Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1984-10-02 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 2 , 1984 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , October 2 , 1984 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , Barbara Schultz , Edward Mazza , Virginia Langhans , Bernard Stanton , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Stewart D . Knowlton , Douglas Knowlton , Town Supervisor Noel Desch , Town Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger , Town Councilman George Kugler , Town Councilwoman Gloria Howell , Town Councilman Marc Cramer , Town Councilman Robert Bartholf , John Majeroni , William Frandsen , Eleanor Frandsen , Beverly Livesay , Elmer E . Ewing , Royal D . Colle , Frank Baldwin Jr . , Renee Starzyk ( Q104 - FM News ) , Mark Schultz ( WHCU News ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and welcomed the members of the Town Board to this meeting of the Town Planning Board , PUBLIC HEARING : DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE AND CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A DRIVE - IN BANK IN THE EAST HILL PLAZA ; TAX PARCEL NUMBER 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 2 , 2 . 33 ACRES . STEWART D . KNOWLTON , REPRESENTATIVE . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing , as noted above , in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September 24 , 1984 and September 27 , 1984 , respectively . Mr . Stewart Knowlton , Manager of the East Hill Plaza was present , as well as Mr . John Majeroni , Manager of the Real Estate Department of Cornell University . Chairman May invited Mr . Knowlton to speak to the Board about the proposal by the Tompkins County Trust Company to construct a drive - in banking facility at the East Hill Plaza , Mr . Knowlton noted that the Secretary had sent each Board member an individual map showing the parcel and the proposed bank , as well as a copy of the completed Short EAF . Mr . Knowlton appended a large map of the East Hill Plaza to the bulletin board and utilized that map as a reference as he set forth the proposal . Mr . Knowlton pointed out the locations for Ellis Hollow Road , Judd Falls Road , Pine Tree Road , noted the entranceway off Ellis Hillow Road and indicated the locations of Dr . Purdy ' s office and Page Book Bindery . Mr . Knowlton indicated the proposed location A Planning Board 2 October 2 , 1984 . for the drive - in bank in the northeast corner of the cited parcel . Mr . Knowlton explained the thought process behind the placement of the proposed bank , indicated on the large drawing where the fast moving traffic comes in from and how they wanted to draw patrons to the bank with the primary exit from the bank going out the access road to Ellis Hollow Road . Mr . Knowlton noted that the Trust Company had had a store bank in what was Warren Home Furnishing for about three years and thus has been in business in East Hill Plaza as a business but not as a drive - in banking facility . Mr . Knowlton stated that the Trust Company is trying not to create a bottleneck and , thus , feels that exiting onto Ellis Hollow Road is better than onto Judd Falls Road , Mr . Knowlton stated that the bank building is proposed to be about 1 , 100 square feet in size with the facility planned right now as two - bayed . Mr . Knowlton stated that all of the required and necessary landscaping will be done , adding that Anton J . Egner and Associates has been retained by the bank for the architectural work . Mr . Knowlton stressed that the drawings have been done only preliminarily and commented that the actual design of the building has not been determined , however , as he had mentioned , at the outset it is planned to be a two-bay facility with the possibility of an added line on the east side such that it may be a three -bay facility at some time in the future . Mr . Knowlton commented that Marine Midland has a three - bay facility . across the street which operates as a two -bay facility . Chairman May pointed out that it would appear from the drawing that the facility is a three - bay with provision for four bays . Mr . Knowlton stated that the preliminary plan which the Board had received is misleading , adding that the Bank wants a two - bay facility . Mr . Knowlton stated that in the conversations he has had with the Trust Company , the proposal has been one of two -bays with a possible third bay and that he thought it was the Bank ' s thinking that there would never be any use for anything other than that . Mr . Knowlton commented that he did not see this facility as a magnetic draw for everyone , but for those people who are always there at the Plaza in any case . Mr . Knowlton noted that the facility is proposed as a full - service bank . Mrs . Schultz asked if the facility would include a walk- up window and machines . Mr . Knowlton stated that it will , adding that people can also go inside , commenting that there will be full parking for those who have business inside the bank . Chairman May wondered if the parking would be within the triangular plot shown on the drawing as 180 ' by , maybe , 170 ' , and pointed out that this is not shown . Mr . Knowlton stated that that was correct , adding that this is what everyone involved is satisfied with at this point only . Mr . Knowlton stated that all the rest of the information would come as a matter of detail in a . final site plan . Mr . Stanton noted that Mr . Knowlton had referred to the proposed facility as a full - service bank and wondered if he meant , for example , that people would walk in and Planning Board 3 October 2 , 1984 . get in a line , discuss loans , etc . Mr . Knowlton stated that that would be the case , adding that that is what the bank officials told him . Mrs . Langhans commented that what is being planned would appear to be like the Trust Company bank on the Elmira Road . Mr . Knowlton stated that Mrs . Langhans was correct according to discussions he has had with Charlie Bell of the Trust Company . Mr . Mazza wondered how many employees might be involved in this case , with Mr . Knowlton responding , probably five . Chairman May noted that the store bank the Trust Company had is no longer there in the Plaza . Mr . Knowlton agreed . Chairman May noted that Citizens Savings Bank has its East Hill Branch in the Plaza . Mr . Knowlton stated that that was correct , adding that it is in the main part of the Plaza complex and has no drive - in and further commenting that no one has any drive - up facility at the Plaza . It was noted again that Marine Midland is across the street and is a full service facility . Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the drive - in bank at East Hill Plaza , Town Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger , 139 Pine Tree Road , stated that she would like to speak to the matter of the present traffic patterns in the Plaza and those resulting from this proposed addition and the various plans that have been discussed over the years with respect to traffic patterns within the Plaza and in the area related to it . Mrs . Raffensperger wondered if • the Board , and Mr . Knowlton , would be willing to consider the proposal that was around for a long time with respect to the Plaza and which was based on two access points - - the major one , Judd Falls Road ; another by Ridley ' s on Ellis Hollow Road - - with all other existing driveways located along these routes restricted to right - in and right - out only , as the East Ithaca Circulation Study suggested . Chairman May stated that Mrs . Raffensperger ' s point was a good one . Mr . Knowlton stated that , as the Board knew , they have created a full driveway along the south edge of the parking area . Mr . Knowlton described this utilizing the large drawing on the bulletin board and further described the traffic flow , again indicating same on the drawing . Mrs . Raffensperger commented that the difficulty still exists with respect to access and egress , adding that it is not just a matter of undisciplined movement . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that patrons of the Plaza go right or left out onto Judd Falls Road and right or left onto Ellis Hollow Road , noting again that the East Ithaca Circulation Study spoke of right - in , right - out . Supervisor Desch commented that the safety problem is going to get worse . Mr . Knowlton stated that the Boards are well aware , and they have heard him say many times , that he wished the powers that be would look to the matter of Pine Tree Road onto Ellis Hollow Road . Indicating on the large drawing , Mr . Knowlton spoke of the mass of pavement . in that area . Chairman May stated that there was no question that part of the problem is the Town ' s problem and that part of it is the Plaza ' s , but , in the meantime , what might help could be Planning Board 4 October 2 , 1984 . " right - in " and " right - out " . Chairman May asked Mr . . Knowlton how much of a problem that would be to him . Mr . Mazza suggested , perhaps , the use of some kind of island with curves and signs . Mr . Knowlton stated that with respect to the fire zones he agreed with signs and the lines which they have painted , but little things occur , for example , it actually happened that while the lines were being painted some guy came in and parked his car to go into the shopping center right where the man was standing doing the painting . Mr . Knowlton commented that that approach with respect to fire zones is fine , but it is not enforced . Mr . Knowlton stated that some day somebody has got to get tough . Chairman May asked how Mr . Knowlton felt about no left turn on Judd Falls Road , Mr . Knowlton stated that he would like to think about that and , perhaps , get someone to actually sit up there and count left and right . Mr . Knowlton stated that he was trying very hard to be fair , pointing out that Andree [ gas station ] is there under one facility . Mr . Knowlton stated that the way he ( Andree ) talked , if we restrict movement it might affect him . Mr . Knowlton stated that he would really like to make a survey and , probably , it would take about a week , and he would check Judd Falls Road and Ellis Hollow Road . The Board indicated its approval of this idea . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Knowlton how he felt about more than signage - - things like curbing , islands , or others . Mr . Knowlton . commented that things like that can get expensive . Mr . Mazza pointed out that the Plaza keeps on expanding and , even though every addition looks quite small , there comes a point when something has to be done - - otherwise , we reach the time when we ask ourselves , how did this happen ? Mr . Knowlton stated that everyone should be aware that the one abiding concern of East Hill Plaza is and always has been the safety of pedestrians and cars . Mr . Knowlton stated that directional curbings are nice , but , when you get into snow , those things are quite often hidden . Mr . Mazza commented that they are used in other places in Ithaca . Chairman May added that posts , or other marking devices , are often used . Mr . Knowlton stated that anything the Board has said they have always considered . Supervisor Desch stated that he would like to go back to the mention of the matter of enforcement , and asked if Cornell University Real Estate encourages the tenants to enforce the parking restrictions . Supervisor Desch wondered just how we can get at this problem . Mr . Knowlton stated that the Plaza management has been putting out notices . Supervisor Desch commented that if the tenants are interested , they have to call the Sheriff . Mr . Knowlton queried - - then what does the Sheriff do , commenting that one might be surprised at just who would get towed . Chairman May asked Mr . Knowlton what was going to be done about the lighting at the Plaza , commenting that the lighting is bad and maintenance is atrocious . Chairman May described the Planning Board 5 October 2 , 1984 particular lights that were out last evening . Mr . Knowlton responded that the order has been issued to have those lights fixed . Chairman May stated that they have been out for a good length of time . Mr . Knowlton stated that he knew that , adding that the proposed banking facility will have lights of its own , adding that they are to be " lollipop " lights . Chairman May commented on the normal procedure at the Plaza with respect to snow and indicated the area where the snow is pressed to a back wall . Mr . Knowlton stated that other arrangements will have to be made in that regard . Chairman May stated that that would be necessary . Chairman May asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 00 P . M . Mrs . Schultz wondered if it would solve anything to have only one entrance to the bank - - like a circle . Mrs . Grigorov commented that that does not help the whole road situation . Mrs . Schultz agreed . Chairman May asked that the Board turn to the matter of the Short Form Environmental Assessment Form which had been submitted by the applicant , Cornell University East Hill Plaza Operations , dated September 27 , 1984 , signed by Stewart D . Knowlton , Manager , Chairman May noted that the Form had been reviewed by the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , under date of September 27 , 1984 , with the following recommendation : " This project , as presented , should not present any adverse environmental impacts . I recommend a declaration of non - significance . " Mr . Lovi commented that at one point in discussions with the applicant he had spoken about there being , perhaps , 2 , 000 cars involved in such a banking facility , however , he had been assured by Trust Company officials that in all the drive - in facilities in Ithaca , there would not be 2 , 000 cars involved . Mrs . Langhans wondered , with all the discussions that have taken place about traffic , if question # 11 [ " Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems ? " ] should be changed from " No " to " Yes " . Mr . Mazza stated that it depended on how you talk about it , pointing out that the EAF is related to this proposed addition , and adding that he did not think this particular addition is going to make a major traffic problem . The Board members indicated their agreement with Mr . Mazza ' s thoughts . Mr . Lovi commented that the bank might actually improve somewhat the situation since the bank patrons would simply go to the bank and not have to park at the center . Mrs . Langhans asked Mr . Knowlton how busy the bank was when it was in Warren Home Furnishing . Mr . • Knowlton responded that there were about 245 transactions a week , adding that he was reasonably sure of that but asking that the Board not hold him to that figure . Mrs . Langhans commented that Planning Board 6 October 2 , 1984 it sounded low . Mr . Knowlton stated that he felt that number was pretty close . Mr . Lovi noted that what had been there in Warren Home Furnishing was simply a store bank . Mr . Stanton commented that he would be inclined to think that a good share of the people who use the Plaza did not know that that store bank was even there , adding that there really is no way to tell how much new traffic there would be . In this vein , Mr . Knowlton spoke about the Post Office and the plans that were envisioned at the time it was going in , stating that everyone thought it was going to be a real big thing , and so 200 boxes were planned , however , 91 were all that were sold . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed Tompkins County Trust Company Drive - In Banking Facility in the East Hill Plaza , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 2 , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) as completed ; and FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , Part 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has determined from the Environmental Assessment 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 , Schultz , Mazza , Langhans , Stanton . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Mr . Mazza stated , as to the general site plan , he thought Chairman May ' s comment about lighting was good , adding that he would like to see this specific area as to lighting plans . Mr . Mazza stated that , as far as planning as a whole goes , there comes a time when we have to do something and now is as good as any because it will not get any better by putting it off . Mr . Mazza stated that he would like to have Larry Fabbroni ' s input in this regard in such areas as traffic patterns , future needs , etc . , because he ( Mazza ) did not know some of these things . Mr . Mazza stated that he knew a lot of people who use the Plaza but he also knew some who would not go there because of the traffic and parking . • Chairman May suggested that perhaps it would be a good idea to delay further discussion pending the study which Mr . Knowlton has proposed to undertake . Mr . Mazza agreed and added that he Planning Board 7 October 2 , 1984 would also like Larry Fabbroni to make some recommendation as to how it could be done - - that is , considering the whole Plaza . Mr . Mazza noted that the intersection is confusing . Mr . Stanton stated that he thought the Board should be clear in the direction it is going , adding that he did not think this addition , the bank , is the problem , and commenting that he understood the feeling that the situation is the problem . Mr . Stanton commented that he would not like to see the bank as the excuse for such a study , adding that it is essentially unknown the amount of traffic the bank would add . Mr . Mazza agreed that the bank should not be an excuse and stated that it was more like the straw that broke the camel ' s back . Mr . Mazza stated that he thought such a study would be beneficial to both the Town of Ithaca and to the East Hill Plaza . Mr . Stanton commented that he really did not think the bank is the problems Mr . Mazza commented that we have to start someplace , sometime . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mr . Montgomery May : RESOLVED , by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca that the Public Hearing in the matter of the proposed drive - in bank at the East Hill Plaza be and hereby is adjourned until Tuesday , October 16 , 1984 , at 7 : 30 p . m . , and , that there be presented at that time a traffic pattern study as undertaken by Mr . Stewart Knowlton , it being encouraged by the Planning Board that Mr . Knowlton discuss any such study with the Town Engineer , and also , that there be a report presented from Town Engineer as to his recommendations with respect to such traffic patterns and with respect to improvement in the flow of traffic to and from Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote , Aye - May , Grigorov , Schultz , Mazza , Langhans , Stanton , Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously , Chairman May announced that no further notification as to the time and place of the adjourned public hearing will be made , the Motion of adjournment constituting due notice . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the proposed drive - in bank at the East Hill Plaza duly adjourned at 8 : 10 p . m . JOINT DISCUSSION WITH THE TOWN BOARD CONCERNING THE PINE TREE ASSOCIATES SUBDIVISION PLAN AND THE OFFICIAL HIGHWAY MAP , Chairman May extended a hearty welcome to the members of the Town of Ithaca Town Board , noted that everybody knew why they were here , and asked that Supervisor Desch begin with his • comments prior to discussion of Mr . Lovi ' s report . Planning Board 8 October 2 , 1984 Supervisor Desch stated that before he would comment on the matter at hand , he would like to mention one thought that occurred to him during the discussion with respect to East Hill Plaza , and that was that the study done on the East Ithaca Circulation is sufficiently old so that with the number of changes that have taken place such as the Cornell expansion , the P & C expansion , the Courtside Racquetball development , the numbers may be quite different . Turning to the issue at hand , Supervisor Desch stated that following the last Planning Board meeting [ September 18 , 1984 ] on the matter of access to the Pine Tree Associates proposed development , he was obviously disappointed to learn of the Planning Board ' s latest recommendation . Supervisor Desch stated that he thought this whole thing was becoming sort of ridiculous , and so , something like a visit once every five years into a foreign country , our relationship has to be explained , thus , he took it upon himself to ask the Secretary to set a date for us to get together and lay on the table and discuss what he would call a tricky design problem and get over any emotional inconsistency of information which may have been before the different bodies . Supervisor Desch stated that the developer ' s have been very good about laying out their part in this matter . Supervisor Desch commented that he would suggest an open mind now that we are all together , adding that the problem that the Town Board has is nothing new , being the Official Highway Master Plan . Supervisor Desch stated that that map was approved in 1968 only after considerable study and effort . Supervisor Desch stated that the Town Board is in the position , from the standpoint of responsibility , to show that if it changes that map the result should be at least as effective or better than what has been placed on the Master Plan , adding that that is the difficult position we find ourselves in . Supervisor Desch stated that he knew the staff has done a great deal of additional work on this matter , however , he hoped this get - together will shed new light that we may not have seen . Supervisor Desch commented that it is clearly not the intention of the Planning Board to pass the problem to the Town Board ; the Planning Board has never done that . Supervisor closed with the thought that the bodies may not come to any agreement but he hoped they will . Chairman May thanked the Supervisor for his comments and , turning to Mr . Lovi , stated that he , being the one who has given the Planning Board his report to the Town Board , and assuming that everyone has it and has read it , should be the one to go through it . [ The Report referred to is as follows : " REPORT : TO : Town Board FROM : Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner • DATE : September 28 , 1984 RE : Pine Tree Associates Subdivision Development Planning Board 9 October 2 , 1984 At the Planning Board meeting of September 18 , 1984 I was directed by the Planning Board to prepare a report for the Town Board . Specifically , this report is to show how the subdivision plan proposed by Pine Tree Associates might be accessible from Regency Lane and Park Lane at the time of the subdivision ' s completion . The attached schematic indicates how the Official Highway Map could be amended to provide for an eventual second access to Snyder Hill Road approximately 1100 feet east of the Pine Tree Road - Snyder Hill Road intersection ( labeled " A " ) . I have also been asked by the Chairman of the Planning Board to provide information as to the grade of another possible access road which might be located between tax parcels 6 - 57 - 1 - 7 . 10 and 7 . 11 ( labeled " D " ) . As the removal of streets from the Official Highway Map is a Type I action , I have prepared and reviewed a SEQR Long Form which addresses both the Pine Tree Associates subdivision plan and the amendment of the highway map . The EAF is enclosed and follows this report . SUMMARY As the attached map indicates , there are two possible access points onto Snyder Hill Road in addition to Regency Lane . The • road nearer to Regency ( labeled " D " ) has two possible paths to �� join the Pine Tree Associates subdivision . D1 passes to the east of the Snyder Hill water tank and has an average slope of roughly 50 . It intersects with the Regency Lane extension into the subdivision ( labeled " E " ) roughly 75 feet west of the existing cul -de - sac . " D2 " passes to the west of the water tank at an average slope of 7 % and connects with the proposed subdivision at the top of the long cul - de - sac drive labeled " C " . The second possible path from the proposed subdivision to Snyder Hill Road is labeled " A " . It begins at the same intersection as " D2 " , but then moves gradually down the hill at a 5 % slope before turning to the right and rising slightly at a 1 % slope to meet Snyder Hill Road . Of the two alternatives , "A " is certainly longer but offers more development possibilities and a gentler slope . As a radial access it offers the more attractive starting point . The only remaining access alternative is onto Slaterville Road approximately 400 feet east of Pine Tree Road ( labeled " B " ) . However , average slopes of 12 . 5 % and 14 . 5 % merging on to a major highway make development of this access extremely problematic . Other slopes of interest are the principal subdivision street ( labeled " C " ) with slope segments of 4 % and 5 . 7 % , the connection to Park Lane ( labeled " F " ) at 10 % , and the extension of Regency Lane at 12 % . It should be remembered that these are very rough estimated slopes and are intended for comparative purposes only . Planning Board 10 October 2 , 1984 • As I have discussed in more detail in my Part II and III Environmental Assessment Form review , more topographic and engi - neering detail should be provided by the subdivider before any final access decisions are made . [ DRAWING here now Estimate of Proposed Road Grades ] TOWN OF ITHACA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM APPLICANT : Pine Tree Associates DATE : 9 / 19 / 84 PROJECT : Amendment of Town Highway Ma / Land Subdivision LOCATION : East Ithaca GENERAL INFORMATION 1 . Applicant : Pine Tree Associates c / o Royal D . Colle , et al Address : 121 Pine Tree Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Phone : 273 - 5155 Property Owner : Pine Tree Associates , Royal D . Colle , et al Address : 121 Pine Tree Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Phone : 273 - 5155 • 2 . Location of Proposed Action : Slaterville Road - , # 6 - 11 . 12 ; See attached subdivision plan and USGS ma 3 . Proposed Action : Subdivision of approximately 26 . 78 acres according to preliminary site plane amendment of the Official Highway Map to permit proposed plan , 4 . Activities and types of operation resulting from the comple - tion of the proposed action : One and two - family residential development in detached , conventional housing . 5 . State the time schedules for the proposed action . a ) Planning : Fall , 1984 b ) Design , Documents : Winter , 1985 c ) Preliminary Site Work : No schedule at this time d ) Construction : No schedule at this time e ) Finished Site Work / Grading : No schedule at this time 6 . Describe the proposed construction techniques to be used if building or site development is involved . Show locations and routes to be used on the site plan : No construction is planned at this time , it is anticipated that traditional one - and two - family houses of comparable size and value to those in the existin neighborhood will be built on the lots resulting from this subdivision . a ) Grading and excavation including equipment , vehicles and explosives to be used : Conventional construction Planning Board 11 October 2 , 1984 • equipment to be used ; blasting may be necessary if soil cover is shallow . b ) Transportation of materials to site : Truck . C ) Disposal of waste materials : Truck to landfill . d ) Proposed chemical treatments , such as herbicides , dust control , etc . : Calcium chloride to control dust if necessary . e ) Special techniques to overcome unusual conditions : None anticipated . 7 . Describe the type of proposed building and site materials to be used : No construction is anticipated at this time ; it is anticipated that future construction will meet all applicable building codes and will be similar to existing homes in the neighborhood . Given the orientation of the lots on this south - facing hillside , it is presumed that solar energy will figure somewhat more prominently in the heating and cooling of new construction than it presently does for other homes in the community and neighborhood . a ) Foundation : No specific information available at this time . b ) Structure : Same as a ) above . C ) HVAC : Same as a ) above . d ) Energy Sources : Same as a ) above . e ) Siding : Same as a ) above . f ) Insulation : Same as a ) above . • g ) Windows and Glass : Same as a ) above . I ) Roofing : Same as a ) above . j ) Pavement : Same as a ) above . k ) Vegetative Cover : Same as a ) above . 8 . Total area directly modified by proposed action : The total area to be subdivided is approximately 26 . 78 acres Over the course of development , it is expected that most of this area will be regraded for building purposes . 9 . Total area covered by impervious surfaces : Given an estimate of 1500 linear feet of roadway with an impervious cross - section of 30 feet ( pavement and shoulder ) , the total impervious surface dedicated to roadway would be approximately 1 . 1 acres . Assuming 26 building lots , each with a paved driveway of 400 square feet , and a roofed surface of 1600 square feet , the impervious surface dedicated to indivudual building lot development would be approximately 1 . 2 acres , for a total impervious surface ( roads and roofs ) of 2 . 3 acres . This represents a proxi - mately 9 percent of the project ' s land area . 10 . Gross Building sizes : Individual houses will be constructed to suit by the builder . Sizes would be comparable and com - patible with existing Pine Tree Road / Eastern Heights community . Planning Board 12 October 2 , 1984 11 . Number of proposed Dwelling Units : between 26 ( one dwelling unit per lot and 26 lots ) and 52 ( two - dwelling units per lot and 26 lots ) . A reasonable estimate would be 30 - 35 . 12 . Parking : All parking will be off - street and appropriately sized for the number of dwelling units and the size of the house . 13 . Show proposed Signs on Site Plan : " Lots For Sale " sign will be requested . 14 . Show proposed Lights and other Poles on Site Plan : Street lights at Town Highway intersections to Town Engineer ' s specifications . 15 . Name potentially hazardous materials , such as toxic sub - stances , flammables or explosives to be used or disposed of during or after proposed action : None known Purpose of materials : Not Applicable 16 . If the resulting activities are either commercial or indus - trial use , write the materials to be transferred to / from the site , their frequency , and the mode of transportation . Imported materials : Not Applicable • Exported materials : Not Applicable Frequency : Not Applicable Mode : Not Applicable 17 . Describe project history , including controversy perceived by the developer , litigation , court decisions , etc . : The pro - perty in question is a portion of a farm formerly owned by Mr . John Marion . The property was acquired by Pine Tree Associates after Mr . Marion ' s death in order that the neigh - bors in the community could control the development of this property in a manner compatible with the existing homes and sense of neighborhood . COMMUNITY FACTORS AND IMPACTS 18 . Designated Zoning of the Site of the proposed action : R15 19 . Zoning Changes or variances being requested : No zoning chan - ges or variances are requested However , a change to the Official Highway Map is requested in order to permit the preferred subdivision plan . 20 . Check if the Site of the proposed action is within or next to the following districts of Areas : Agricultural District Historic Preservation District Floodplain ( HUD designated ) Unique Natural Area Planning Board 13 October 2 , 1984 Freshwater Wetland 21 . Check which land uses describe the neighborhood character : X Single - Unit Residential X Two- Unit Residential Multi - Unit Residential Commercial Industrial X Institutional : Cornell University Inactive Transportation Recreation X Agriculture : C . U . Equine and Swine Research Farms Forestry Woodland Wildlife / Conservation Other 22 . Check which public services are being requested or applied for : X Sanitary Sewage X Gas X Water X Electricity X Storm Drainage X Telephone • 23 . Check which transportation facilities will serve the site of the proposed action : State Highway Sidewalks On - street Parking County Highway One -way Traffic X Off - street Parking X Town Highway X Two -way Traffic Bus Systems City / Village Street Traffic Lights 24 . Number of existing buildings affected by the proposed action : None . 25 . Name important buildings or districts known to be histori - cally or archeologically important or which are listed on the register of Historic Buildings : None known . NATURAL FACTORS AND IMPACTS 26 . Depth to bedrock at Site of proposed action . ( Check more than one if necessary . ) Up to four feet depth Planning Board 14 October 2 , 1984 X Four feet to ten feet Greater than ten feet 279 If bedrock depth is less than ten feet , check type of bedrock existing at Site of proposed action : Shale X Thinly bedded shale and sandstone ( upper strata ) Siltstone or sandstone ( lower strata ) Limestone 28 . Check types of topographic features which describe or are found on the Site . Level or gently rolling plains Hummocks with small ponds Glens and gorges Valley bottom Hilltop X Hillside 29 . Name the soils as identified in the Soil Survey of Tompkins County which are found on the part of the Site proposed to be modified . Initials may be used : EbB ( Erie Channery Silt m � Loam [ 3 - 8 % slope ] ) , EbC3 ( Erie Channery Silt Loa [ 8 - 15 % slope , eroded ] ) , BgC ( Bath and Valois Gravelly Silt Loam [ 5 - 15 % slope ] ) , LaC3 ( Langford Channery Silt Loam [ 8 - 15 % slope , eroded ] ) , 30 . Briefly describe the nature and extent ofro osed modifi - p p ca tions of existing slopes or soils or drainage : The existing slopes and soils will not be substantially modified ; a drainage easement will be dedicated to the Town along the eastern border of the subdivision to improve drainage from the Eastern Heights community . 31 . Will any wetlands or adjacent areas be modified by the pro - posed action ? If so , designate on the Site Plan the wetlands which will be affected : No wetlands will be affected by the proposed develo ment . 32 . Will any streams be modified by the proposed action ? If so , designate on the Site Plan which streams will be modified : No streams will be modified by the proposed development . The drainage easement will allow for improved maintenance of the existing stream flowing south on the border of the Ewing ' s property . 33 . Will any waste materials or effluent be discharged into a stream or groundwaters ? If so , designate on the Site Plan the streams which will be affected : No waste materials will be discharged into any drainageway , stream , or groundwater recharge area . All houses in the development will be con - . nected to public sewers at the time of construction , Planning Board 15 October 2 , 1984 34 . Do any of the following types of vegetation exist on the Site of the proposed action ? Stands of mature trees greater than 30 feet tall . X Young tree species less than 30 feet tall . X Shrubs , X Terrestrial plants up to two feet high . Ferns , sedges , rushes . X Grasses Aquatic plants . Crops . 35 . Are any vegetative management techniques currently being practiced on the Site of the proposed action : No 36 . Will any trees or shrubs be removed by the proposed action : If so , designate on the Site Plan the area that is to be affected . Some trees and shrubs may eventually be removed in the course of construction . 37 . Are there any plans for revegetation ? If so , briefly ex - plain : Trees are to be planted along the new road . 38 . To your knowledge are there any rare , endangered or unusual vegetative species which are located on or near the Site of the proposed action ? If so , how are they distributed : No • 39 . Will activity cause a change in or affect visual character of natural or cultural landscape features : The proposed construction and development will attempt to take advantage of the natural setting . 40 . To your knowledge , are there any significant wildlife habi - tats , migration routes , or breeding areas located on or near the Site that might be affected by the proposed action : Deer and other common woodland species are present , it is expected that the open spaces to be reserved in this development , and the open spaces already reserved by homeowners along Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road will provide a suitable , alternative habitat . 41 . To your knowledge are there any rare , endangered , endemic , or unusual wildlife species which are located on the Site of the proposed action : No 42 . To your knowledge , are there any known unique natural fea - tures on or near the site of the proposed action ? If so , briefly explain : No 43 . Will any of the following emissions be produced by the pro - posed action or its resulting activities ? If so , describe the cause : Ashes : X Dust : Incidental to construction Fumes : Planning Board 16 October 2 , 1984 • Odors Smoke : Other Emissions : 44 . Will there be changes to existing noise or vibration levels due to the proposed action or its resulting activities : Yes If so , describe the cause : There will be temporary noise due to construction and noise associated with normal residential activity . SOCIO -ECONOMIC FACTORS AND IMPACTS 45 . Number of Employees during construction : Approximately 10 46 . Maximum number of employees present at the Site at one time : Approximately 10 47 . If resulting activities are for either Industrial or Commer - cial use , state the employment shifts and number of employees in each shift : Not applicable . 48 . If the resulting activities are for residential use , state the number of planned residents : Permanent : 120 Seasonal . 12 ( estimated 10 % of total ) • Total : 132 49 . Briefly describe the nature and amount of indirect growth anticipated as a result of the proposed action or resulting activities . Negligible impact on existing community services and facilities . 50 . Existing community or business or facilities or residential structures requiring relocation : None 51 . If the focus of resulting activities is for residential use , check if residence is intended for : Low Income Segment High Income Segment X Families X Medium Income Segment Students Elderly 52 . Will proposed activity substantially change the following socio -economic population distribution ? Income Ethnic Background Race Age COMMENTS Planning Board 17 October 2 , 1984 • 53 . In your judgment , will the proposed action result in a significant environmental impact during construction and / or during use after completion : No GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 54 . Check the levels of government and name the agencies having jurisdiction over the proposed action . Indicate the required permits by stating " YES " or " NO " if permit has been approved . ( The following pages will advise on the types of actions which require particular permits . ) FEDERAL PERMITS : Not applicable a ) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System : EPA Region 11 , New York City . b ) Activities in navigable waters : Corps of Engi - neers , Buffalo . c ) Other STATE PERMITS a ) Certificate of Compatibility and Public Need : PSC , DEC Albany ( Public Utilities ) . b ) Dam / Impoundment Construction or Repair : DEC , Environmental Quality Unit , Cortland . c ) Disturbance of Stream Bed / Fill of Navigable Waters : DEC - EQ Unit , Cortland . d ) Incinerator Construction or Operation : DEC -EQ Unit , Syracuse . e ) Indirect Air Contamination Source : DEC - EQ Unit , Syracuse . e ) Mining : DEC -Mineral Resources Bureau , Albany . f ) Pesticide Purchase , Use ( 7 Permits ) : DEC , Pesticides Bureau , Albany . g ) Process , Exhaust , ventilation System Construction or Operation : DEC - EQ , Syracuse h ) NO Public Water Supply : DEC , Environmental Analysis , Albany ( Tompkins County Health Department review ) i ) SPDES : DEC , Environmental Quality Unit , Syracuse ( Tompkins County Health Department review ) j ) Stationary Combustion Installation : DEC - EQ Unit , Syracuse k ) Wetlands / Adjacent Areas Alteration : DEC -EQ Unit , Cortland 1 ) Other Planning Board 18 October 2 , 1984 COUNTY OF TOMPKINS a ) Driveways , Culverts : Highway Department b ) Hazardous Wastes : Health Department c ) Institutional Use : Health Department d ) Mass Gathering : Health Department e ) Offensive Materials ( Scavenger Wastes ) : Health Department f ) NO Public Utility Line Extension : Health Department g ) Restaurant Use : Health Department h ) Restricted Burning : Health Department ( DEC -EQ Unit review ) i ) NO Sanitary Facility for Realty Subdivision : Health Department ( DEC -EQ Unit review ) j ) Septic Tank Cleaner / Industrial Waste Collection : Health Department ( DEC -EQ Unit review ) k ) NO Sewage Disposal System : Health Department 1 ) Solid Waste Management Facility : Health Department ( DEC -EQ Unit review ) m ) SPDES ( Pollution Discharge ) : Health Department ( DEC -EQ review) n ) Swimming Use : Health Department o ) Temporary Residence ( Boarding House , Camp , Day Care , Hotel , Motel , Mobile Home Park ) : Health Department p ) NO Water Supply ( Public ) : Health Department q ) Wetlands / Alteration : Wetlands Commission / County Clerk r ) Other TOWN OF ITHACA a ) Blasting b ) NO Building Permit c ) NO Street Opening d ) Extraction of Natural Materials e ) Land Use Variance f ) Mobile Home Park g ) Multiple Residence h ) Planned Unit Development i ) NO Public Utility Connection j ) Signs k ) NO Subdivision 1 ) NO Streets and Drainage m ) Wetlands Alteration n ) Zoning Variance o ) Other 55 . Sources of Public Funds ( if any ) for proposed action : None known . Planning Board 19 October 2 , 1984 • 56 . If Federal review under NEPA is required , name Agency : None known . ( sgd . ) Pine Tree Associates by Royal D . Colle Signature of Applicant Developer / Representative Title REVIEWER ' S RECOMMENDATIONS : This is a Type I action . For a complete explanations of my recommendations , see " Conclusions " following Part III below . ( sgd . ) Peter M . Lovi Signature of Reviewer Town Planner Title Town of Ithaca Agency September 28 , 1984 Date Reviewed • DETERMINATION BY TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD : Negative Declaration - - Determination of Non - Significance . Positive Declaration - - Action may be of Significant Environmental Impact . D / EIS required . Signature of Chairperson Date [ DRAWING here - Pine Tree Associates Development Plan ] [ June 1984 - Preliminary ] TOWN OF ITHACA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART II : Project Impacts and Their Magnitudes RE : Pine Tree Associates Subdivision and Amendment of the Highway Map Impacts on Land Planning Board 20 October 2 , 1984 1 . There is a potentially large environmental impact as a result of a physical change to the project site . This impact can be reduced by changes to the project ; see Part III below for recommended mitigation measures . 2 . There are no unusual landforms on the site which would be adversely affected by this project . Impact on Water 3 . There are no protected water bodies which would be affected by this project . 4 . There are no non -protected water bodies which would be affected as a result of this project . 5 . This project will have no effect on groundwater quality but there may be a small to moderate impact on surface water quality . 6 . This project has a potentially large impact on drainage flows , patterns and surface water runoff . This impact can be reduced by project change ; see Part III below for recommended mitigation measures . Impact on Air • 7 . Thisro ' ect will not have P J an adverse environmental impact on air quality . Impact on Plants and Animals 8 . There are no known threatened or endangered species of plant or animal which will be adversely affected by this project . 9 . There will be a small to moderate environmental impact on non - endangered or non - threatened species of plants and animals . Impact on Visual Resources 10 . The project has a potentially large impact on views , vistas , and aspects of the neighborhood or community visual character . This impact can be reduced by project changes see Part III below for recommended mitigation measures . Impact on Historical Resources 11 . This project will not impact upon any site or structure of historic , pre -historic or paleontological importance . Impact on Open Space and Recreation 12 . This project has a potentially large impact on the quality and quantity of existing and future open spaces or Planning Board 21 October 2 , 1984 recreational opportunities . This impact can be reduced by project change ; see Part III below for recommended mitigation measures . Impact on Transportation 13 . This project has a potentially large impact on the existing transportation system . This impact can be reduced by project change ; see Part III below for recommended mitigation measures . Impact on Energy 14 . This project will have no effect on the community ' s sources of fuel and energy . Impact on Noise 15 . There will be no significant odors , noises , glare , vibration or electrical disturbances as a result of this project . Impact on Health and Hazards 16 . This project has a potentially large impact on public health and safety . This impact can be reduced by project change ; • see Part III below for recommended mitigation measures . Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood 17 . This project has a potentially large impact on the growth and character of the existing community . This impact can be reduced by project changes see Part III below for IT recommended mitigation measures . 18 . There is a small to moderate amount of public controversy concerning the project . TOWN OF ITHACA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART III : Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts RE : Pine Tree Associates Subdivision and Amendment of the Highway Map Impacts on Land 1 . Impacts : Soil erosion on graded surfaces , drainageways , roadsides ; residential and road construction to proceed in phases and continue for more than a year . Planning Board 22 October 2 , 1984 • Mitigation : The general slopes in the project area are on the order of 10 % and some construction will most likely occur on slopes of more than 15 % . As indicated by the Soil Conservation Service maps Erie Channery Silt Loam [ 8 - 150 slope , eroded ] , Bath and Valois Gravelly Silt Loam [ 5 - 150 slope ] , and Langford Channery Silt Loam [ 8 - 15 % slope , eroded ] are present on the site . The developers must be careful not to promote additional erosion due to improper site grading . In addition , cut slopes for road grading and drainage should be seeded and revegetated as quickly as possible to minimize slippage and erosion . Landscaping should be put in place as each phase proceeds in order to reduce the amount of exposed soil susceptible to erosion . Importance : 1 ) there is a high probability of the impact occurring if unmitigated ; 2 ) the impacts would be periodic and coincident with high storm runoff ; 3 ) the effects of the impact are irreversible loss of valuable soil ; 4 ) the impact can be controlled through proper landscaping , minimizing exposed surfaces when grading , and use of hay bales and check dams to retard storm water flows ; 5 ) the regional consequences are secondary to the immediate local results - such as flooding ; 6 ) the potential divergence from local needs and goals is great should the appropriate drainage easements not be provided , 7 ) known objections to this project do not apply to this impact . Impact on Water 6 . Impact : Surface water runoff will drain from the Eastern Heights community through this development . Mitigation : The developer should provide drainage easements in a location acceptable to the Town Engineer . Importance : 1 ) there is a high probability of the impact occurring if unmitigated ; 2 ) the impacts would be periodic and coincident with high storm runoff ; 3 ) the effects of the impact are irreversible loss of valuable soil and damage to drainageways , culverts , and structures ; 4 ) the impact can be controlled through proper landscaping , minimizing exposed surfaces when grading , and use of check dams and riprapping to retard storm water flows ; 5 ) the regional consequences are secondary to the immediate local results ; Planning Board 23 October 2 , 1984 6 ) the potential divergence from local needs and goals is great should the appropriate drainage easements not be provided ; 7 ) known objections to this project do not apply to this impact . Impact on Visual Resources 10 . Impact : The project may adversely affect views , vistas , and aspects of the neighborhood ' s visual character important to some members of the community . Mitigation : This parcel was purchased by local residents who were concerned by the possibility of a high density of residential construction and the possibility of unaesthetic development on this parcel . Explanation to these persons that a higher level of development would have been possible than that presently proposed is a mitigating approach . Importance : 1 ) there is a high probability of the impact occurring if unmitigated ; 2 ) the impacts would be continuous ; 3 ) the effects of the impact are the irreversible loss of views and vistas for present residents to be balanced . by a corresponding gain in views by residents on the new lots , 4 ) the impact cannot be fully controlled , but may be mitigated through landscaping and subdivision design ; 5 ) the regional consequences are secondary to the immediate local perceptions ; 6 ) community needs and desires for lower density develop - ment should be considered in the realignment of mapped streets and subdivision lots ; 7 ) known objections to this project do not apply to this impact . Impact on Open Space and Recreation 12 . Impact ; This project will affect the quality and quantity of existing and future open space or recreational opportunities . Mitigation : A loss of potential public open space has been exchanged for an increase in the amount of private open space . This tradeoff resulted from the sale of 15 small parcels , totalling 19 . 2 acres , from the original Marion land tract to adjacent homeowners ( see P . T . A . June , 1984 prelimi - nary development plan ) . These transfers were made without subdivision approval , therefore no land could be set aside for parks or open space at that time . Planning Board 24 October 2 , 1984 • Importance : 1 ) there is a high probability of the impact occurring if unmitigated ; 2 ) the impacts would be continuous ; 3 ) the effects of the impact are the irreversible loss of some public open space to be balanced by a corresponding gain in private open space by residents who acquired " buffer " parcels ; 4 ) the impact cannot be controlled , except through the inclusion of all land in the original Marion tract in a comprehensive development schemes 5 ) the regional consequences are secondary to the immediate local impacts ; 6 ) there is divergence between local goals for lower den- sity development , and flexibility in the subdivision planning process , 7 ) objections to this project apply to this impact . Impact on Transportation 13 . Impact : This project will have several significant effects on the existing highway plan for the lower elevations of Snyder Hill Road , a ) a mapped street from Pine Tree Road to the Eastern Heights neighborhood will be abandoned , b ) all of the parcels " D " through " P " ( see preliminary • plan ) transferred to the adjacent property owners will be landlocked and unusable as buildable lots in the future ; C ) the continuous , radial street connecting the lower stretch of Snyder Hill Road to the southern end of Park Lane , and eventually Route 79 will be replaced by a serpentine through street which may not provide as convenient an access to this acreage , to any eventual development of the Baldwin property , or to the Eastern Heights community ; d ) the subdividers may be obliged to construct a considerable length of Town road off - site in order to provide two means of access to this subdivision . Mitigation : There is very little mitigation possible for these impacts . Acceptance of the proposed subdivision scheme will essentially foreclose any development of the " buffer " parcels , given the requirements of our Zoning Ordinance and Town Law . Any possibility for a convenient , radial connection paralleling Slaterville Road and Pine Tree Road will be compromised . Importance : 1 ) there is a high probability of the impact occurring if unmitigated ; 0 2 ) the impacts would be continuous ; Planning Board 25 October 2 , 1984 3 ) the effects of the impact are the irreversible loss of some public thoroughfare to be balanced by a corres - ponding gain in private open space and amenity value by residents who acquired " buffer " parcels and a residential street ; 4 ) the impact cannot be controlled , except through the inclusion of all land in the original Marion tract in a comprehensive development scheme ; 5 ) the regional consequences are important , as this stretch of land is the last undeveloped area through which a radial , connector street from Slaterville Road to East Ithaca could be located without disrupting a large number of existing dwellings , 6 ) there is divergence between local goals for lower den - sity development , and townwide needs for a network of safe , convenient streets ; 7 ) objections to this project apply to this impact . Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood 17 . Impact .* This project may significantly affect the character of the existing community in several ways . a ) Abutting property owners , specifically parcels " C " through " M " may appreciate the security which addi - tional rear acreage will provide at present . However , future conditions may compel these , or future owners , . to attempt to subdivide this rear acreage for building lots . The proposed road system effectively precludes this option . b ) This project may set an important precedent for future projects in two respects : 1 ) The principle may be inferred that land transfers for the purpose of adding to one ' s existing pro - perty are not regulable subdivisions and not sub - ject to Planning Board review . 2 ) This project may result in landowners who purchased the additional parcels claiming a " hardship " should the mapped street be removed . 3 ) The Zoning Board of Appeals may be asked to grant variances to permit a second dwelling unit to be put on the lots which border on Pine Tree Road , or to allow a second lot to be subdivided which does not front on a public street . Mitigation : The Town Board could make clear that , if the proposed changes to the Highway Map are adopted , no hardship has been created for lots with " buffer " parcels and that these parcels are indivisible . Alternatively , the Town Board and the Planning Board could request that all owners of " buffer " parcels come before the Planning Board for subdivision review , at which time a more complete resolution . of the development alternatives may be possible . Planning Board 26 October 2 , 1984 • Importances 1 ) there is a high probability of the impact occurring if unmitigated ; 2 ) the impacts would be continuous ; 3 ) the effects of the impact are the irreversible loss of public convenience and planning flexibility ; 4 ) the impact cannot be controlled , except through the inclusion of all land in the original Marion tract in a comprehensive development schemes 5 ) the regional consequences are important , as this action may establish a townwide precedent ; 6 ) there is divergence between local goals for lower den - sity development , and townwide need for consistency and flexibility in the subdivision review process ; 7 ) objections to this project apply to this impact . CONCLUSIONS . As detailed in Parts II and III , there are aspects of this project which may have significant environmental impacts . I believe that acceptable mitigation can be provided for physical site planning considerations , such as drainage , erosion control and landscaping . However , a final decision on the nature and exact location of the roads to serve this subdivision should be made following the provision of more detailed topographic and engineering information than is available at this time . In • addition , the status of the parcels which were subdivided from the Marion estate should be clarified . For this reason , I recommend that a negative declaration of environmental significance be made upon the condition that the developers present a final subdivision plan to the Planning Board which includes all the land in the original Marion estate , which creates no landlocked properties , and which provides for the completion of a through street beginning at Snyder Hill Road approximately 1100 feet east of Pine Tree Road . I further recommend that , at such time as this final subdivision plan is approved by the Planning Board , all mapped streets in conflict with this plan be removed from the Official Map . " Mr . Lovi stated that he would like to begin by having everyone look at two particular maps which he had prepared , both being based upon Tax Map # 57 . Mr . Lovi indicated on the first Tax Map # 57 that he had plotted the mapped streets and also indicated the Marion Estate parcel which was originally some 44 acres in size at the time it was acquired by Pine Tree Associates with some 19 acres thereof divided into a number of smaller parcels and appended to properties along Pine Tree Road for the purposes of those people wishing to reserve as much of the land as they wanted for open space in their backyards and other good . reasons . Mr . Lovi stated that , what that has done is that it has complicated the topography that the Town , staff , and developers have to work with because the main radial street off Snyder Hill Planning Board 27 October 2 , 1984 • Road , which would start from Snyder Hill Road , go southerly , and at some point enter into Route 79 , would run through properties outside of the property of Pine Tree Associates . Mr . Lovi stated that after discussions with the Planning Board at its last meeting , a series of alternatives are being suggested , the first one being a Route 79 access approximately 400 feet to the east of Pine Tree Road , however , the grades are quite steep and it is a NYS Highway and close to Pine Tree Road , Mr . Lovi stated that this alternative seems to have been excluded and so , to have two independent accesses it would be necessary to have both be on Snyder Hill Road , and , there are three candidates for that . Mr . Lovi indicated on the maps what he termed a " lower " , " middle " and an " upper " entrance . Speaking to the " middle " entrance , Mr . Lovi noted that it occurs at the point of the hill on Snyder Hill Road and , because of sight distance problems , was rejected , leaving two - - the " lower " and the " upper " . Turning to the second Tax Map # 57 upon which were drawn different " roads " , Mr . Lovi indicated thereon the " L - shaped " road as originally proposed by Pine Tree Associates , and indicated also a second spur off that road to Park Lane . Mr . Lovi stated that , given the desire of the Town Board for a second means of access to this subdivision , there are two ways to accomplish that , as he had stated . Mr . Lovi stated that one way , referred to before as the " upper " , is as a right - angled intersection off Snyder Hill Road southerly through Dr . Baldwin ' s property by way • of the upper gap between parcels 7 . 10 and 7 . 11 ( 143 - 145 Snyder Hill Road ) , and at a point this road could go one of two ways - east of the water tank which is shorter and would have a grade of about 50 , however , coming in to the " L " road which has a fairly steep grade , about 120 . Mr . Lovi stated that he has discussed this with Mr . Fabbroni who feels that this " fork " is not as good as the " fork " shown west of the water tank , even though that one is a little longer and a little steeper , about 7 % . Mr . Lovi stated that the second way , the " lower " , is a considerably longer road through Dr . Baldwin ' s land and , again , is a right - angled intersection off Snyder Hill Road between parcels 4 and 7 . 5 . Mr . Lovi commented that this road could be in any configuration the parties might want , not necessarily the one drawn on the Tax Map , but , in any case , it would be a considerably longer road . Mr . Lovi stated that the question becomes were one of these two built , which would be the more useful to the developers , to the Town , and the more protective of the public health , safety , and welfare . Mr . Lovi stated that the proposal , as he understood it when we left the Planning Board meeting , was that there would be no connection through to Route 79 ( Slaterville Road ) , as foreseen on the Highway Master Plan as a dark line , because that connection would not be frustrated in the future as long as one or the other , or both , of these two routes were taken , and , of course , this is all premised on the • acceptance of this parcel ( 6 - 57 - 1 - 11 . 121 26 acres ) for subdividing . Mr . Lovi commented that possibly it may not have been noted in his EAF review and report that there are a couple of precedents [ Item 17 , paragraphs a , b ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) , EAF , Part III ] Planning Board 28 October 2 , 1984 • which could be established that both boards should consider , one of which is that at present these lots [ indicating on the drawing those parcels which were added to existing lots ] were subdivided from the larger Marion parcel , and adding that he would put the question to everyone that had these parcels been put to a subdivision approval process at the time they were transferred to those property owners , the inconsistencies with the Highway Master Plan would have brought forward at that time and , presumably , our problems would have come to the fore then rather than now when , perhaps , we would have had some more flexibility in accepting the desire of the Pine Tree Road community to add additional lands to their back acreage . Mr . Lovi commented that it might have been possible to realign some of the other roads , change the Official Map , and do it in such a manner that at some time in the future when , perhaps , people have moved and new owners are in place , they find their back acreage landlocked . Mr . Lovi stated that he raised this because a substantial percentage of this original parcel is now essentially undevelopable and without a formal open space dedication , however , certainly with Eastern Heights Park in the general community area , there is probably no need for that , but , perhaps , there is need for space for drainage easements , etc . Mr . Lovi posed the following questions : Do we deal strictly with the parcel being brought before us , and , if so , an access road plan need be devised which will meet the needs of Pine Tree Associates and the Town Board ' s desire for a second access and connection to Slaterville Road ultimately - - OR - - Do we look to fuller consideration of the parcels which were originally part of the Marion tract but which were subdivided prior to the Pine Tree Associates presentation ? Supervisor Desch asked if the Town were aware of any restrictive covenants that make these back lots landlocked , and further wondered how an applicant would pursue and the Town be able to grant any relief in the future , say ten years hence . Dr . Colle stated that at the time of the original agreements at the time of transfer of title of the referenced back lots , it was recognized that this land will not be used for development . Dr . Colle commented that that was certainly a part of a memorandum of understanding , however , he did not know if it was in the actual agreement of sale . Mr . Mazza asked if that original agreement , or memorandum , could be recorded in Miscellaneous Records in the Office of the County Clerk . Supervisor Desch wondered if such a move would be acceptable to the developers and the Town Attorney , Chairman May suggested that such an agreement precluding any development of those backlands be made a condition of any approvals . Supervisor Desch commented that the developers have executed the transfer of title for the back lots , but in so doing they have blocked the mapped road development , either purposefully or not , and that is their right in this country , however , we have a dilemma as a result . Dr . Baldwin commented . that he thought he was hearing that the subdivision of those particular parcels has to be approved . Planning Board 29 October 2 , 1984 • Supervisor Desch suggested that a condition of the approval of the development of the balance of the land would be the creation of a covenant or agreement with the new purchasers of these back lots whereby the development of those back lots would be prohibited because they would be landlocked upon the development of the subdivision . Mr . Stanton thought that some agreement had been signed but it is not recorded . Supervisor Desch wondered if it were in a form that would be acceptable . Mr . Mazza pointed out that an agreement can be changed by the parties . Mr . Lovi suggested , much along the same order as with Commonland Community when some improperly subdivided lands were noted and later reviewed by the Planning Board , that if the original parcel including the lands that have been subdivided were all included as part of this present subdivision , then it would be clear that because the Highway Map had been changed , development had been precluded . Mr . Lovi commented that he thought covenants might not be necessary since it would be noted that the parties entered into this " agreement " knowingly . Supervisor Desch wondered how this could be done . Mr . Lovi suggested numbering the involved lots and indicating that they are not developable and , perhaps , referencing the " agreement " all on any subdivision map to be filed with the County Clerk . Mr . Mazza wondered if the people involved are still the same people who were deeded these parcels or are they different people , the parcels having been sold . Dr . Colle stated that there has been no change in the people , however , only three of them are involved with this particular parcel being proposed for subdivision [ Pine Tree Associates : Colle , Mecenas , Baldwin ] . Mr . Mazza stated that the people who purchased part of the Marion land to add to their property would have to be part of this subdivision [ Pine Tree Associates proposed subdivision ] and asked if they were willing to become a part of it . It was pointed out that the transfers of the individual lots to existing lots took place in February 1984 , Councilwoman Raffensperger commented that it was her understanding that the developers had discussed their plans , including the adding of land to various existing individual parcels , with the Town very early on in the process even , she thought , prior to the individual transfers being made . Councilwoman Howell asked if any of the eleven property owners were present . Mr . Ewing stated that he was present , however , he was not representing them . Chairman May stated that if there cannot be some assumptions on this made in order to proceed , then the matter cannot go very far . Chairman May stated that if the Board wants to go somewhere , he thought it should proceed as if it were reviewing the whole parcel [ the original Marion Estate lands , about 44 acres ] , but , deal now with the circulation as it pertains to parcel 11 . 12 [ Pine Tree Associates land , about 26 acres ] . Mr . Cramer wanted to be sure the . discussion did not include the parcel next door [ Baldwin ] , with the Board indicating that it did not . Planning Board 30 October 2 , 1984 • Chairman May stated that we must have access . Mr . Stanton wondered who it was that said that we must have access . It was not clear that anybody had . Mr . Mazza pointed out that the developer has cut off access . Supervisor Desch stated that , if the connection from this undeveloped parcel to Pine Tree Road is removed from the Highway Map , then there is no opportunity in the future for as direct an access as that connection would have afforded . Supervisor Desch stated that the problem gets compounded because the road for this new subdivision is essentially uphill , adding that now there is some difficulty because of its location . Dr . Baldwin pointed out that there are still basically the same roads as were planned . Mr . Ewing asked if it were only the houses on Pine Tree road and the lots behind them that are concerned . Mr . Lovi responded that it would be all the parties who received land from that original Marion parcel and , thus , all easements , restrictions , etc . , would be done in a consistent manner . Mr . Ewing pointed out that he is down on Slaterville Road . At this point , Mr . Lovi pointed out another map which had been prepared by the Town Engineer , Larry Fabbroni , for the June [ 1984 ] meeting of the Planning Board at which the Pine Tree Associates plans had been discussed again and which shows the grades in the area and the grades in the parcel under discussion . • Mr . Lovi pointed out and discussed the manner in which this land relates to the Frandsen land and also juxtaposed Mr . Fabbroni ' s drawing with the Official Highway Map showing certain heavy black lines and the legend indicating proposed roads , planned roads and roads shown as not having their location fixed . Supervisor Desch indicated his disagreement with Mr . Lovi ' s premise that certain roads do not appear to have a fixed location , commenting that there is no mystery as to the roads set forth on the Official Highway Map . Mrs . Grigorov indicated those roads which are noted as " location not fixed . " Supervisor Desch reiterated that there is no great mystery as to where the roads are planned and pointed out that they can be seen on Mr . Fabbroni ' s map which was drawn from the Highway Map , Mr . Lovi noted that the map which Mr . Fabbroni had drawn shows very clearly the relative grades . Discussion followed as to the profiles of " Edwin Drive " and Park Lane , it being noted that they are just about a mirror image of each other if one accepts the connection to the cul de sac . Supervisor Desch indicated that he was not sure of that as a substitute and commented , maybe through staging , although there would be substantial costs involved in connecting to cul de sacs , indicating on the drawing two particular locations . Mr . Lovi commented that all of this discussion appears to be leading back to the basic question of a second access and the Highway Map . Mr . Ewing pointed out his lot on the drawing and its relation to " Edwin Drive " . Utilizing the drawing and indicating thereon , Mr . . Desch stated that in his mind he would have far less reservation about restricting " that one " than " that one " . Dr . Colle wondered why , with Supervisor Desch responding that otherwise there would Planning Board 31 October 2 , 1984 • be no way to provide the public a way to get at " that " lot . Dr . Colle offered that if that is the wish of the owner , is that a problem . Supervisor Desch stated that it was not in that case if it were in an agreement , adding that Park Lane becomes a sub - feeder . At this point , discussion among all those present centered around the drawings with various alternatives being offered utilizing such drawings . Mrs . Beverly Livesay , 147 Snyder Hill Road , stated that , as she looks at these maps now , she thought the Board knew that her concern is an outlet for all of that development which would be other than Snyder Hill Road because of its limitations . Mrs . Livesay commented on the lengthy discussion pertaining to two outlets for 25 homes but no discussion about the 250 in the Town of Dryden using Snyder Hill Road , Mrs . Livesay stated that now she is hearing only Snyder Hill Road being discussed which misses the major point of Snyder Hill Road as a problem and the access to Snyder Hill Road being talked about is in a peculiar place . Mrs . Livesay stated that access to Slaterville Road [ from Park Lane ] is not in a peculiar place , and asked if there were empty land there . Supervisor Desch stated that it is the only place where one can get a safe , appropriately sloped access onto Slaterville Road , Mrs . Grigorov pointed out that there is another one but it seems to be too close to Pine Tree Road , being about 400 ' away from Pine Tree Road . • Mr . William Frandsen , owner of a large adjacent parcel , wondered what would happen if that piece of land which is owned by Mr . Quick cannot be acquired , and commented that he did not know whether it is available or not . There appearing to be no particular answer to his question , Mr . Frandsen continued , asking if he can develop a certain 20 lots which he indicated on the drawings . Chairman May stated that he thought the Planning Board had said that no further development of his ( Frandsen ' s ) land could occur until there was access on to Slaterville Road , The Planning Board members indicated that they were not sure that that had been stated . Mr . Frandsen stated that he had had an access to Slaterville Road in his plans and it was turned down for one which he indicated on the drawings . Supervisor Desch stated that an answer could not be given to Mr . Frandsen , adding that he did not think it necessary to defer Pine Tree Associates for this aspect . Mr . Frandsen wondered if he should not develop " Velma Drive " . Supervisor Desch pointed out that this is not a part of the discussion before the Boards . Mr . Fabbroni commented on the 16 % slope alternative on the Frandsen land and the 8 % slope on another person ' s land . Supervisor Desch noted again that this is not on the agenda for tonight ' s discussion . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he understood that , adding that it is germane , however , and has been so for the last eight months . Dr . Baldwin wondered if the Town could force a road through . someone ' s land . Supervisor Desch stated that it could , if it is important enough , by condemnation . t Planning Board 32 October 2 , 1984 • Chairman May asked that discussion return to the particular property involved [ Pine Tree Associates property ) , it did and continued for some considerable length of time . Suggestions were made from all corners , some of which were : A suggestion from Mr . Lovi which was met with some support to " move " the mapped street running parallel to Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road somewhat east substituting it with a mapped street running south from Snyder Hill Road and eventually into Slaterville Road , with Councilwoman Raffensperger pointing out that " mapped streets " seem to take on a life of their own as time goes by ; a suggestion by Supervisor Desch with respect to 13 of the lots and as to a roadway involving Regency Lane to Joanne Drive to Park Lane ( extended ) ; an indication by Dr . Baldwin where a bicycle path has been proposed with the comment that he felt it to be something that could be built next year . After further discussion of considerable length , Supervisor Desch asked if it were appropriate to require the developers of this subdivision to work out an arrangement to construct this road [ pointing to the suggested " lower " access road which intersects with Snyder Hill Road between parcels 4 and 7 . 5 ] kind of like Mr . Frandsen ' s question in terms of his subdivision . Supervisor Desch commented that in his mind it is not unreasonable in terms of total road construction and is more reasonable for this to be done than a Slaterville Road connection would be . Dr . Baldwin stated that he is not willing to put a • road through there , pointing out that it is he who owns that land , and adding that he wants to put a soccer field in there . The Secretary suggested that perhaps it was time to set down some facts which had been established at this point in order to determine what remained to be addressed . Following is the result : FACTS : 1 . A road from Snyder Hill Road between parcels 4 and 7 . 5 [ Tax Map 57 , Section 1 ] connecting to the proposed development through Baldwin ' s land is not acceptable to the owner of the property at this time [ Baldwin ] because he wishes to construct a soccer field in that area . 2 . A road from Snyder Hill Road between parcels 7 . 8 and 5 [ Tax Map 57 , Section 11 as an access was discounted because of its location relative to the crest of Snyder Hill Road , 3 . A road from Snyder Hill Road between parcels 7 . 10 and 7 . 11 [ Tax Map 57 , Section 1 ] has been offered as a potential access by the developer and has the advantage of having a lesser slope . 4 . This access [ # 3 , above ] has been offered by the owner , . Baldwin , also the developer , and from it two routes are possible for connection to the development road , the easterly " fork " Planning Board 33 October 2 , 1984 • having a slope of 5 % and the westerly " fork " having a slope of 7 % 9 5 . The above - noted " forks " are such that one is on one side of the Town water tank and the other is on the other side of the Town water tank . 6 . Regency Lane extended from the cul de sac to the proposed development road has a slope of 12 % at some points but only if it is not regraded to achieve a more gentle slope . 7 . If the westerly route of the above - noted " fork " were developed [ west of the water tank ] , the Regency Lane extension would not be necessary . 8 . The Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations say that a road grade should be 10 % or less . 9 . The slope on Regency Lane is 3 % - 8 % - 30 . 10 . Regency Lane , because of its steep slope and configuration coming out , presents a problem during the winter months . 11 . The discussion of roads held this date , October 2 , 1984 , is not specific to the Pine Tree Associates subdivision alone , but is in context with adjacent developments , as well as the health , • safety , and welfare of the community . MISSING FACTS : 1 . Utilities and their placement . 2 . General engineering study of the area around the water tank . ( a ) What are the trade - offs with respect to the two alternatives thereto . ( b ) What use can be made of the land that becomes landlocked . WHERE THE SITUATION LIES AT THIS TIME : 1 . The developers are going to investigate the possibility of an agreement , in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney , with all the parties that are concerned here insofar as agreements that land acquired by such parties could never be developed . 2 . The Town of Ithaca Official Highway Master Plan poses a problem . 3 . The Boards have not in any way prohibited the proposed subdivision , the appropriate accesses to it have just not been found , . 4 . In order to change the alignment of the proposed street on the Official Highway Map parallel to Pine Tree Road and to Planning Board 34 October 2 , 1984 • eliminate the access to Pine Tree Road from that road , a decision on the provision for access to Snyder Hill Road has to be made . It being 10 : 15 p . m . , Chairman May , with the concurrence of those present , stated that further discussion on the Pine Tree Associates proposed subdivision should probably take place at another meeting . JOINT DISCUSSION WITH THE TOWN BOARD CONCERNING FOREST HOME CIRCULATION . Since it was fairly late , Supervisor Desch stated that , with respect to this particular Agenda item concerning Forest Home circulation matters , he would just like to inform the Planning Board that the City of Ithaca is on the verge of initiating proceedings to abandon that part of Forest Home Drive which is in the City . Supervisor Desch asked that the Planning Board members think about this matter in order that the Town be properly prepared to speak to the matter of whether or not the Town should choose to contest their action to abandon . AGENDA ITEMS : ROUTINE BUSINESS Chairman May ,_ with the agreement of the Planning Board members , stated that the matters set forth as Routine Business would be attended to at the next regular meeting . • ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the October 2 , 1984 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 25 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .