated that the plan in 1968 has at least three 10 % grades going up the hill from Pine Tree Road up toward Eastern Heights . Dr . Colle stated that none of them can see any particular reason for putting those roads in . Dr . Colle stated that they see reason for those roads which they are proposing , but no reason for putting the mapped roads in , nor who would put them in . Dr . Colle commented that he did not think the Town has any particular reason for putting them in . Dr . Colle stated that Pine Tree Associates proposes the orderly development of that neighborhood , the preservation of the character of the neighborhood , and the solving of the long - term planning for that area and not exacerbating the drainage problem . Dr . Colle stated that implementation of the highway plan would make it worse . Dr . Colle noted that , in the document before the Board , there is mention of • Hewett and Ewing , and stated that Mr . Ewing is present tonight . Dr . Colle stated that it was not his intention to go over the plan , adding that they had done that with the Board in March and the plan Planning Board 16 June 5 , 1984 is essentially the same . Dr . Colle noted that Dr . Mecenas is also present this evening . Chairman May stated that concern has been expressed by the Town Board that there be another access to Slaterville Road " here " [ indicating ] . Town Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger spoke from the floor , stating that she was present as a resident of Pine Tree Road and as such has been keeping track of the Pine Tree Associates proposal , however , as the Board is aware , she is also a member of the Town Board and chairs the Park Committee . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she was aware that the proposal had been discussed with the Town staff and it had been discussed with the Park Committee . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that the matter was before the Town Board in , she believed , the last half of 1983 for discussion as part of Mr . Fabbroni ' s report . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that there was absolutely no discussion of a second access on to Slaterville Road . Mrs . Raffensperger commented that she had never missed a meeting during this time . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that it may be the opinion of some members of the Town Board that such access be required , however , that has not been expressed by the Board as a whole . Chairman May stated that there is concern that has been expressed about getting emergency vehicles at times through Eastern • Heights and mentioned bad weather in dealing with this type of situation . Chairman May stated it is a difficult piece of land to deal with from the road standpoint , commenting that there is no question about that . Chairman May asked the members of the Planning Board how they feel . Mr . Stanton commented that this is a proposal without any specifics of building anything at this point , wondering if he were correct in that understanding . Chairman May stated that he was correct , adding that a subdivision is before the Board . Dr . Colle also stated that that was correct , adding that the proposal is for subdivision of the land at this time and then site plan development will follow . Mr . Stanton commented that there is a plan in place and Dr . Colle and his colleagues want the Town Board to talk about a new plan , wondering , again , if he were correct in that assumption . Dr . Colle responded that essentially Mr . Stanton was correct . Mr . Stanton noted that the developers have a plan and wondered if it were necessary to get the Town Board to endorse a plan when there is no more than that . Mr . Fabbroni stated that there is an official highway map on the books that needs to be changed regardless of what the developers do with the upper part of their land . Mr . Fabbroni [ indicating ] noted that one road is a part of this proposal and also pointed out the people who live on Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road who have already bought lots in back of their land . Mr . Fabbroni commented Planning Board 17 June 5 , 1984 • that what Mr . Stanton is saying is that in the upper portion that could go several ways , but really it comes down to one road . Mr . Stanton wondered why the Town Board has to approve a plan . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Town Board does not have to approve any plan at all , however , they should speak to roads that have been on a highway map since 1968 . Mr . Stanton stated that his question is is this all necessary at this time if the 26 lots were not to go ahead . Chairman May stated that there is nothing that can be done with this plan of development until the highway map is changed or this plan is changed . Mr . Stanton quoted from the Development Plan as follows : - " Pine Tree Associates requests that the Town Planning Board consider the following actions : 1 . Approve , in principle , the development plan described herein , and which includes specifically : a . . . . b . . . 0 c . # 00 d . . . . e . . . . f . . . . 2 . Endorse and forward to the Town Board the plan outlined , with a recommendation that the Board approve it . " Mrs . Raffensperger commented that she really felt that most people do not know which Board hears which matter . • Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Town has had problems with roads in Eastern Heights for years with 10 % roads . Chairman May pointed out that there are two 8 % roads in the Pine Tree Associates proposal ® Chairman May stated that he had trouble with both the existing roads and with no access into Slaterville Road . Mr . Fabbroni stated , " Would you propose to make the connection into Slaterville Road from this land ? " Chairman May commented that a direct connection would not be wise . Dr . Colle asked if he understood Mr . May to say that he would not favor a straight down connection . Mrs . Grigorov stated that she did not understand why Pine Tree Associates have to have a connection and Eastern Heights does not . Chairman May commented that that was a mistake in planning Eastern Heights . Mrs . Grigorov reiterated that she did not quite understand why . Mr . Fabbroni stated that one thing that has come out of this is , maybe , an oversight of not providing access at the north end of the proposed development into the Baldwin property - - in other words , leave open the possibility of access from his backland to this new development , as well as the very remote chance of some development of his land . Mr . Fabbroni commented that , although no one knows for sure without Dr . Baldwin here , but Dr . Baldwin has no . intention of development at this time in history . However , in terms of planning development , Mr . Fabbroni would suggest a right of way as an access to that land . Planning Board 18 June 5 , 1984 • Chairman May wondered if it would be built there as shown on Master Map . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would not wish it where it is shown but from this connection will serve wherever this road ends up . Mr . Fabbroni commented that this is a judgment call . Chairman May asked Dr . Colle what interest he might have in extending the cul do sac down to Slaterville Road . Dr . Colle responded that Pine Tree Associates had no interest in doing that at all and noted the access provided by Hewett and Ewing to the Town . Chairman May commented that , unfortunately , the project is here . Chairman May wondered about the Ewing stream and whether it would be crossed by a culvert or a bridge . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it would be culverted like Park Lane . Further lengthy discussion followed , all of which centered around the map . Mr . Stanton commented that that there are lots of roads coming into Slaterville Road now and described how emergency vehicles come up Snyder Hill Road . Chairman May felt there was no way to get up Pine Tree Road , Mrs . Grigorov commented on the way into the Pine Tree Associates proposal from Regency Lane or Park Lane and pointed out that Mr . Fabbroni was suggesting that a connection be shown into that back block of land . Mr . Fabbroni stated that that remains a possibility as the Board considers future things which may be • involved with that triangle of Baldwin ' s land . Mr . Fabbroni commented that he was not sure one would want to come out on the 9 % grade portion of Snyder Hill Road with an intersection . Mr . Ewing stated that they would not be too happy about a road across his land . Dr . Colle added that he was not sure the Town would be too happy with it there either . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it is an expense and it is only fair for the Planning Board to know of the kind of expense . Mr . Fabbroni described 600 ' of road running roughly $ 18 , 000 . 00 plus culvert , headwalls and endwalls , and size of pipe which would be around $ 10 , 000 . 00 for that crossing . Mr . Fabbroni stated that somehow that cost has to be weighed against the benefits , adding that his problem , in the end , is how are you accomplishing the objective that you have . Mr . Fabbroni stated that a 600 - foot connection is not giving you that access - - something else is going to give you that access . Mr . Fabbroni commented that he would rather that he be given $ 28 , 000 . 00 to stabilize the creek . Chairman May wondered if there were any way to go along the drainageway from Slaterville Road up to the cul de sac . Mr . Fabbroni suggested a " tunnel without a top on it , " adding that he would not want to write the EIS on it . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the place to come down is through Quick ' s land , but they do not want to hear about it at this point . SMr . Stanton commented that the Board could deal with this in parts - - ( 1 ) recommending removal of mapped roads ; ( 2 ) carry on _` . Planning Board 19 June 5 , 1984 discussion of the future alternatives . Mr . Stanton stated that he found it difficult to produce a plan and recommend something to the Town Board . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that it appeared to be fairly clear that the developers are at the point of making this as a fairly specific proposal . Chairman May noted that the extensions of the Pine Tree Road lots have all been sold . Mr . Fabbroni indicated on the drawing what land is left . Mrs . Grigorov pointed out that if the 1968 roads are eliminated , there is still no elimination of access to Slaterville Road because there was never one there . It was pointed out that there is one on Quick ' s land . Mr . Stanton noted that there are five mapped roads involving this parcel and to eliminate them would mean a recommendation to the Town Board . MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Official Highway Master Plan has existed substantially in its present form since 1968 , and • WHEREAS , the Planning Board considers the following resolution of recommendation to be in the interests of the orderly development of lands within the Town of Ithaca ; NOW , THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Town Board that the Official Highway Master Plan of the Town of Ithaca be amended , and , that the mapped streets shown on such Official Highway Master Plan Map be deleted therefrom to the extent that such Plan Map pertains to the proposed development plan of Pine Tree Associates , said development plan having been presented to said Planning Board at regular meetings on March 6 , 1984 and June 5 , 19841 such development being proposed with respect to the lands of the former John Marion Estate which are comprised of approximately 43 acres , and which are designated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 11 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Grigorov , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May stated that he thought that is all the Board could do tonight . . Dr . Colle stated that he would offer , as aP oint of information , that the Planning Board , could , he thought , deal with ' . Planning Board 20 June 5 , 1984 certain items other than the subdivision , such as , the water tower access , the drainage control , and the right of way to the Town from Hewett and Ewing . Mr . Stanton stated that he thought that when the developers come with a proposal at Public Hearing would be the time to deal with those matters . The Board members agreed . Mr . Fabbroni wondered if the Board were saying that it has problems with the sketch plan that was generally discussed and approved of in March . Chairman May stated that that was correct , adding that he thought it should be looked at again because there is concern . Dr . Colle wondered who would initiate that future meeting . Chairman May stated that he will talk with Mr . Fabbroni and Dr . Colle will be contacted . Mr . Lovi offered that a further look at the sketch plan could occur at the June 19th meeting and perhaps there could be a Public Hearing in July . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she would like to express her concern , if she may . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that these people are neighbors of hers and she has heard this whole process , adding that they came to the Town when they first considered buying this land . Mrs . Raffensperger recalled the times when people , when they • did not want some development to occur on someone else ' s property in some particular manner , have been advised , so to speak , to buy the land from that developer . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that that is what these people have done , adding that they not only bought it , but they have made provision for drainage improvements of benefit to the Town . Mrs . Raffensperger noted that there were numerous meetings with the staff , committee meetings , and discussion by the Town Board and , at the Planning Board meeting nobody said anything against it . Mrs . Raffensperger commented that for some people it was very difficult for them to buy this land . Chairman May stated that he believed that the land was purchased before it came to the Planning Board , Mrs . Raffensperger noted that the land was not purchased before the matter came to the Town , adding that the Planning Board congratulated the developers on its proposal at its March meeting . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she would appreciate an explanation . Chairman May stated that the only reason is a great deal of concern with access to Slaterville Road , Mrs . Raffensperger asked who had expressed this concern . Chairman May responded , Supervisor Noel Desch . Mr . Klein stated that he did not have that concern . Mrs . Schultz stated that the way she understood it , from the discussion tonight , the problem there at this moment is that the Town Highway Map precludes this more efficient roadway system and had to be amended to provide for a more efficient approach . Mrs . Schultz stated that she thought the access question was a separate issue . a � . Planning Board 21 June 5 , 1984 Mrs . Grigorov stated that she agreed , adding that the access road problem is new ; the Board did not hear about that on March 6th , Chairman May stated that he had to say that several people just plain made a mistake by having that discussion without the roads being removed from the Map . Mrs . Raffensperger asked if Chairman May felt that the road plan of Pine Tree Associates is unacceptable . Chairman May replied that it would be to everyone ' s advantage if another access could be figured out to Slaterville Road and another way up into Eastern Heights . Mrs . Raffensperger expressed her concern with that proposal , pointing out that an awful lot of other things could crop up , such as short cuts were another road system put in and the question of how any such roads would be used through Eastern Heights . Discussion ended at 10 : 15 p . m . WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - - 108 RIDGECREST ROAD , GRACE CASCIOLI . The Secretary read into the record the following letter which had been received from Grace Cascioli , dated May 10 , 1984 , copies of which had been mailed to each Board member upon receipt . • " 623 W . Buffalo St . Ithaca NY May 10 , 1984 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 126 E . Seneca Street Ithaca NY Dear Mr . Chairman May ; Please take notice that I herby [ sic . ] withdraw my application for the Subdivision proposal as listed in The ' Draft Resolution for Planning Board Consideration dated 4 / 11 / 84 presented to Boards on 4 / 17 / 84 and continued to 5 / 1 / 84 . This withdrawal to be presented to Town of Ithaca Planning Board Public Hearing that is adjourned to June 5 , 1984 . Respectfully ( sgd . ) Grace Cascioli " MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultze RESOLVED , that the adjourned public hearing in the Cascioli matter is cancelled , the proposal having been withdrawn by the applicant , Grace Cascioli , by letter dated May 10 , 1984 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . ' _ Planning Board 22 June 5 , 1984 Aye m May , Schultze Grigorov , Klein ? Stantono Nay o None ? The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously , ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the June 5 , 1984 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10020 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy Mo Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Boardo •