Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-04-02 C , .Yi TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , April 2 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , James Baker , David Klein , Bernard Stanton , Carolyn Grigorov , Edward Mazza , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller , ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Dell L . Grover , Bill Grover , Timothy Buhl , Robert R . Flumerfelt , E . L . Rose Gostanian Monkemeyer , Lawrence Hoffman , Scott Perra , Bruce Ryan ( WHCU News ) , Darryl Geddes ( WTKO News ) , Jim McKinley ( WQNY ) , Lisa Best ( OK / 100 / Syracuse Post Standard ) , Jeff Yohn ( The Ithaca Journal ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 31 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 5 , 1985 MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of March 5 , 1985 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Klein , Stanton , Grigorov , Mazza . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . STAFF REPORT - Peter M . Lovi Mr . Lovi stated that a lot of the matters about which he has been reporting have been taken up in the last meetings , and so at this time , he would like to get some feedback from the Planning Board on the zoning ordinance . Mr . Lovi reported that he had incorporated the new Local Laws in the existing Zoning Ordinance and noted that it is still the same architecture that the Town has been working with since 1968 . Mr . Lovi stated that he wanted to get a sense from the Board members , before he spent a lot of his time , as to ( 1 ) is that a good use of his time ? and ( 2 ) if it is , what should he work on first , and , how should he approach it ? Mr . Lovi stated that , basically , he thought there are some areas which could be improved upon , adding that he thought the incremental approach was a good one because it lets people work with a document with which they are • comfortable . Mr . Lovi commented that we could find areas of this Zoning Ordinance which we do not like and we could find some areas in which we could proceed with our own feelings . 4 Planning Board 2 April 2 , 1985 Mrs . Grigorov stated that she had not found anything that she needed to complain about . Chairman May stated that he thought there were some areas that need clarification , e . g . , front yard setback and a definition thereof , and the definition of family could be another area . Chairman May stated to Mr . Cartee that the Board needed input from him on areas where he had problems , adding that the Board has had some from the Zoning Board of Appeals , but Mr . Cartee is the one who enforces the Zoning Ordinance . Chairman May commented that he did not think there should be an attempt to re -write the whole thing . Mr . Lovi agreed and stated that he would also agree that the definition of front yard setback needed to be clearer . Mr . Lovi stated that there is a very large ambiguity in the occupancy definitions that should be resolved . Mr . Lovi stated that , basically , if you read the Zoning Ordinance which defines the family as one or more persons . . . " in conjuction with the part that says the " if neither of such units is occupied by a family . . . " it is pretty clear that that can never happen - - unless the unit is empty . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought it quite clear that four people are allowed by that section . Mr . Mazza stated that he agreed and recalled that he had made that argument about 7 years ago in connection with the Lawrence Iacovelli Appeal . Mr . Lovi noted that the Board did take a crack at this problem in 1984 . Chairman May commented , yes , there were a few meetings , and added that there is a bit of a head start in this . Mr . Lovi stated that another related item , which he thought was a bit more substantial in nature , had to do with a rethinking of how we classify uses in the business districts , for example . Mr . Lovi noted that it is done profession by profession in the various " A " , " B " , etc . , zones . Mr . Lovi commented that it reflects a somewhat simpler time , mentioning a milliner and a confectioner , and adding that they are not quite of the high - tech times of today . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought a better way would be by types of uses and their effects and that is why he thought , perhaps , the way to start a little rethinking is with the five business classes . Chairman May stated that he did not want the Board to forget its comprehensive plan work , adding that it has gotten away from it a little bit . Chairman May stated that he would like to see it as a preamble , or opening statement , or whatever , soon . Chairman May , speaking to Mr . Cartee , stated that he thought Mr . Cartee wanted something in the ordinace addressing satellite dishes . Chairman May commented that he had seen an article in the Ithaca Journal with something about the FCC taking over such installations which would , effectively , preempt local laws , meaning that a municipality could not zone out satellite dishes . Mr . Mazza stated that that does not necesarily mean that a municipality could do nothing . A discussion followed with respect to satellites and satellite dishes . Mr . Stanton commented that it seemed that Chairman May or Mr . Lovi were implying that the Town Board would be happy with these kinds of changes , and asked if that were the case . Chairman May responded that he was not sure that that kind of implication was there at all , adding that he thought of the discussion as one of staff problems being presented . i Planning Board 3 April 2 , 1985 Mr . Stanton wondered what had ever happened to the " Proposed Revised Zoning Ordinance Map " , dated June 10 , 1981 , asking if it were a dead issue , and adding that he had a lot of things about this map that he liked . Mr . Stanton stated that there were many of these pieces that could be well considered including the format which was , he thought , clearer and easier to read than the existing zoning designation map . There followed a discussion of what an up - to - date , existing zoning , Zoning Map should look like . Mrs . Grigorov asked about the situation with respect to the Six Mile Creek Study Committee , Mr . Lovi described the status of that committee indicating that the time may be coming where it will no longer be as necessary . Mrs . Grigorov commented that she thought it had served the community in a very beneficial manner . ANNOUNCEMENT IN RE PUBLIC HEARING : SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE RELOCATION OF A STORAGE BUILDING ON THE GROUNDS OF THERM , INC . TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL 54 - 2 - 1 , ARNOLD ALBRECHT , REPRESENTATIVE . It being just about 7 : 45 p . m . , Chairman May announced for everyone ' s information that the Public Hearing with respect to the Therm matter had been cancelled by the applicant and will be rescheduled . REPORT OF THE TOWN ENGINEER - Lawrence P . Fabbroni Mr . Fabbroni stated that each of the Board members is invited to come down to the New Sewer Plant at any time and described its location and also the location of the Owner ' s Trailer where he can be found . Mr . Fabbroni reported that everything is moving along quite well and stated that the influent building is completed up to ground level . Mr . Fabbroni stated that things should be ready to go across Route 13 this summer . Mr . Fabbroni reported that the digester tanks are nearing completion as far as the walls go . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the second contractor is now busy cutting off all the piles and described , what he termed , mud mats , forming the bottom of the tanks . Mr . Fabbroni reported that a lot of the other contractors are getting more and more involved with the site , particularly the influent building . Mr . Fabbroni reported that pipe is going toward the Lake and is about half completed , adding that actual construction in the Lake will start about May 1st . Referring to the golf course area , Mr . Fabbroni stated that , although weather - dependent , it is nearly completed . Mrs . Grigorov asked for directions on how to get to the site and to Mr . Fabbroni ' s trailer . Mr . Fabbroni described the road off Meadow Street ( Route 13 ) between Grossman ' s Lumber and Haverstick ' s and the trailer which is marked " City of Ithaca " . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the other thing in the hopper is the Burns Road improvement project completion . Mr . Fabbroni reported that the County is going to build the bridge in the next 100 days . Mr . Fabbroni reported that there is an outside chance that the Town may see some State money for Phase II . • Planning Board 4 April 2 , 1985 Mr . Fabbroni reported briefly on several other projects , including - - ( 1 ) the proposed access from Eastern Heights through Slaterville Road . In that regard , Mr . Fabbroni stated that a lot of things hinge together . - - ( 2 ) Mr . Fabbroni reported that both the interior and the exterior of the Pine Tree Road and the Hungerford Hill water tanks are going to be painted , adding that preparations are moving ahead with respect to going to bid on that job . - - ( 3 ) Mr . Fabbroni reported that the Pine Tree Road relocation project will be designed if things get straighted out at the County level . - - ( 4 ) Mr . Fabbroni reported , referring to West Hill , that the water line construction will start very soon and will provide public water for West Haven Road , among others . Mr . Fabbroni reported that LaFayette Pipeline will be starting on Bundy Road and will go , across fields , from Bundy Road to Mecklenburg Road and then on to West Haven . Mr . Klein wondered if the line will be following the mapped roads . Mr . Fabbroni responded , no , and described the actual roads which will be watered and how that will be achieved . Mr . Fabbroni also described the East King Road area that will be served by the new water line . Mr . Stanton stated that he would like to extend to Mr . Fabbroni his commendations on the achievement of a workable plan for Forest Home Drive . REPORT OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR - Lewis D . Cartee Mr . Cartee stated that his Report of Building Permits Issued for March 1985 , a copy of which each Board member had received , indicates that 13 permits were issued in March 1985 for a total of $ 175 , 100 . 00 in • improvements , as compared with March of 1984 , when 5 permits were issued for a total of $ 115 , 847 . 00 in improvements . As a matter of information , Mr . Cartee stated that House Craft Builders ( Commonland Community ) has just filed applications for 25 building permits which will have quite an impact on the April report . Mr . Cartee reported that they are going to develop " The Meadows " and the " Round Rock " area . Mr . Cartee stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals thanks the Planning Board for its recommendations with respect to the church on Pine Tree Road , REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - - Carolyn Grigorov . Mrs . Grigorov reported that the February 13th , 1985 , meeting of the County Planning Board was primarily devoted to a presentation by Helen Jones of the City of Ithaca Planning Staff and James Dennis , City Alderman , on the hydro - electric power planning activities of the City with respect to plans for the proposed development of a hydro -electric power plant in the area of the Ithaca Falls . Mrs . Grigorov stated that , personally , she was convinced that the City of Ithaca would be the best choice as the developer of such a facility . Mrs . Grigorov reported that the March 13th , 1985 , meeting of the • County Planning Board involved a panel discussion on the " Role of Advisory Boards , Goals , and Interactions . " Mrs . Grigorov stated that there are a lot of Boards advising the County Board of Representatives , commenting that Planning Board 5 April 2 , 1985 ithe areas of concern of each conflict from time to time . Mrs . Grigorov stated that there was discussion on ways for the various Boards to do the most productive work . Mrs . Grigorov commented that Mr . Liguori had mentioned that Tompkins County is very progressive in almost every way except roads . ANNOUNCEMENT IN RE PUBLIC HEARING . SITE PLAN REVIEW IN RE THE PROPOSED YOUTH BUREAU FACILITY SITE PLAN LAYOUT AND ROAD RELOCATION AT THE PRESENT YOUTH BUREAU SITE , STEWART PARK , JONATHAN C • MEIGS , PLANNER , CITY OF ITHACA . It being close to 8 : 15 p . m . , Chairman May announced that the Public Hearing on the plans for the Youth Bureau has also been cancelled . Chairman May stated that , however , the Board will continue on to another area of concern before the Public Hearing scheduled for 8 : 45 p . m . on the Grover /Mazza development . Chairman May stated that he was referring to a memo from Supervisor Desch on Pennsylvania Avenue area development and he thought the Board needed to have some discussion on that . PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE AREA DEVELOPMENT Since the Planning Board members had not received a copy of the Memo to which the Chair was referring , at their request Chairman May read aloud as follows : " March 22 , 1985 I note with interest and concern the increasing pressure being placed on this neighborhood by Ithaca College student housing needs . ( See minutes of Planning Board , 3 / 5 / 85 on the Iacovelli plan for 145 - 149 Kendall Avenue , Page 8 ) . While it is generally positive to consolidate three lots into two , I believe the trend can prove to be as devastating as the observable in adjacent City of Ithaca neighborhoos , Fall Creek , etc . I would like to find out what the potential for this higher than anticipated college age density is . As I recall , the reason the Ithaca Land Development Company subdivided this tract , as shown on tax maps , was to provide affordable housing for factory work at what is now Morse Industrial . Clearly , the intention was for single family housing . In the past few years we have seen considerable progress in improving the appearance of this neighborhood and we need to be careful not to create the opportunity for it to go down hill again . Some questions that I believe are pertinent to our future planning policies in this area . A . Lots fronting on existing Town streets 1 . What lots are developed as ( a ) single family ( b ) two family ( c ) who owns ( a ) and ( b ) lots ? 2 . Who owns the undeveloped lots ? 3 . What it total assessed value , # water and sewer units ? • Be Lots fronting on paper streets 1 . What lots are developed as ( a ) single family t Planning Board 6 April 2 , 1985 ( b ) two family ( c ) who owns ( a ) and ( b ) lots ? 2 . Who owns the undeveloped lots ? 3 . What is total assessed value , # water and sewer units ? 4 . To which lots are water and / or sewer available ? 5 . From a purely land use standpoint , should the old non - conforming paper subdivision be invalidated ? 6 . From a legal standpoint , can it be invalidated since no activity has occurred in 70 + ( ? ) years ? I expect we soon will be reopening discussions about the new zoning law . We will need the answers to as many of these questions as are answerable ahead of the zoning discussions . Let ' s try to have them , if possible , by May 15 . Perhaps a preliminary discussion would be useful about mid -April . I presume Larry or Peter will set it up . Most of the information can be shown on the pertinent maps using symbols , etc . " Chairman May stated that he had specifically asked Mr . Cartee to be here tonight to take part in this discussion . Mr . Stanton asked if this memo were on initiation from some Town Board members or is it from the Supervisor . Chairman May stated that he could not really answer that , commenting that it may be a result of the Planning Board Minutes of March 5th , and adding that , as far as he knew , there were no hidden agendas . Chairman May stated that he thought it was a legitimate question , adding that the Supervisor has some concerns about this paper subdivision and that he ( May ) knew nothing about any other aspect . Mr . Mazza stated that he did not think any rights that were there before the zoning ordinance was enacted can be taken away . Mrs . Grigorov stated that , also , one cannot legislate against a particular group . Mr . Klein wondered what happened at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting [ March 20 , 19851 on both the Iacovelli and the Ash requests . Mr . Mazza stated that the ZBA approved both of them . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he thought it would be good to hear Mr . Cartee ' s impression of what is happening in the neighborhood and , also , it could be helpful to hear from Mrs . Schultz who lives there . Mr . Cartee stated that , first , he would direct the Board members to a conversation he and Mr . Fabbroni and Mr . Lovi had while getting this information together . Noting that discussion this evening was not really expected , Mr . Cartee stated that in some short time Mr . Fabbroni will have a map showing what is there , what new construction there has been in the past ten years , and what we may , or may not , see in the future . Mr . Cartee stated that since January of 1975 , there have been building permits issued for 10 structures on Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenues , Mr . Cartee stated that these include two , four - unit structures , one , three -unit , and the rest one - family . Mr . Cartee stated , so , development has not been all that much . Mr . Cartee stated that , if one had ridden down Pennsylvania Avenue • and Kendall Avenue in 1974 and 1975 and rode back now , one will see this Planning Board 7 April 2 , 1985 • development has made a marked improvement in the appearance in the neighborhood . Mr . Cartee stated that Mrs . Schultz could say that too . Mr . Cartee stated that this new develoment has influenced the old owners in the neighborhood , commenting that they have painted their homes ; they have cleaned up their yards , and so on . Mr . Cartee stated that the could not project on the paper streets at this particular moment , however , they could be projected on the map which he spoke of . Mr . Cartee stated that this map can show what lots have been devoted to other properties and what there is left to develop . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Cartee if he were saying that these things have been an improvement . Mr . Cartee stated that he was , adding that they have been a very definite improvement , and further adding that Mrs . Schultz and Mr . Iacovelli have encouraged the area improvement by their buildings up there . Mr . Cartee stated that there will be ' a duplex near Mrs . Schultz ' s property [ Ash ] where two lots have been bought and which will make things look even better . Mr . Cartee stated that he thought we will continue to see this kind of development , commenting that he could foresee construction on Coddington Road . Mr . Cartee spoke of two small lots in the 200 block of Coddington Road which he could see being developed . Mr . Cartee stated that he could see others in the R - 9 zones , adding that he thought it was a great thing . Mr . Cartee wondered , if we did not have people like the Schultzes and the Iacovellis who live there , who would we have building there . Mr . Cartee spoke of the 50 - foot by 100 - foot lots and commented that the combining of these lots may be the answer . Mr . Cartee stated that Mr . • Fabbroni has been with the Town for eleven years and , thus , more involved than he , but he would say that it is a better area now with a better appearance and with better attitudes . Mr . Mazza stated that at the ZBA meeting [March 20 , 19851 there were only two neighbors who wrote letters on the Ash appeal , none on the Iacovelli appeal , and no one showed up to object . Mr . Mazza stated that of the two letters written , one was from the mother - in - law of the other . Mr . Cartee commented that that person has his property , a two - family , up for sale . Mrs . Schultz stated that the problem is not with new construction , the problem is with the old one - family homes that have an apartment . Mrs . Schultz stated that the three so - called " multiple " dwellings are not the real problem . Mrs . Schultz stated that she knew of two large houses on the other side of her which are owned by little old ladies and when those ladies are no longer there those houses will be sold and cut up . Mrs . Schultz stated that she did not think the problem was with the approvals and regulation of new construction , it is with the regulation of the old homes if they are sold and changed . Mrs . Schultz stated that she agreed with Mr . Cartee that the duplex proposed on the Topley and Bonnani property will improve the area also . Mr . Mazza stated that the number of occupants permitted in the area has not been increased , in fact , in some cases has been decreased . Mr . • Mazza stated that he took issue with people talking about " students " like they weren ' t people , adding that he was a student once himself and not all that long ago . Mr . Mazza stated that trying to regulate against students Planning Board 8 April 2 , 1985 • is the wrong way to look at it . Mr . Mazza noted that all ten permits in the ten years have not increased the density allowed by the zoning ordinance , adding that the dedication of additional lots makes it such that they can build better homes . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he thought there were a couple of misconceptions here , adding that he was a little surprised in being asked to speak to this tonight , however , his office has been working on the Supervisor ' s request preparing for what he thought would be discussed in May . Mr . Fabbroni asked that the Board members look at a sheet of paper which was going around the table showing the building permits issued for residences on Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenues since January of 1975 . Mr . Fabbroni stated that none of the " multiple " units constructed [ Lawrence Iacovelli , 3 units , 167 Kendall ; Lawrence Iacovelli , 4 units , 162 - 164 Kendall ; Anthony Schultz , 4 units , 258 Pennsylvania ] increased the density that would have been allowed in the R- 9 zone . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that there were a number of small Ithaca Land Company tract parcels which were dedicated to these uses , and commented that James Iacovelli dedicated 5 lots to two buildings . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he felt this was the primary misconception . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the other misconception is that this land was developed for Morse Chain workers . Mr . Fabbroni stated that this is absolutely not the case . Mr . Fabbroni , commenting that he will be getting even more information on the history of this area from Mrs . Pakkala , stated that , although it is not refined , he could speak to the history somewhat from his research . Mr . Fabbroni described the very early history of the area when it was called the " Klondike " which was the Conover • farm . Mr . Fabbroni described how when people came to Town to work on the railroad or to do the stone work on the Cornell buildings some entrepreneurs bought most of the land in the 1850s and over the years sold lots to these people . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Ithaca Land Company was bankrupt in 1896 and Morse Chain came in 1906 . Mr . Fabbroni commented that it seemed pretty clear that the Court probably required the recording of this subdivision plan in 1895 in order to proceed with the bankruptcy . Mr . Fabbroni stated that some of the history of the people in this neighborhood goes back four and five generations . Mr . Fabbroni commented that , when we think of Ithaca , some of us are native , but unlike this area most are new people . Mr . Fabbroni reiterated that this area has an interesting history , adding that most of the people are all related and there are also families that have been 50 years in the same neighborhood . Mrs . Schultz interjected that the abstract on her property dates from around 1862 . Mr . Fabbroni commented that , in the City he would compare it to the West End of Downtown , and not to Collegetown or Fall Creek or some uninterested absentee landlord situation . Mr . Fabbroni stated that in this area that is clearly not the case , noting that most of the people that have come in with these plans live there and most live across the street from what they have developed . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it is a quite unique situation as far as the Town goes . Indicating on a tax map , Mr . Fabbroni commented that it would be his suggestion that the Planning Board ' s time would be much better spent in Odealing with the Ithaca Land Company paper streets , in land use terms . Mr . Fabbroni noted that Therm has bought large numbers of lots as they became available ; Hilker bought as they became available and this was followed by Planning Board 9 April 2 , 1985 • a big swap resulting in a largely light industrial use now . Mr . Fabbroni stated that that use is an important consideration , adding that the people in the neighborhood are backing right up to a light industrial use . Mr . Fabbroni noted that , also , there is a major educational institution there and these people are sandwiched in between the two . Mr . Fabbroni mused that if one were going to map out zones that are compatible , he would think one would find it a question to zone this single family now . Again referring to the tax map , Mr . Fabbroni discused a proposal made some years ago having to do with the extension of Pennsylvania Avenue which , he commented , had about a 50 / 50 split for and against . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the most affected properties were Mr . Martin ' s and also the Schultzes . Mr . Fabbroni mentioned also that it would be well to keep in mind that someday Juniper Drive might be extended . Indicating on the map , Mr . Fabbroni described future mapping which could take place for Kendall Avenue , noting it going through a lot . Mr . Fabbroni also talked about Pennsylvania Avenue going south onto a land - locked area . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he had not been expecting to meet on this tonight and apologized for not being better prepared and better able to speak to land use matters . Continuing , Mr . Fabbroni talked about a cul de sac situation which he described using the map . Referring to the multiple consolidation of lots , Mr . Fabbroni stated these have almost eliminated the need for Maryland Avenue - - a paper street . Mr . Fabbroni commented that the concern could be a mild version of the Hatfields and the McCoys , adding that some of the historic complainers have actually gained because , otherwise , they would have had a road in the front and a road in the back of them . Mr . • Fabbroni commented that Mrs . Schultz probably hit upon the matter of the visible perception of density , given the parking on the streets , adding that in some areas we have worse problems where we have hills . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that , as to the land use situation , he would like to see some discussion around the table . Chairiman May stated that , certainly , the intent was not to put Mr . Fabbroni on the spot . Mr . Fabbroni responded that he was not complaining , just apologizing for an unpolished presentation . Chairman May stated to the Board members that he wanted everybody to drive up and take a look at the Pennsylvania / Kendall Avenues neighborhood , adding that he , personally , learned an awful lot tonight . Mr . Stanton stated that he was concerned about the Supervisor ' s letter , adding that there was almost a sound to it that the Town ought to pass the students on to the City . Mr . Stanton stated that it seemed to him that if we are going to have institutions such as we have in Cornell University and Ithaca College , we have to accept our responsibilities to students . Chairman May stated that he did not read that into the memo at all . Mr . Stanton responded that he recognized his sensitivity . Chairman May stated that Mr . Fabbroni had brought up a lot of very good points which he thought should be discussed . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the so -called " amended zoning ordinance " * deals with all these questions , noting that - - where parking occurs , how much is required , what constitutes a family - - are all detailed . Chairman Planning Board 10 April 2 , 1985 • May described briefly the earlier discussion this evening by the Board , just prior to Mr . Fabbroni ' s arrival , about doing individual amendments to the existing ordinance . Mr . Fabbroni indicated that he would encourage that and proceeded to describe how , without such regulations in the present ordinance , the Iacovelli Appeal several years ago , which Mr . Mazza handled , was bounced back and forth and back and forth until finally the Zoning Board of Appeals spoke to the matter . Mr . Fabbroni also reminded the Board members of the now famous " Section 71 " of the proposed ordinance which referred to increased occupany / special permits / special exceptions . Mrs . Schultz commented that the people who live on this street [ Pennsylvania ] are used to living on a dead - end street and even if one car goes by , they know it goes by . Mrs . Grigorov commented that , to her , the land use question is a question of how much a zoning ordinance can protect neighborhoods from change . It being time for the 8 : 45 p . m . Public Hearing , Chairman May asked the Board members to , please , go up there and look it over . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 32 - UNIT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION COMPRISED OF 8 STRUCTURES CONTAINING 4 UNITS EACH , AT 1018 - 1020 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 39 - 1 - 5 and 39 - 1 - 6 ( PORTION ) , DELL GROVER ET AL , OWNER / DEVELOPER , Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 45 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above , and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of such Notice in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on March 25 , 1985 and March 28 , 1985 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the subject property and upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning on March 27 , 1985 . Messrs . Grover , Mazza and Flumerfelt were present . Mr . Mazza stepped away from the Planning Board table . Mr . Mazza stated that the matter before the Board has to do with the Grover property on the Danby Road out past Ithaca College and NCR on the right hand side as one is going out . Mr . Mazza noted that on this property is the residence of Bill Grover and another structure which they call the " blue house " which is to be removed , a roadside stand to be removed , and a barn to be removed . Mr . Mazza presented a topo map and a Progress Plan map dated April 2 , 1985 , showing the subdivision plan . Utilizing the drawings which he appended to the bulletin board , Mr . Mazza described the proposed 32 units in 8 buildings . Mr . Mazza described the areas to be owned by the homeowners and the areas to be owned by the homeowners ' association . Mr . Stanton wondered how big " those " little lots are - - indicating on • the drawing . Mr . Mazza stated that they vary from 26 ' to 29 ' by 75 ' . Planning Board 11 April 2 , 1985 Mr . Mazza showed on the plan , those units that are going to have a • garage on their lowest level and their two levels above that . Mr . Mazza spoke of these as units " C " and " D " , further describing them as varying only from " A " and " B " in that the bedrooms are on the top floor where the others have their living room and dining room on the top floor . Mr . Mazza pointed out that the buildings are oriented to the northwest . Mr . Mazza indicated the units that are going to have garages in the back . Mr . Mazza explained that the reason they are different is that they want to limit the amount of driveway space that will exist , and pointed out that one driveway would , thus , service two units . Mr . Mazza stated that the proposed units contain 1 , 280 square feet of living space excluding the garage - - about 1 , 500 square feet with the garage . Mr . Mazza described how the various units will have some outside patio areas and also some decks . Mr . Mazza stated that they are trying to make the units as private as they can . Mr . Mazza described a fence barrier or a shrubbery barrier between two patios where they come together . Mr . Mazza stated that they are in the process of re - drafting some of the by - laws and covenants for the homeowners ' association , commenting that a draft had been submitted to the Planning Office . Mr . Mazza stated that these are very similar to Commonland in structure with one major difference , and pointed out that , in Commonland , they wanted to restrict themselves to a period of time of 12 months or 24 months with respect to rentals . Mr . Mazza stated that they did not want to restrict themselves or the future homeowners to doing that . Mr . Mazza stated that they think there is quite a difference between Commonland and their development and • the difference is that they intend to be hitting a different market for these homes , adding that they are planning on marketing them at a price substantially higher than the Commonland market . Mr . Mazza stated that , also , here in this development they have 32 lots instead of 124 as in Commonland . Mr . Mazza pointed out that , also , they are at about 800 of the density that they could have , noting that all of their land is usable . Mr . Mazza stated that they would agree to restrict to one person per bedroom , and , where it shows " study " here [ indicating on the drawing ] , understanding that that could be a bedroom , so that most of the units would be three - bedroom units , therefore , three unrelated people , or a family , would be acceptable . Mr . Mazza stated that this is no different from the existing zoning Ordinance regulations anyway , being the same as single family housing in this area . Mr . Mazza showed a drawing of the southeast elevation and the southwest elevation , and , showed the view toward the Lake . Mr . Mazza commented that the only variation to these elevation plans would be , perhaps , skylights in the southeast elevation . Mr . Mazza stated that Mr . Flumerfelt will speak to drainage and water and sewer mains which remain essentially as shown on the preliminary plan the Board saw in February . Mr . Flumerfelt showed the topo map which , he stated , will have the improvement plans on it . Mr . Flumerfelt pointed out that a telephone pole has been moved 5 or 6 feet to the north , indicated the 8 - inch water main and the location of one hydrant and the location of an additional hydrant , • and commented that that will provide a closer service to particular units which he indicated on the drawing . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that there will be service to each unit , adding that they feel that the sewer service can Planning Board 12 April 2 , 1985 • be done by gravity flow with careful planning . Mr . Flumerfelt pointed out on the drawing how the sewer laterals will tie into the existing 8 - inch sanitary sewer . Mr . Flumerfelt pointed out on the drawing a ten - foot easement on the side of the cul de sac for underground facilities , for example , television , telephone , etc . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that they have contacted the New York State Department of Transportation and as long as the sight distance is good they do not object to having a separate driveway for the four front units . Mr . Flumberfelt pointed out on the drawing how the other driveway will serve the other 28 units . Mr . Fabbroni asked Mr . Flumerfelt if he would speak a little further on drainage . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that there are no defined drainage swales or gullies on the site , and added that the drainage will be collected by means of a ditch . Utilizing the drawing , Mr . Flumerfelt described this process , and noted that they will keep the water in its original location and disperse it over as wide an area as possible . Mr . Fabbroni wondered about the situation in the area of Cluster " 2 " and Cluster " 8 " . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that by the final grading drainage can stay in its former location . Mr . Fabbroni asked that the developer speak to the landscaping plans . Mr . Mazza stated that they have contacted several landscapers asking them to send proposals . Mr . Mazza stated that they have just received a response from one which they will probably accept , however , he cannot speak to the names of the trees and shrubs , etc . , since they are all in Latin . Mr . Mazza stated that he could tell Mr . Fabbroni about their intentions generally at this time , and speak to the specifics later . Mr . Mazza stated that they intend that most of their plantings , other than grass , be near to the buildings themselves and be low growing trees and shrubs . Mr . Mazza stated that they do not want a lot of tall trees because one of the best things about this development site is the spectacular views . Mr . Mazza commented that his idea would be to have flowering trees and evergreens centered around the units themselves . Chairman May asked about lighting and accommodations for garbage . Mr . Mazza responded that , with each unit having its own garage , garbage would be taken care of within each unit ; there will be no dumpsters . Mr . Mazza stated that there will be no area lighting , however , there will be the usual home lighting such as over the porches and over the doorways . Mr . Fabbroni commented that probably a light on the corner where the cul de sac meets Danby Road would be installed as part of Townwide lighting . Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter before the Board . Mrs . Herbert Monkemeyer , 1058 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and asked if the sewer system that is in there will be able to take care of this development . Mr . Mazza responded , yes , and indicated on the drawings the existing sewer main and where it runs . Chairman May noted that there is a Town 8 " sewer main in place and the connection will pick up from that . Mr . Mazza pointed out that there is also Town water . • Planning Board 13 April 2 , 1985 • - Mr . Mazza announced that they have chosen a name for their development Cayuga Vista , The Board members indicated that that was a very nice name . Mr . Stanton wondered if it would be possible that one person could own 32 units , live in one , and rent 31 . Mr . Mazza replied that he supposed that could be possible , however , he really did not think that is going to happen . Mr . Mazza stated that each of the units is a totally separate unit , they will not be inexpensive ; and they do not really believe people would buy them to rent out . Referring to the proposed covenants , Mr . Lovi described how they were very similar to Commonland , commenting that that is why he did not have copies made of the large document to be mailed to each of the Board members . Mr . Lovi commented that the name , Commonland , had been " whited out " and Cayuga Vista typed into the Commonland covenants . Mr . Lovi stated that he would like to point out that the proposed Cayuga Vista covenants are different from Commonland in that there are no " neighborhoods " and also there are no separate garage structures . Chairman May asked Mr . Mazza if they were planning to sell the individual properties in fee simple . Mr . Mazza responded , yes , and added that in addition to that each owner will have an undivided interest in the open areas . Mr . Lovi stated that the difference between Commonland and Cayuga • Vista is that the Cayuga Vista developers would prefer not be have the restrictions on occupancy , adding that that is a matter of the Board agreeing or not . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town Board will review the covenants . Chairman May stated that the covenants have to come before the Planning Board for a recommendation . Chairman May asked Mr . Mazza what his schedule was and when he thought he could have the covenants and by - laws for the Planning Board members to review . Mr . Mazza stated that he had submitted them in preliminary form . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town Board has scheduled a Public Hearing on the covenants and by - laws for April 8th and , since they are just like Commonland , he suggested to Mr . Mazza a cut sheet as an attachment showing the few changes . Mr . Mazza listed the following as the differences between the Commonland covenants and the Cayuga Vista covenants - - ( 1 ) the exclusion of the portion on rentals which was in Commonland , i . e . , no restriction on rentals such as Commonland has ; ( 2 ) three unrelated persons in each unit , or a family , which would be a restriction on occupancy the same as in Commonland . Mr . Lovi pointed out that there was a difference in the Commonland occupancy restrictions because of there being one - , two - , and three -bedroom units and , because it was felt that with 124 units the allowance of three unrelated persons as is permitted in single family homes , would be somewhat out of character with the community , so , the one -bedroom units in Commonland were restricted to two unrelated persons and the two - and three -bedroom units were permitted the three unrelated persons . Mr . Lovi noted again that in the case of Cayuga Vista there are • no one -bedroom units being constructed . Planning Board 14 April 2 , 1985 Chairman May asked Mr . Mazza when he needed to have his project in • order . Mr . Mazza responded , as soon as possible , adding that they have to go to the Town Board yet , financing arrangements need to be worked on , selecting of contractors is ahead , and so there are a lot of things to get in place . Mr . Klein wondered what the projected market price was . Mr . Mazza stated that it may vary but it will be around $ 80 , 000 . 00 . Mr . Lovi asked if Mr . Mazza could speak to the interior and exterior of the proposed buildings . Mr . Timothy Buhl , the designer , stated that he could speak briefly on this aspect , allowing as how those plans were still somewhat in the preliminary stage . Mr . Buhl spoke of cedar siding and maybe asphalt , wall to wall carpeting , sheet rock , vinyl flooring , some tile , and cedar inside . Chairman May commented that Mr . Mazza did not intend to start construction before the Homeowners ' Agreement is in place . Mr . Mazza responded , no . Chairman May suggested to Mr . Mazza that he could finish up the landscaping and put it on the plans along with those other items which had been discussed . Mr . Mazza indicated all the information which was on each of the plans on the bulletin board . Mr . Mazza spoke of the size of the deck and other matters . Mr . Klein stated that he agreed with Chairman May that the Board should have a landscaping plan and some opportunity to look at the proposed covenants . Mr . Klein noted that none of the driveways were shown on the site plan . Mr . Mazza pointed out the drawing on which the driveways were • indicated . Mr . Fabbroni stated that a lot of that kind of information needs to be put on one final subdivision plat drawing . Mr . Fabbroni stated that there should also be metes and bounds shown for what will be the " new " parcel for Mr . Grover ' s house - - 1020 Danby Road . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the drawing should also be stamped by a surveyor . Mr . Stanton , speaking of one - car garages , stated that he thought the Board should see where the other cars will go . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that , as far as utilities and roads go , it would be fine to have that information on a separate plan . Mr . Fabbroni stated that driveways should be on one physical feature map , adding that someone who buys a lot should be able to see how he gets to his lot . Mr . Klein commented that there should be a separate drawing for the landscaping plan . Mr . Mazza stated that Phase 1 [ Clusters 1 and 2 ] would be done this year and indicated that that would include that part of the landscaping . Mr . Lovi asked that Mr . Mazza give the Board a plan and then a phasing plan . Chairman May asked that Mr . Mazza give the Board the material as it had been discussed and stated that the Board would see him at its next meeting . Mr . Lovi pointed out that if the Planning Board were to review the covenants at its April 16th meeting or at its first meeting in May , the Town Board may not get to it before May or even June . Mr . Lovi suggested that if the Minutes of tonight ' s meeting could show that the Planning Board could live with the covenants that are not different from what it has seen before , perhaps that would be sufficient for the Town Board for its April 8th meeting . Chairman May asked if the Town Board were going to set the • Public Hearing on the covenants at its April 8th meeting . Mr . Lovi responded , no , the Public Hearing date was set at its March meeting and the Public Hearing itself is on Monday . Planning Board 15 April 2 , 1985 Mr . Mazza commented that he would like to say , in his own defense , • that he did bring the covenants and by - laws over to the Planning Office last week . Mr . Mazza stated that he really did not want to get into a month and a half delay . Chairman May noted that the Board did not even have a summary , only a verbal discussion . Mr . Fabbroni asked Chairman May if the Board were going to be meeting in two weeks . Chairman May responded that it certainly could . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that the Town Board could begin their review , adding that he did not see how they could finish their review at that meeting on Monday . Mr . Fabbroni stated that there could be a simultaneous review as long as the Planning Board understood it . Mr . Mazza stated that he was somewhat confused because he had the impression , based on his discussions , that the Town Board was going to act on the covenants and by - laws on Monday . Mrs . Grigorov offered that the Planning Board could speak to the rental aspect and the occupancy because , as she understood what had been discussed , those were the only differences . Both Mr . Lovi and Mr . Mazza stated that that was correct , those were the only differences . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton * WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has not had an opportunity to review the proposed Restrictive Covenants and By -Laws with respect to the Grover / Mazza proposed 32 - unit Clustered Subdivision to be known as • Cayuga Vista , however , said Planning Board has been advised by the Town Staff that the only substantive differences between such proposed Covenants and By - Laws for said Cayuga Vista and those of the Commonland Community 124 - unit Clustered Subdivision as they were approved previously , are : 1 . The provisions for rental and restrictions on the number of unrelated persons who may be permitted to occupy the dwelling units have not been included in the Cayuga Vista Covenants , it being that those restrictions would not be appropriate in this case because Cayuga Vista will contain no one -bedroom units , and 2 . There are no proposed restrictions on the number of months for which a given unit may be rented by an owner or the developer , and 3 . The concept of neighborhoods , as established in the governing regulations and by - laws of Commonland Community , has not been developed for Cayuga Vista , thus , all references to neighborhoods have been deleted , and 4 . As a result of these differences between the Restrictive Covenants and By -Laws of Commonland Community and those proposed for Cayuga Vista , there have been grammatical , non - substantive , and other similar changes , made to the language of the Commonland Community Restrictive Covenants and By -Laws where appropriate , such as changing the number of Boards of Directors and the manner in which those Boards would be • constituted ; Planning Board 16 April 2 , 1985 NOW , THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED , that the Planning Board considers • these changes to be reasonable and recommends favorable consideration of the proposed Cayuga Vista Restrictive Covenants and By -Laws by the Town Board . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Klein , Stanton , Grigorov ® Nay - None . No Vote - Mazza . The MOTION was declared to be carried . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Public Hearing in the matter of the proposed Cayuga Vista 32 - unit clustered subdivision on Danby Road be and hereby is adjourned until Tuesday , April 16 , 1985 , at 7 : 30 p . m . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Klein , Stanton , Grigorov . Nay - None . No Vote - Mazza . • The MOTION was declared to be carried . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the matter of Final Subdivision Approval for the Grover / Mazza 32 -unit clustered subdivision proposal duly adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . [ Secretary ' s Note : Mrs . Grigorov was not feeling well and asked permission of the Chair to be excused ; Chairman May granted such permission . A Quorum remained present . ] PUBLIC HEARING : SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A MEDICAL OFFICE ON THE GROUNDS OF THE TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL . TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL 24 - 3 - 2 . 1 , BONNIE HOWELL , REPRESENTATIVE . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 10 : 01 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on March 25 , 1985 and March 28 , 1985 , respectively . Mr . Scott Perra , Assistant Director of Fiscal Services , Tompkins Community Hospital , and Mr . Lawrence Hoffman , Architect , were present . Mr . Perra stated that Mrs . Howell was unable to be at the meeting this evening . Mr . Hoffman , commenting that the Board would recall that at its previous meeting he had presented two sites for the proposed medical office and also , as the members knew , negotiations are on - going and still taking place with the County in regard to purchasing County land , and , because * they wanted to be here at this meeting and time is very critical , they were proposing the medical office building on land which is currently owned by the Tompkins Community Hospital , Mr . Hoffman pointed out the architect ' s Planning Board 17 April 2 , 1985 • rendering of the proposed building and noted the third floor , stating that they will be requesting a variance to permit a three - story building . Mr . Hoffman noted the footprint of the building of 12 , 000 square feet and stated that the inside of the proposed building will contain around 32 , 000 square feet . Utilizing a drawing entitled " Proposed Professional Building Tompkins Community Hospital " , Mr . Hoffman described what he termed a " plaza " , pointed out both proposed and existing parking , and described the circulation scheme which , he noted , divorces the proposed building ' s circulation from the Hospital and the Emergency entrance . Mr . Hoffman noted the two - storied part of the proposed addition where it abuts the Hospital at the departments of radiology and physical / occupational therapy . Mr . Hoffman commented that the three - storied portion will be similar in size to the three - storied portion of the Hospital . Mr . Hoffman described the " T - shaped " portion of the building and pointed out a second - floor overhang . Mr . Hoffman indicated that it was anticipated that the building will house from ten to twelve practices , and noted that medical " clinics " are permitted under the Zoning Ordinance by approval of the Board of Appeals , commenting again that a couple of variances will also be needed . Mr . Stanton stated that the area where the parking is proposed appears to be very dense , and wondered how much more parking there is going to be . Mr . Hoffman stated that it is dense because of there being both employee and staff parking , adding that there will be an addition of about 60 parking spaces . Mr . Klein wondered how many spaces were required under the zoning ordinance . Mr . Lovi read from Section 69 , paragraph # 3 , of the Ordinance as follows : " Parking Facilities . . . Medical clinic - 4 spaces for • each doctor , or for each office in which a medically - trained person is regularly in attendance , whichever figure is larger . " Discussion followed with respect to parking and access , during which Mr . Hoffman indicated that there would be an insistence on the part of the Hospital to ensure that parking would be in the back staff / employee parking lot . Mr . Perra stated that the Hospital is committed to working with the Town to develop whatever needs to be developed to have good access . Chairman May asked if Mr . Perra understood the matter of the proposed road that the Town has recommended in connection with the proposed building construction . Mr . Perra responded , yes , adding , the Board has discussed it . Chairman May asked Mr . Perra if he knew if they had talked about a $ 25 , 000 escrow commitment . Mr . Perra responded , yes . Turning to the Long Environmental Assessment Form , as signed and submitted by Lawrence Hoffman , Architect , under date of March 24 , 1985 , a copy of which each of the Board members had received with his / her Agenda , and which had been reviewed by the Town Planner under date of March 28 , 1985 . Chairman May read Mr . Lovi ' s recommendation as follows : " Reviewer ' s Recommendations ; Type of Action : Type I . The project , as presented should create no adverse environmental impacts which will not be satisfactorily mitigated . The major project impact is the provision of adequate traffic circulation around the hospital site . Acceptance of the Town ' s recommended access plan and the commitment of $ 25 , 000 toward its construction will be sufficient for the acceptable mitigation of this • impact . If such a commitment is made in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney , then I recommend a negative declaration . " Chairman May asked if _Planning Board 18 April 2 , 1985 • there were any comments , any questions , or any disagreements , There were none stated . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance with respect to the proposed construction of a medical office building adjacent to the Tompkins Community Hospital , with the understanding that there be acceptance by the Tompkins Community Hospital of the Town ' s recommended access plan and the commitment , in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney , of $ 25 , 000 toward its construction . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Klein , Stanton , Mazza . Nay - None , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would like to have discussed the Town ' s recommendation to the Hospital based on what was talked about at the last meeting [ March 19 , 19851 . Mr . Fabbroni proceeded to draw on the proposed site plan on the bulletin board the Route 96 alternatives and stated that about eight years ago the Tompkins County Hospital endorsed what he termed , the " R- 11 Town Scheme " . Mr . Fabbroni noted that there is also an alternative called the " R- 11 Town Scheme Modified " which took the nurses ' buildings . Mr . Fabbroni drew on the plan the proposed access road for Route 96 . Utilizing the map , Mr . Fabbroni recalled for those present the " Lake Shore West " concept and the road proposals with respect to that project . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out how a proposed access road would serve the Tompkins County Professional Building Corp . complex and spoke of a land - locked parcel in back of it . Mr . Fabbroni reiterated , utilizing the drawing , that this is the access spoken of in connection with the $ 25 , 000 escrow account as had been established in connection with the expansion of the Professional Building complex . Continuing , Mr . Fabbroni pointed out and spoke about " this " long road around to the employee / staff parking area and the development of a driveway , stating that such was a proposed driveway that should be built by the Hospital and should be a part of the proposal . Mr . Fabbroni commented that , also from a fire protection point of view , as was spoken to by Mrs . Howell previously , this should be a part of the proposal . Mr . Fabbroni stated that essentially the Town was saying that it would want to see three things as a part of this proposal - - ( 1 ) the Hospital would not stand in the way of the Route 96 realignment south of the Hospital ; ( 2 ) the Hospital would accept the off - ramp concept from the new highway ; and ( 3 ) a commitment to the access road as noted in the EAF . Mr . Perra , commenting that Mr . Fabbroni had spoken of a lot of concepts , stated that he was not sure this was tied in with this building . Mr . Perra stated that he could not speak for the Hospital Board about this , adding that the Hospital may not want to go with this " driveway " because of future expansion . Chairman May stated that the " driveway " was not r .Planning Board 19 April 2 , 1985 • something that could not be undone , but , there are other things of importance in its connection , such as fire protection . Mr . Lovi stated that the proposed building is taking out a good deal of parking and , although there could be that insistence that staff park over in that area , nonetheless , the route is quite long and winding all around toward the back . Mr . Hoffman pointed out where this " driveway " was in connection with the patient wings and expressed his concern about noise and fumes . Mr . Hoffman spoke about what would happen if Route 96 does go through and described a major shift in parking . Mr . Klein wondered if a wait and see " attitude could not be taken . Discussion followed about parking all over the place and usage of Indian Creek Road . Utilizing two , blue , 8 , " x 14 " portions of the aerial photo showing the proposed medical office building and the Hospital and the buildings and homes in the area and showing Route 96 , upon each of which he had drawn the situation with respect to existing Route 96 and with respect to a realigned Route 96 , Mr . Lovi described the various parking locations , the various circulation patterns , and related them to the Tompkins County Professional Building Corp . also . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , as we have discussed this matter over the last five years , there is no incentive for anyone to address a logical plan of access - - if not now , probably never . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he thought it fair to say that there has been a lot of talk and very little agreement on a lot of these things about which he had just spoken . Utilizing the drawing , Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Town was talking about • " this " access road and " that " driveway as almost inherent as a part of the building the Hospital was proposing , adding that it is a matter of Route 96 and how one deals with Route 96 . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that the Hospital would be better off showing a positive attitude toward the off - ramp and recalled what Mr . Klein had stated in terms of adopting a " wait and see attitude " , and commented that in the same vein that we do not know what is going to happen with the Biggs Complex , we do not know what will happen with Route 96 , however , with certain approaches in place , the better it would be for all concerned including the NYSDOT . Mr . Lovi suggested that the backside of the parking lot could be closed off and referred again to the blue aerials . Mr . Mazza stated that it seemed to him that the Board was making them put in a road that they do not want and making them provide another access when they already have an access the other way for other landowners . Mr . Fabbroni offered the thought that if that road is built , " you " are asking for a lot of problems . Mr . Stanton commented that he felt he should apologize for stating it , but he was sitting here thinking that this building would not ever be built . Mr . Hoffman expressed surprise and responded that it was going to be built either on this site or on County land should that be obtained , therefore , there was a 50 % chance of it being on this site . Mr . Perra noted that the County Board is meeting on the matter almost concurrently with these discussions . Mrs . Schultz offered that if the Planning Board does not approve this site tonight and tomorrow night the County says , yes , we are going to sell some of the old Hospital lands to the Hospital , the site could be changed Planning Board 20 April 2 , 1985 • and the matter reheard . Mr . Perra stated that he wished to note that the site need not be changed , adding that he did not want to lose sight of the need to get this approved tonight . Mr . Hoffman stated that this is the preferred location in terms of where it connects with the Hospital . Mr . Hoffman commented that he thought he was hearing it being said that " this road " is necessary [ indicating ] to the Town wherever this proposed building goes . Mr . Fabbroni recounted the history of the " off - ramp " discussions as they had taken place and as he had mentioned at the last meeting , and how , upon the submission of the Hospital ' s consultant ' s report , it had gone out the window . Mr . Fabbroni commented that he was pleased , now , to hear something positive on the access road . Mr . Fabbroni commented that he felt uncomfortable with the proposal to eliminate parking and stick it all in the back and with all of the unknowns with the Biggs Complex . Mr . Klein commented that the road seems like a good idea , but if the Hospital should own it and buy it that is their problem . Mr . Klein stated that his feeling , from a site plan and from an environmental viewpoint , it would be nice not to do it . Mr . Klein stated that he would rather take a wait and see attitude and wondered if some language could be set down so that the Board could do it that way . Chairman May expressed his concern about emergency vehicles , fire protection , and spoke of the heliport also . Mr . Perra stated that the matter of fire protection has been okayed and added that the heliport is not used that way . Mr . Fabbroni spoke of contrary movement in some detail , concluding • that the road about which he had been speaking for some time needs to be built in - - at this point - - with this plan . Mr . Fabbroni commented further that if anyone else , other than the Hospital , controls the Biggs Complex , it is going to be a problem , whether it is office use , apartment use , nursing home use - - whatever . Mr . Fabbroni stated that there is going to be enough activity circling this building whatever occurs , adding that " you " are not going to want that kind of throttled circulation plan , and commenting that the County does not want to deal with the circulation plan . Mr . Lovi read aloud the following proposed resolution : " WHEREAS the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed a preliminary site plan for a medical office building to be built adjacent to the existing Tompkins Community Hospital and makes the following findings 1 . The proposed location is suitable for the proposed structure and use as the medical facilities to be offered will augment and complement the services presently available in our community . 2 . The location of this medical office adjacent to the Tompkins Community Hospital will facilitate the convenient use of these services by the public . 3 . Traffic circulation around the site will be improved by the proposed circulation and parking plan . • Planning Board 21 April 2 , 1985 • 4 . The Board of Directors of the former Tompkins County Hospital is on record as unanimously supporting the " R- 11 Town Scheme " option for Route 96 . 5 . An Environmental Assessment Form as been reviewed and a determination of negative significance has been made . THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED that the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant preliminary site plan approval subject to the following terms and conditions . 1 . That the Tompkins Community Hospital prepare a $ 25 , 000 escrow account in a form and manner satisfactory to the Town Engineer and Town Attorney for the construction of an alternate access road west of the existing upper tier of parking to serve this project with a connecting drive . Terms of said agreement to be completed with the developer and the Town Board prior to any construction of the proposed medical addition . Such an agreement should include land for the access road and the Hospital proper . 2 . That the Hospital agree to construct a driveway from the existing parking lot to the proposed staff parking lot on the northeast side of the Hospital . 3 . If and when Route 96 is relocated , the Community Hospital Board will • abide by the 1977 endorsements of the then Hospital Board and Board Buildings and Grounds Committee of an alignment for Route 96 so called the R- 11 Town Scheme . This scheme could impact the existing visitor parking lot access drive as well as the southwest corner of the visitor parking lot ( resulting in the loss of approximately 40 apaces ) if this alternative is chosen by NYSDOT . 4 . The Hospital Board will endorse an off only ramp to the existing visitor parking lot . 5 . After fair compensation by the NYSDOT for the 40 ± spaces estimated to be removed by the R- 11 scheme , the Hospital will take steps as necessary to provide alternative local access drives to improve area circulation , including a new access drive north of the Administrator ' s home to the visitor parking lot . " A lengthy discussion followed the reading of the above - noted proposed resolution . Mr . Hoffman wondered if the resolution were passed as it is , what does that mean to the Hospital , and asked if , by going ahead and building this building , have they agreed to this and to build roads in the future . Mr . Fabbroni explained that ( 1 ) they will accept the original proposal with respect to Route 96 as endorsed by the Tompkins County Hospital ; ( 2 ) they will accept and endorse the off - ramp concept ; ( 3 ) if the existing drive is taken away , they would be compensated for the taking . Mr . * Fabbroni suggested that , perhaps , number 3 does not have to be said . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , up to this point , there has been no acceptance of what was said back when the Hospital was being constructed or of the Planning Board 22 April 2 , 1985 • off - ramp concept . Mr . Mazza commented that the State does not have to have Hospital acceptance of the road . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that there will be a large lobbying effort . Mr . Mazza stated that he could see Mr . Fabbroni ' s point as to how this may relate to parking , but he did not see how the Route 96 issue relates to this wing . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it will come up . Chairman May expressed his agreement with Mr . Fabbroni and commented that he [ Fabbroni ] had been very honest with the Board in indicating what was ahead , adding that this kind of resolution will put the issue to bed now . Mr . Mazza stated that he could understand that , but he was not sure the Board should jeopardize this project . Mr . Stanton stated that he was comfortable with Condition # 1 and he was uncomfortable with Condition # 2 , adding that he understood what Mr . Fabbroni was saying . Mr . Fabbroni commented that he had tried to explain the matter of dual access and proceeded to reiterate some of his points of concern . Chairman May stated that he really supported Condition # 2 , however , he would compromise and say that the Planning Board " strongly recommends " that this driveway be built and would leave Conditions 1 , 3 , 4 , and 5 . Mr . Mazza stated that he was leary about Route 96 being in there for fear it will kill this whole project . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that he was saying that if the State winds up supporting the R- 11 scheme , then the Hospital would go along with it . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he , himself , did not think Condition # 5 was needed . Mrs . Schultz suggested that perhaps it would be in order to adopt this proposed resolution in some form , maybe more or less definitive , in order that there be something in place for the Hospital Board to discuss and react to , or even accept it , or part of it and offer alternatives . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval as heretofore written and read with one additional condition , being that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant Special Approval and appropriate variances . By way of discussion , Mr . Stanton stated that that was a stronger statement than what he would agree to . Mrs . Schultz reiterated what she had suggested which was , among other things , that she was saying that this would give the Hospital Board something to react to . MOTION TO AMEND by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton * RESOLVED , that the MOTION on the floor be amended such that the sentence reading " THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED that the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant preliminary site plan approval subject to the following terms and conditions : " should be taken out and in its place should be put - - " THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED , that the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval subject to terms and • conditions such as the terms and conditions set forth in # 1 through # 5 below as may be required by this Board upon final site plan review . " ' � Planning Board 23 April 2 , 1985 Chairman May accepted the wording as set forth in the MOTION TO AMEND , • as did Mrs . Schultz . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote on the MOTION TO AMEND . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Klein , Stanton , Mazza . Nay - None . The MOTION TO AMEND was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May asked if there was any further discussion of the MOTION , AS AMENDED , now on the floor . There was none ; the Chair called for a vote on the MOTION AS AMENDED . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Klein , Stanton , Mazza . Nay - None . The MOTION , AS AMENDED , was declared to be carried unanimously . [ For the Record , the RESOLUTION duly adopted by the Planning Board is set forth below . ] " WHEREAS , the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed a preliminary site plan for a medical office building to be built adjacent to the existing Tompkins Community Hospital and makes the following findings : • 1 . The proposed location is suitable for the proposed structure and use as the medical facilities to be offered will augment and complement the services presently available in our community . 2 . The location of this medical office adjacent to the Tompkins Community Hospital will facilitate the convenient use of these services by the public . 3 . Traffic circulation around the site will be improved by the proposed circulation and parking plan . 4 . The Board of Directors of the former Tompkins County Hospital is on record as unanimously supporting the " R- 11 Town Scheme " option for Route 96 , 5 . An Environmental Assessment Form as been reviewed and a determination of negative significance has been made . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED , that the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval subject to terms and conditions such as the terms and conditions set forth in # 1 through # 5 below as may be required by this Board upon final site plan review . 1 . That the Tompkins Community Hospital prepare a $ 25 , 000 escrow account in a form and manner satisfactory to the Town Engineer and Town Attorney for the construction of an alternate access road west of the • existing upper tier of parking to serve this project with a connecting drive . Terms of said agreement to be completed with the developer and the Town Board prior to any construction of the proposed medical s Planning Board 24 April 2 , 1985 • addition . Such an agreement should include land for the access road and the Hospital proper . 2 . That the Hospital agree to construct a driveway from the existing parking lot to the proposed staff parking lot on the northeast side of the Hospital . 3 . If and when Route 96 is relocated , the Community Hospital Board will abide by the 1977 endorsements of the then Hospital Board and Board Buildings and Grounds Committee of an alignment for Route 96 so called the R- 11 Town Scheme . This scheme could impact the existing visitor parking lot access drive as well as the southwest corner of the visitor parking lot ( resulting in the loss of approximately 40 apaces ) if this alternative is chosen by NYSDOT , 4 . The Hospital Board will endorse an off only ramp to the existing visitor parking lot . 5 . After fair compensation by the NYSDOT for the 40 ± spaces estimated to be removed by the R- 11 scheme , the Hospital will take steps as necessary to provide alternative local access drives to improve area circulation , including a new access drive north of the Administrator ' s home to the visitor parking lot . " Chairman May declared the Public Hearing duly closed . Messrs . Hoffman and Perra thanked the Board members for their time and consideration and • indicated that they would be returning for the April 16th Planning Board Meeting , ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the April 2 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 10 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .