Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-05-21 i ` TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MAY 21 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , May 21 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , James Baker , Carolyn Grigorov , David Klein , Edward Mazza , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Town Councilman George Kugler , Ruth B . Lacy , Robert Berggren , Robert Hedges , Madalyn Kaniecki . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 35 p . m . SKETCH PLAT REVIEW AND DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR A 4 - LOT SUBDIVISION AT 624 ELM ST . EXTENSION , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NUMBER 29 - 3 - 4 [ AND 3 . 2 ] ; ROBERT HEDGES , OWNER / SUBDIVIDER . Chairman May invited Mr . Hedges to speak to the Board about his plans . The following documents were before the Board members , such documents having been included with their Agenda . 1 . " Staff Report ( Peter M . Lovi ) : Robert Hedges Subdivision 624 Elm St . Ext , Parcel Number : 29 - 3 - 4 [ and 29 - 3 - 3 . 2 ] Description : The action is a resubdivision of a 1 . 38 acre parcel on Elm Street , Mr . Hedges has prepared a sketch plan showing the approximate configuration of four building lots . No provision has been made for open space Preservation . The short street which is also labeled " Elm St . " is presently an unimproved common driveway . A Short Environmental Assessment Form has been provided and reviewed . This is an Unlisted Action for which I have recommended a declaration of negative significance . Actions to be Considered : For the Planning Board meeting of May 21 , 1985 , the actions to be considered are : 1 . Sketch plan review of the proposed layout of the subdivision considering such matters as size and shape of lots . 2 . Whether an open space dedication is appropriate in this case and , if so , what instruments ( restrictive covenants , acceptance of a dedication to the Town , etc . ) would be most appropriate . 3 . Review of attached SEAF and consideration of a determination of significance . 4 . Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board to rename " Elm St . " to eliminate further confusion . 5 . Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals under Section 280 - a of Town Law to permit access to the parcel labeled " C " over a private driveway which would be located in the Planning Board 2 May 21 , 1985 bed of a mapped street . Such street would ultimately be improved to Town specifications as part of a further subdivision of lands to the north . Mr . Hedges or a future owner might be required , as a condition of subdivision approval , to contribute to the improvement of this street in the proportion to which it benefits his property . " 2 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by Robert B . Hedges under date of April 3 , 1985 , and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of April 3 , 1985 . 3 . A portion of Tax Map No . 29 showing the proposal marked as " 2 " for the four - lot subdivision which includes in addition to Parcel No . 6 - 29 - 3 - 4 , Parcel No . 6 - 29 - 3 - 3 . 2 . The record also includes a large copy of all of Tax Map No . 29 . Mr . Hedges appeared before the Board and stated that he thought the acreage involved was more than the 1 . 38 acres mentioned in Mr . Lovi ' s Report , Mr . Hedges stated that he would like to quarter his land , i . e . , have four parcels , one with his house on it . Mr . Hedges had with him an aerial photo of the area in which he lives which he displayed for the Board members . Chairman May noted that Mr . Hedges thought he had more than 1 . 38 acres of land . Mr . Hedges responded , oh , yes , he did . Mr . Lovi reviewed the map • and stated that Mr . Hedges was correct , adding that he had used the acreage printed on the Tax Map . Mr . Lovi stated that the land involved is actually over two acres and contains at least 90 , 000 square feet . Mr . Lovi stated that the appropriate size will be published with the Public Hearing Notice . Mr . Lovi stated that when Mr . Hedges originally came in the office , he and Mr . Hedges discussed the project and he [ Lovi ] sketched out three different ways in which Mr . Hedges might consider subdividing that tract . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Hedges owns the entire area which is substantially a square of about 95 , 000 square feet . Mr . Lovi stated that , of the three alternatives he sent to Mr . Hedges , Mr . Hedges has thought that proposal " 2 " , which is what the Board has before it , was the most appropriate for his needs at the present . Mr . Lovi noted that the result of this choice is four substantially equivalent lots of 1372 feet by 161 feet , adding that the lots are substantially rectangular . Mr . Lovi commented that since the time he drew this map , he has walked the site with Mr . Hedges and it appears that some of the assumptions he [ Lovi ] had made when he drew this map are not entirely right . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought Mr . Hedges could get three lots fronting on Valley View Road , Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Hedges has a swimming pool in the back of his house and he was not sure how far away it was from his house . Referring to the portion of the Tax Map labelled " 211 , Mr . Lovi pointed out that Mr . Hedges ' own house is on the proposed lot marked " D " , the house being on the corner and the swimming pool to the west toward proposed lot marked " A " . Mr . Lovi commented that he had not been sure whether it sat on his lot , so , when he sketched out the alternatives , he was not really sure about the depth requirements from • Valley View Road , but after pacing out the lot line frontage , he thought when Mr . Hedges has his engineer prepare the drawings for his proposal , he 4 , Planning Board 3 May 21 , 1985 • should give a look to there being three lots off Valley View Road , since that would be in Mr . Hedges best interest . Mr . Hedges agreed . Mr . Lovi noted that Mr . Hedges has 320 ' of frontage on Valley View Road which could be subdivided into three lots with about 107 ' of frontage . Chairman May commented that then the Board would have to look at proposed lots " A " and " C " as only having 120 ' of depth . Mr . Lovi noted that what you would have is only four lots total in the subdivision , commenting that proposed lot " C " in this present sketch " 2 " is not really an economic lot because Mr . Hedges would have to improve what is listed as " Elm Street " on this Tax Map and which is not a Town road , and adding that those costs would not make it as profitable . Mr . Lovi described three lots off Valley View Road , adding that the fourth lot to be retained by Mr . Hedges would have 120 ' of fontage on Elm Street and 322 ' of depth . Mr . Lovi pointed out that there are two roads labelled " Elm Street " and suggested that something should be done about that , adding , however , that that is a whole other problem . Mr . Lovi stated that he would refer to " short " Elm Street as the unimproved street , adding that if Mr . Hedges redoes the sketch plan he could show three lots , 107 ' x 3201 , on Valley View Road , and , he would then have another , 4th , lot fronting on Elm Street , the unimproved street , which would be roughly 120 ' x 332 ' . Chairman May pointed out to Mr . Hedges that , if he did that , he should understand that proposed lots " D " and " C " would be combined into one lot so that " C " would not be a developable lot . Mr . Lovi noted that that plan is • all contingent on an engineer , a survey , etc . , and the establishing of where the swimming pool is and what would be a side yard . Mr . Lovi commented that this is a workable arrangement , adding that proposed lots " A " and " B " are on public water and sewer . Mr . Lovi stated further that in discussions with Mr . Hedges , he has stated that he does not have an interest in selling proposed lot " C " at this time , commenting that this is just as well because improvements of the road are not cost - effective , although there is a procedure under Town Law , Section 280 - a , to vary that . Chairman May stated that he did not think the Board should take any action without this sketch plan being corrected . Mr . Lovi agreed that there is no action to be taken at this meeting . Chairman May noted that the EAF needs to be looked at too . Mr . Lovi suggested that the Board hold on to the EAF until the next meeting on Mr . Hedges ' s proposal . Mrs . Grigorov suggested that the Board could act on item # 4 in the Staff Report with respect to a recommendation about " Elm Street " . Speaking to Mr . Hedges , Chairman May stated that he did not think the Board had any problems with this proposal , adding that the Board would see him again . Mr . Klein asked Mr . Lovi to clarify the status of " Elm Street " . Mr . Lovi stated that it is a private way ; it is not a Town road , so there is nothing to be deleted from a Town map . Mr . Lovi commented that it is shown • on the tax map and it is the access to some of these properties . Chairman May observed that there really was a need to clarify these " Elm Streets " for better identification of where they are in case of fire . Planning Board 4 May 21 , 1985 Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi to send a letter to the Town Board with • respect to these various Elm Streets , SKETCH PLAT REVIEW FOR A 6 - LOT SUBDIVISION , DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE AND DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO REZONING FROM R30 TO R15 , 16 . 75 ACRES AT 122 TROY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 50 - 1 - 4 . 2 ; RUTH LACY , OWNER / SUBDIVIDER . With respect to the Ruth Lacy request for subdivision and rezoning , the Board members had before them the following documents : 1 . " Staff Report : ( Peter M . Lovi ) Ruth Lacy Subdivision and Rezoning 122 Troy Road Parcel Number : 50 - 1 - 4 . 2 Description : The action is a rezoning of the entire , and the subdivision of a portion , of a 16 . 75 acre parcel on Troy Road . Mrs . Lacy has included a property survey of the portion of the lands to be subdivided . This property survey does not indicate the boundary lines of the parcels to be subdivided , however , it is her intention to have the property divided into one parcel with 1501 frontage and four lots with 112 . 5 ' frontage . I have also included a copy of the tax map showing the entire property proposed to be rezoned . The Town Board has scheduled a Public Hearing for June 10 , 1985 to consider the matter of the rezoning . No provision has been made for open space preservation . A Short • Environmental Assessment Form has been provided and reviewed , the Town Board will be the Lead Agency in this matter . This is an Unlisted action for which I have recommended a declaration of negative significance . Staff is in the process of preparing a large - scale rezoning proposal which will consider all lands in the Town which are presently zoned R30 but for which public utilities are now available . It has been the past practice of the Town Board to rezone such properties from R30 to R15 on what has been characterized as a ' pro forma ' basis . As the final preparation of this rezoning proposal may take several months , the Town may want to consider the present Lacy action independent of the more comprehensive rezoning . Actions to be Considered : For the Planning Board meeting of May 21 , 1985 the actions to be considered are : 1 . Sketch plan review of the proposed layout of the subdivision considering such matters as size and shape of lots . 2 . Whether an open space dedication as shown on the plan is appropriate in this case and , if so , what instruments ( restrictive covenants , acceptance of a dedication to the Town , etc . ) would be most appropriate . 3 . Review of attached SEAF and considertion of a recommendation to the Town Board concerning the determination of significance . 4 . Review of the proposed rezoning and consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board . " • 2 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and completed by Ruth B . Lacy under date of May 6 , 1985 , and as reviewed by Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner , under date of May 15 , 1985 , as follows : " . . . The rezoning and Planning Board 5 May 21 , 1985 . subdivision of this particular parcel is consistent with the overall development patterns and plans for the Town . Lands provided with public utilities may and should be developed at higher densities in order to make a more efficient use of public investments . I recommmend a determination of negative significance . JBecause a rezoning is involved in the review of this action , the Town Board should be the Lead Agency in this review . " 3 . Survey - - " Map to show Parcel to be Conveyed by Ruth B . Lacy , Troy Road , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , N . Y . " , dated September 26 , 1984 , by Kenneth L . Jones , approved by Kenneth A . Baker , L . S . 049415 . 4 . Copy of Portion of Tax Map No . 50 showing the Lacy property and the neighbors thereof - - Ithaca College and Schultheisz , and , the NYSEG right of way running through the Lacy property . 5 . Subdivision Map ( 6 Parcels ) - - " Map to Show Subdivision of The Ruth B . Lacy Plot , Troy Road , Town of Ithaca Tompkins County , New York " , dated May 10 , 1985 , by Kenneth L . Jones , Approved by Howard R . Schlieder , P . E . , L . S . 043780 . Chairman May welcomed Mrs . Lacy at 7 : 50 p . m . , and asked her to kindly tell the Board what she had in mind . Mrs . Lacy stated that she just wanted to sell a lot and other people keep stopping and asking about them . Mrs . Lacy stated that she would like to help her son who is Executor and lives out of Town . • Mr . Lovi stated that he and Mrs . Lacy have had discussions on this proposal , adding that the Congdon sale , as noted on the Subdivision Map , is under way . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the land is presently zoned R30 and most similarly situated properties with water and sewer in the Town are zoned R15 . Mr . Lovi stated that he was preparing a list of properties , in addition to Mrs . Lacy ' s , which are served by water and sewer and should be considered by the Town Board for rezoning . Chairman May stated that he would question whether the whole 16 . 75 acres should be changed to R15 , although he understood that water and sewer are in along Troy Road , unless we know someone is actually going to bring water and sewer up into the parcel . Mr . Lovi , commenting that in his working map what he is attempting to do is be as consistent as possible , stated that there are occasions where rezonings go back 500 feet where there is water and sewer and there are some that go back 1 , 500 feet , further commenting that there is not a lot of consistency . Mr . Lovi stated that his feeling is that the ordinance , in speaking about the boundary lines of zones , speaks about boundaries following property lines where appropriate , and , what he would do , is review the map with Mr . Fabbroni and find out what the effective limit of the present water and sewer system would be , in other words , what is the area capable of being served from the trunk lines . Mr . Lovi suggested that it be borne in mind that since we do have the cluster provisions , to have that land available , there might be other site limitations such as slopes , for example , South Hill has some 150 • slopes , so , that land could be R15 , however , this Planning Board has very broad discretion to exclude land which is not buildable and , under R15 , it Planning Board 6 May 21 , 1985 • could do that better . Mr . Lovi stated that that is the reason for including the entire parcel in the plan . Mrs . Lacy pointed out that there is one farm between her place and Beacon Hills and they are R15 , so she thought it only logical for her property to be R150 The Secretary recalled that the Lacy property was recommended for rezoning to R15 under the proposed Zoning Map which accompanied the 1981 proposals for the proposed Zoning Ordinance , Mr . Lovi noted that there are two things to be considered - - ( 1 ) recommendation to the Town Board with respect to the rezoning , the Town Board being Lead Agency , and , ( 2 ) Sketch Plan Review . With respect to Sketch Plan Review of the proposed subdivision of the Lacy property , Mr . Lovi pointed out that the subdivision is really contingent upon the rezoning since proposed lots 1 through 4 would all be deficient under R30 , therefore , the subdivision map presented is contingent on the rezoning . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town Board has scheduled a Public Hearing to consider the rezoning at its June 10th meeting and suggested that a recommendation in that regard should be offered by the Planning Board . A lengthy discussion followed with respect to the Planning Board ' s usual practice of recommending to the Town Board on rezonings subsequent to its having held a public hearing on a proposal to rezone . All opinions and concerns with respect to this question were aired and discussed , the consensus being that , in the particular case of the Lacy proposal , the Planning Board practice of holding public hearings on rezoning requests , which is not required by the zoning ordinance , the Planning Board could make a recommendation at this time . During the above -mentioned discussion , Mr . Klein stated that he had no problem with this approach in this case ; Mr . Baker agreed ; Mrs . Grigorov agreed , and Mr . Mazza stated that he did not feel strongly either way , however , he would prefer to have a public hearing usually . Chairman May stated that the Board needed to recommend on the rezoning and the EAF . Mr . Lovi noted , again , that there are four actions involved - - ( 1 ) Sketch plan review of layout of the subdivision , which the Board has before it ; the lots being contingent on the rezoning ; ( 2 ) the lots would meet all the yard and lot requirements of R15 , if rezoned ; ( 3 ) they do have public water and sewer ; ( 4 ) they are comparable in size to lots in the neighborhood - - somewhat larger , but narrower . Mr . Mazza read from Article XIV , Section 78 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance wherein is set forth the various determinations required to be made by the Planning Board when it makes recommendations to the Town Board and the Board of Appeals , as follows : " 1 . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location . 2 . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be located will not be adversely affected . 3 . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of • development of the Town . " MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May : Planning Board 7 May 21 , 1985 RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby • does recommend to the Town Board that a 16 . 75 acre parcel of land , owned by Ruth B . Lacy , and located at 122 Troy Road , and delineated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 50 - 1 - 4 . 2 , be rezoned from Residence District R30 to Residence District R15 , based on the following findings of fact : 1 . The subject parcel is served by public water and sewer . 2 . The Planning Board finds there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location . 3 . The Planning Board believes that such rezoning will not adversely affect the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood . 4 . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Lovi suggested that it might be helpful to the Town Board if , in regard to Point # 2 that there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location , the wording were - - Residential development throughout the Town has been based on the proposition that public expenditures for utility improvements should be efficient and should be cost effective and , in this particular circumstance , the inconcistency between the existing zoning and the level of public improvements which , in other areas of the Town have brought forth a rezoning to R15 , are present . Mr . Lovi further suggested , in regard to Point # 3 dealing with the neighborhood character , • the wording might better be - - The existing and probable future character of this neighborhood is as residential dwellings on lots substantially between one and two acres in size . The lots which will actually be subdivided as a result of this development will be comparable to the size of lots which are presently in that neighborhood . They will , however , be somewhat narrower , althought still in excess of the minimum frontage requirements for lots in an R15 District . In regard to Point # 4 , Mr . Lovi suggested - - That the comprehensive water and sewer master plan for the Town of Ithaca is slowly but surely being realized and the rezonings of property to make the best and most efficient use of this expenditure of public money for these improvements would be well served by the permitting of a higher density residential use in this area and would be consistent with similar residential districts and neighborhoods in the Town . Mr . Mazza , noting that the Motion had not yet been seconded , stated that the only comment he would like to make is that when the Board recommends the rezoning it is not recommending that the rezoning be contingent on Mrs . Lacy ' s presenting this particular subdivision plan to the Planning Board , so that if it is rezoned it does not mean she has to come in with this plan . Mr . Mazza pointed out that , thus , the language Mr . Lovi had in his suggestion with reference to the size of lots may not apply . Mr . Lovi agreed with Mr . Mazza and suggested that Mr . Mazza ' s comment be included in the Motion as an observation . Chairman May , also noting that his Motion had not yet been seconded , • continued with his Motion , as follows : Planning Board 8 May 21 , 1985 And further , that the Planning Board recommend to the Town Board a • determination of negative significance with respect to the Short Environmental Assessment Form which is attached . The MOTION was seconded by Mrs . Caroloyn Grigorov . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Klein , Mazza . Nay - None , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . For the record , the RESOLUTION , as moved by Mr . May and seconded by Mrs . Grigorov , is set forth below . " RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that a 16 . 75 acre parcel of land , owned by Ruth B . Lacy , and located at 122 Troy Road , and delineated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 50 - 1 - 4 . 2 , be rezoned from Residence District R30 to Residence District R15 , based on the following findings of fact : 1 , The subject parcel is served by public water and sewer . 2 . The Planning Board finds there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location , Residential development throughout the Town has been based on the proposition that public expenditures for utility improvements should be efficient and should be cost effective and , in this particular circumstance , the inconsistency between the existing zoning and the level of public improvements which , in other areas of the Town have brought forth a rezoning to R15 , are present . 3 . The Planning Board believes that such rezoning will not adversely affect the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood . The existing and probable future character of this neighborhood is as residential dwellings on lots substantially between one and two acres in size . The lots which will actually be subdivided as a result of this development will be comparable to the size of lots which are presently in that neighborhood . They will , however , be somewhat narrower , althought still in excess of the minimum frontage requirements for lots in an R15 District . The Planning Board wishes to point out that its recommendation with respect to the rezoning of the Lacy lands is not that such rezoning be contingent on Mrs . Lacy ' s presenting the particular subdivision plan presented to said Planning Board at its meeting of May 21 , 1985 . 4 , The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town of Ithaca . The Planning Board is also of the opinion that the comprehensive water and sewer master plan for the Town of Ithaca is slowly but surely being realized and the rezonings of property to make the best and most efficient use of this • expenditure of public money for these improvements would be well Planning Board 9 May 21 , 1985 • served by the permitting of a higher density residential use in this area and would be consistent with similar residential districts and neighborhoods in the Town . " SKETCH PLAT REVIEW AND DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR AN 8 - LOT SUBDIVISION AT 136 COMPTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 ; ROBERT BERGGREN , OWNER/ SUBDIVIDER . For the record , the Planning Board members had before him / her the following documents with respect to the Robert Berggren subdivision request . 1 . " Staff Report : ( Peter M . Lovi ) Robert Berggren Subdivision 118 Compton Road Parcel Number : 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 Description : The action is a subdivision of a 15 . 28 acre parcel on Compton Road . Mr . Berggren has prepared a sketch plan showing the approximate configuration of seven building lots and one lot which will be preserved as open space . A 60 - foot right -of -way ending in a cul -de - sac and providing access to the common open space has been provided . A Short Environmental Assessment Form has been provided and reviewed . This is an Unlisted action for which I have recommended a declaration of negative significance . Actions to be Considered : For the Planning Board meeting of May 21 , • 1985 the actions to be considered are : 1 . Sketch plan review of the proposed layout of the subdivision considering such matters as size and shape of lots . 2 . Whether an open space dedication as shown on the plan is appropriate in this case and , if so , what instruments ( restrictive covenants , acceptance of a dedication to the Town , etc . ) would be most appropriate . 3 . Review of attached SEAF and consideration of a determination of significance . " 2 . Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and submitted by Robert G . Berggren and Theresa L . Berggren , under date of May 9 , 1985 , and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of May 15 , 1985 , as follows : " . . . Provided that the Health Department approves the water and sewer systems for this subdivision , I do not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this development and recommend a negative declaration of environmental significance conditioned on the preparation of a final subdivision plat acceptable to the Town Engineer and Planning Board . " 3 . A portion of Tax Map No . 36 showing the Robert Berggren property under discussion - - 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 - - and showing 7 proposed lots on a proposed cul de sac with an 8th lot shown as open space , and a small area proposed to be combined with Mr . Berggren ' s own lot # 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 1 . • 4 . A listing of adjacent lots with owners ' names and addresses . In addition to the above -noted items , the record contains a large , colored rendering of the proposal drawn upon two combined tax maps , showing Planning Board 10 May 21 , 1985 • the proposed subdivision and the neighbors , and , a portion of an aerial photo of the area upon which the proposed subdivision was also drawn . At 8 : 20 p . m . , Chairman May welcomed Mr . Berggren and invited him to tell the Board about his plans . Mr . Berggren stated that he and his wife would like to divide their 15 acre parcel up into lots and sell a few , adding that they live in the corner parcel , # 36 - 2 - 4 . 1 . Mr . Berggren pointed out that all the lots are about the size of their present lot , being around 1 , to 2 acre lots . Mr . Berggren stated that there is no water and sewer up there , however , he hoped that some day there will be , adding that it is not really too far from there because it does come up to L ' Auberge . Chairman May asked if the cul de sac were of the proper size . Mr . Lovi responded that it meets the subdivision regulations with a 50 - foot radius , a 60 - foot right of way , and no more than 1 , 000 feet long . Mr . Lovi stated that one of the questions which he would like the Board to consider has to do with lots 1 and 2 and the open space . Mr . Lovi stated that he and Mr . Berggren talked about a 10 % open space preservation and Mr . Berggren has been open to that suggestion and that number . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Berggren has a piece of property designated as open space - - # 8 on the sketch subdivision plan . Mr . Lovi stated that the question was , commenting that he did not know this for sure because he did not walk the land , but when he went up on the site and as he looked from the road , the " open space " is mostly scrub . Mr . Berggren stated that Mr . Lovi was correct in his statment , adding that it is open field and has not been • worked for ten years or so . Mr . Lovi stated that he did not think there were any existing trees , to which Mr . Berggren responded that that was correct , and added that it is pretty much all bare . Mr . Berggren commented that the fellow that owned this land , Mr . Schembri , farmed it apparently . Mr . Lovi stated that the question is - - is a parcel off on the east side of this development the best use of the open space , or , commenting that this was something that just occurred to him now , with respect to lots 1 , 2 , and 7 , rather than fronting on Compton Road , could they not front on the new road to be constructed and , if the open space were reduced , serve as a buffer on Compton Road . Chairman May wondered how lot 111 " would be serviced . Mr . Lovi offered that lots " 1 " and " 2 " would be rotated so that they both front on the new road and have a 50 - foot reserved strip with some plantings , more like a private drive . Mr . Lovi stated that this all was just a thought which he was tossing out . Chairman May thought it might be akin to a parkway down from the center of the road . Mr . Klein wondered who would take care of the buffer strip . Mr . Berggren pointed out that there are some large parcels behind that open space spot and it was his idea to put it there because of that so it could be ballfields maybe . Mr . Berggren stated that the McManus property is open and they let people hike and ride horses there , adding that there are trails which can be seen there . Chairman May wondered if the suggestion of rotating lots 1 and 2 is not still a good idea . Mr . Klein observed that Mr . Berggren has to cut that road before selling . Chairman May commented that that was true . Referring to Mr . Lovi ' s Staff Report , Chairman May wondered about a restrictive covenant with regard to open space dedication . Mr . Lovi stated that a • restrictive covenant might be fine , but with the idea that this land could be attached to other land to perform a common benefit . Mr . Mazza commented that the Town would not own it but the Board could suggest ballfields , etc . Planning Board 11 May 21 , 1985 • Mr . Berggren expressed his concern about taxes if he would still own it but it was restricted to open land . Mr . Lovi pointed out that one of the things that Mr . Berggren would be doing by this covenant is that there would be clear language either in the final resolution and / or in his covenant such that this land is designated as open space required by the Planning Board , etc . , and would be filed in the County Clerk ' s Office and , so , he could go to the Assessor ' s Office and document that this is not developable land . Mr . Lovi suggested that there should be discussion about whose responsibility that open space is , pointing out that the Board usually has homeowners ' associations to deal with . Mr . Lovi suggested to Mr . Berggren that he could deed it to the Town , or , if he owned it but it is for open space , he may use it for his private purposes . Mr . Lovi pointed out that all the Town can require is that there be open space there ; it cannot require that it be a public park . Mr . Lovi also noted that if the Town owns it , Mr . Berggren cannot exclude other people from using it . A discussion ensued with respect to the various alternatives open to the Town and Mr . Berggren with respect to open space , its use , size , location , and ownership , as well as the waiving of the need for open space in some cases . Mr . Berggren stated that he and his wife have talked at length about this open space dedication and it seemed to them that every subdivision has to do this , but they were wondering about , say , the one - acre subdivision . Mr . Lovi explained that the Planning Board is obliged to consider open space in its deliberations with respect to any subdivision , and pointed out , also , that the Town has to make the best use of its resources . Chairman May commented that the Board wants to preserve its opportunities , adding that there is other open land there . Mrs . • Grigorov wondered if there were any kind of recourse for Mr . Berggren , noting that he could have this property for 50 years and pay taxes on it but could not develop it . Mr . Lovi spoke to the Schickel land adjacent in terms of its future development and its relationship to Mr . Berggren ' s tract . Chairman May stated that he believed the Board could speak to the EAF at this time , but he did not think it could take care of the subdivision without some language with respect to open space . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought the proposal has been talked about quite a bit and suggested that Mr . Berggren should go back to his surveyor or engineer and come back with preliminary plans . Mr . Lovi suggested that Mr . Berggren meet with him a couple of times in the interim and they could work out appropriate language for the subdivision and the open space aspect . Mr . Lovi , commenting that as long at the Board sees no problem with this concept , suggested that at the time of the public hearing to consider preliminary subdivision approval , the Board could act on the EAF , pointing out that there may be some drainage or other matters that Mr . Fabbroni should speak to . Mr . Berggren , referring to the lots he had shown and about which Mr . Lovi had talked about surveying them out , stated that he was holding out in pinpointing the exact size in case someone came in and wanted a bigger lot . Mr . Lovi stated that if Mr . Berggren were going to sell a lot he will have to have a legal description because he only has one big parcel right now . Mr . Lovi observed that Mr . Berggren may not want to subdivide the whole • thing , adding that that is what he and Mr . Berggren talked about in the office in terms of a preliminary map and , later , a final map . Mr . Berggren stated that he has a purchase offer for lot # 2 and the buyer is waiting for Planning Board 12 May 21 , 1985 • SONYMA approval , so , maybe he should show lots 1 , 2 , and 7 and survey out those lots . Mr . Mazza pointed out that , in that case , Mr . Berggren would not have approval for these other lots . Chairman May suggested that Mr . Berggren could give the Board a Letter of Intent as to the open space . Mr . Mazza suggested that Mr . Berggren bear in mind that if he did it that way there are no guarantees as to future approvals . Mr . Klein commented that he guessed there are some costs involved in surveying it out , however , Mr . Berggren could come back for a change . Mr . Berggren stated that he would like to know the timetable for pursuing his proposal , that is , what does he need to do , and when , for the public hearing . Mr . Lovi stated that the Planning Board meets regularly on the first Tuesday of the month . Mr . Lovi pointed out to Mr . Berggren that in the Subdivision Regulations , which Mr . Berggren has , on pages 27 - 29 , there is a long list of things which ought to be included on the preliminary subdivision plat . Mr . Lovi stated that he would recommend to Mr . Berggren that he find the surveyor / engineer who is going to do the layout , map the access for the subdivision plat , and so on , and then talk to him because there may be some things that are required in the regulations and some others less substantive in nature which can be discussed and the plan reviewed in the office prior to the meeting , in other words , the office staff will assist him in every way possible . Mr . Berggren thanked everyone for their help . LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM PLANNING BOARD - BERNARD F . STANTON • Chairman May expressed his regret that he had received a letter of resignation from Mr . Stanton . Chairman May read as follows : " May 16 , 1985 . . . Dear Monty : I have concluded with some regret that I should resign from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board . This is a convenient and appropriate time . I will go on sabbatic leave starting June 1 , 1985 for six months . Now that three members of the current Planning Board live in the northeast section of the Town , I think it is particularly important that representation be provided from other areas . I think I am the logical person to leave the Board . Please convey my best wishes to the other members of the current Planning Board . They are dedicated workers in the Ithaca community , and I have enjoyed working with them . Good luck on all of the important meetings ahead of you in the next few years . Sincerely yours ( sgd . ) B . F . Stanton Professor of Agricultural Economics cc : Nancy Fuller " Chairman May stated that Mr . Stanton has had several discussions with several people , including Noel Desch , about this and been told that there • was not a need to resign because of the three members up there in the northeast area , although we do try to have representation in all areas of the Town . Each of the Board members expressed their dismay at learning of Planning Board 13 May 21 , 1985 • Mr . Stanton ' s decision and each expressed their concern with losing such a valuable member . Chairman May stated that he thought there was time to be able to get a letter off to Mr . Stanton before he leaves for Belgium on June 1st , DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Mr . Lovi noted that the Board members each had before him / her a copy of three proposed amendments to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance which he had prepared - - ( 1 ) Dish Antennae ; ( 2 ) Street Rights - of -Way ; ( 3 ) Residential Occupancy , Mr . Lovi stated that the proposal with respect to dish antennae is the most substantial one , being three pages in length . Mr . Lovi commented that dish antennae are a hot item in planning literature right now and , with technologic change rushing as it does from every aspect of our lives , it is really going to be making changes in the dish antennae insofar as what they will do ; what they will look like in the future . Mr . Lovi , commenting that that may well be , however , right now they cost some $ 2 , 000 to $ 3 , 000 and they take up a lot of one ' s lawn . Mr . Lovi also noted that with new satellites as they are coming along , with more and more power , the size of a dish may soon be 12 " to 13 " because things are changing in this field so rapidly , adding , however , people may want one next week and the ordinance does not speak to dish antennae . Mr . Klein thought that when they come up with smaller dishes the ordinance could be changed . Mr . Mazza spoke of the scrambling of signals so that one will not be able to decode the • information . Mr . Lovi noted a third issue , which is that the FCC has a proposed rule which will preempt local regulation of all antennae on the grounds that the FCC regulates the air waves and the air waves are a public commodity , thus , local government should not be able to infringe on the public ' s right to receive broadcasts . The proposal for amendment of the zoning ordinance with respect to dish antennae as drafted by Mr . Lovi and before the Planning Board follows . " DRAFT AMENDMENT : Dish Antennae RESOLVED : That the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca amend and hereby does amend the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as follows : I . ' Dish Antenna ' is defined as ' A device comprising three main components : ( 1 ) a large parabolic dish antenna , ( 2 ) a low - noise amplifier , ( 3 ) a receiver , the purpose of which is to receive television , radio , microwave , or other electronic signals from orbiting satellites . This device may also be known as a satellite antenna , satellite earth station , or an RO ( receive only ) antenna . Regulations on dish antennae apply to all types of installations , such as : • 1 ) Dish antennae serving more than one user on a single lot , such as apartments in an apartment complex , mobile homes in a mobile home Planning Board 14 May 21 , 1985 • park , or separate business establishments in a single business buildings 2 ) Dish Antennae serving a number of users on separate but nearby lots , such as a residential subdivision connected to a single antenna complex through a local area network or other local , non - franchised , unregulated cable system ; 3 ) Dish Antennae operated by commercial , regulated cable systems ; 4 ) Dish antennae which serve one user on one lot . ' II . A new Section shall be added to Article XIII , General Provisions , to read : Dish Antennae . Free - standing and roof -mounted dish antennae shall be prohibited from all districts except as follows : 1 ) In Residential Districts R9 , R15 , and R30 , and Agricultural Districts , a free - standing dish antenna with a diameter or height of 10 feet or less shall be considered a permitted accessory use and subject to all yard and height requirements applicable to such district and to all applicable general requirements of this section . 2 ) In Residential Districts R9 , R15 , and R30 , and Agricultural • Districts , a free - standing dish antenna with a diameter or height of more than 10 feet shall be regulated as required by number 3 ) below . 3 ) In all other zoning districts , free - standing or roof -mounted dish antennae may be permitted following site plan review by the Planning Board . Factors which should guide the Planning Board ' s considerations are : a ) the aesthetic effect of such antenna and the effect on neighborhood property values , b ) the accessibility of the particular property to commercial cable television service ; C ) the location of the property and its effect on the physical effectiveness of the dish antenna ; d ) landscaping . 4 ) General Regulations : a ) No dish antenna may exceed 15 feet in diameter and a free - standing antenna may not exceed 18 feet in height when measured vertically from the highest exposed point of the • antenna , when positioned for operation , to the bottom of the base which supports the antenna . Planning Board 15 May 21 , 1985 • b ) No dish antenna may be located on any trailer or portable device , however , a portable or trailer -mounted antenna may be placed on a lot by an antenna installer for the purpose of determining the most acceptable place for a permanent installation . ( A temporary permit may be obtained by the zoning Officer so that sites on a lot which are otherwise acceptable for the antenna may be evaluated . Maximum period of temporary permit : one week . ) C ) A dish antenna located on a building within 200 feet of an R9 , R15 , or R30 zone shall not exceed 6 feet in height above the roof height at the building line . 5 ) Installation Standards : a ) The installation design of surface -mounted dish antennae greater than 10 feet in diameter and all roof -mounted dish antennae must be certified by a registered architect or a professional engineer . b ) Dish antennae less than or equal to 10 feet in diameter shall be installed as follows : i ) Pad size : A pad of at least one cubic yard of poured concrete ( 3500 lb , mix or greater ) . • ii ) Mounting : The frame of the satellite dish shall by attached to the pad by the appro- priate hardware ( J -bolt , superstud , etc . ) of at least 5 / 8 " diameter . iii ) Electrical connections : All electrical wires shall be enclosed in either PVC or rigid conduit and buried a minimum of 18 inches below ground . The frame shall be grounded by means of an eight foot grounding rod connected to the frame through No . 4 gauge copper wire . All circuits of 110 volts or larger shall be protected by a ground fault interrupter , unless a factory- installed grounding unit is provided . 6 ) Abandoned Antenna or Device : a ) No such antenna or device shall be abandoned unless the owner removes same from the premises and restores the surface of the ground to its original grade and approxi - mately the same condition as before the antenna or device was installed . b ) Every such antenna or device shall be properly maintained at all times in a neat and clean condition . In the event that the owner of any such antenna or device shall fail to maintain such antenna or device within thirty days after • receipt of written notice to do so by the Building Inspec - tor , the municipality may , in addition to all other remedies under this Ordinance , so maintain or consider it abandoned Planning Board 16 May 21 , 1985 • and demolish such antenna or device and charge the cost thereof to the owner of the real property on which the antenna or device is located . c ) Such cost shall be a lien against the real property and shall be collectible in the same manner as taxes levied and assessed against such property . Drafted : April 30 , 1985 Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner " Turning to his proposal for amending the ordinance with respect to street rights of way , Mr . Lovi noted that there had been two thoughts on this particular item , one as pointed out by Mrs . Fuller who thought the text of the ordinance should reflect the definition of street right of way , and the other preferred by Chairman May who felt the right of way should be measured from the center line . Chairman May stated that he had given up on the center line approach after many lengthy discussions . Mr . Lovi noted that everyone seemed to agree that a diagram illustrating the required yard terminology would be good . The proposal with respect to street rights of way as drafted by Mr . Lovi follows : " DRAFT AMENDMENT : Street Rights - of -Way • RESOLVED : That the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca amend and hereby does amend the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as follows : 1 . Article III , Section 7 ; Article IV , Section 14 ; Article V , Section 21 ; Article VI , Section 28 ; Article VII , Section 37 ; Article VIII , Section 44 , are amended to include the phrase " from the street right of way line " in order to clarify the required front yard dimension . 2 . That an appropriate diagram be included in the definitions which illustrates all required yard terminology . AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Zoning Ordinance be renumbered and repaginated , where necessary , in order to facilitate convenient use by the public . Drafted : April 30 , 1985 Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner " Mr . Lovi stated that the third proposal before the Board this evening has to do with amending the ordinance to clarify the residential occupancy regulations in the Town , commenting that this is an amendment which the Board has talked about many times over the years in different connections . Mr . Lovi stated that he had attempted to make it very clear what a family • is and what an unrelated person is and , then , simplifying our residence district regulations so that what he thought to be the intent of the Boards is preserved with less confusion . Mr . Lovi described the background and Planning Board 17 May 21 , 1985 • history of proposals with respect to residential occupancy for Town Councilman Kugler , noting in particular the juxtaposition of the present definition of a family as " one or more persons related by blood , marriage or adoption " with the present occupancy regulations for two - family dwellings which state that " if neither of such units is occupied by a family , then the total numbers of such occupants in such two - family dwelling shall be no more than three . " Mr . Lovi pointed out that since a " family " can be one person , a dwelling can never not be occupied by a family unless it be empty , and so , it would seem that a two - family dwelling could be occupied by four persons . A lengthy discussion followed with each member , Mr . Kugler , and Mr . Lovi expressing his or her thoughts and concerns with respect to residential occupancy . Mr . Mazza noted that he had been of a mind for many years that a two - family occupancy of four was permitted and could be successfuly argued for based on the wording present in the ordinance since 1970 and still present . Mr . Mazza stated that he would point out , though , that this proposal being discussed here tonight might best be submitted to the Town Board as a clarification rather than an amendment , per se , since he thought someone who had been allowed only the three unrelated persons in a two - family dwelling might come back and say - - " See , I was right . " Discussion followed with respect to the other aspect of the proposal for residential use regulations , being the so -called 11500 " requirement , i . e . , a two - family dwelling is permitted provided that the second dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 % of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit except where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area , it may exceed 500 . Mr . Mazza expressed his feelings , once again , that the " 500 " rule is , as he called it - - " silly " . The Planning Board members indicated their agreement . The proposal as prepared by Mr . Lovi , entitled " Residential Occupancy " follows : " DRAFT AMENDMENT : Residential Occupancy RESOLVED : That the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca amend and hereby does amend the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as follows : 1 . " Family " is defined as " . . . two or more persons related by blood , marriage , or adoption " . 2 . " Unrelated persons " are defined as " two or more persons unrelated by blood , marriage , or adoption " . 3 . Article III , Section 4 , Numbers 2 and 2a ; Article IV , Section 11 , Numbers 2 and 2a ; and Article V , Section 18 , Numbers 2 and 2a , are deleted and the use regulations are amended and renumbered as follows . 1 . One -Family Dwelling . In addition to a single person or one • family , such dwelling may be occupied by not more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants . Planning Board 18 May 21 , 1985 • 2 . Two - Family Dwelling . In addition to a single person or one family in each dwelling unit , each dwelling unit may be occupied by no more than one additional individual . 4 . Article VI , Section 26 , is amended to read as follows . Use Regulations , In Multiple Residence Districts no building shall be erected or extended and no land or building or part thereof shall be used for other than any of the following purposes : One - family dwellings , two - family dwellings , and multiple family dwellings , grouped so as to provide living quarters for a minimum of 3 families . AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Zoning Ordinance be renumbered and repagi - nated , where necessary , in order to facilitate convenient use by the public . Drafted : April 30 , 1985 Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner " MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the Draft Amendment entitled " Residential Occupancy " , dated April 30 , 1985 , prepared by Peter • M . Lovi , Town Planner . By way of discussion , Mr . Mazza stated that he thought that was logical and made sense whereas he had not felt that allowing no more than three unrelated persons in a single family home and no more than three unrelated persons in a two family home made sense . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Klein , Mazza . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . The Board turned now to consideration of the draft amendment with respect to street rights of way . Mr . Lovi noted that this is the way it reads in the definition section of the ordinance , and this proposal just adds this to other parts of the ordinance . Mr . Lovi commented that this was not a change in policy , just to clarify the wording and correlate the text and the definition . Chairman May commented that there are about three different diagrams that should be attached to this and further , for anybody ' s interest on this , at the first meeting with Henry Aron , Noel Desch , Lew Cartee , staff and himself , he was the one that objected to this and after a lot of thought and arguing for a long time he decided it was Mr . Cartee who was the man who had to live with it and Mr . Cartee was • uncomfortable with the " centerline " and if Mr . Cartee is comfortable that is fine because he almost 100 % administers it . 1 Planning Board 19 May 21 , 1985 • MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the Draft Amendment entitled " Street Rights -of -Way " , dated April 30 , 1985 , prepared by Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Klein , Mazza . Nay v None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . With the agreement of the Board , Chairman May stated that further discussion at a future meeting would be held with respect to Mr . Lovi ' s draft amendment on Dish Antennae , DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY STATEMENT Mr . Lovi stated that the document before the Board this evening is the result of some very good comments from Mr . Stanton . Mr . Lovi stated that he believed what is called a " comprehensive plan " does not have to be much thicker than the Town ' s Environmental Review Regulations , adding that it is a statement of " who we are " and " what we are " . Mr . Lovi commented that in planning circles now , a comprehensive plan is being called a " Policy Plan " . • It being just about 10 : 00 p . m . , the Board agreed that this document would be discussed at a future meeting . The document hereinabove referred to follows : TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SECTION I . PREAMBLE Comprehensive planning , has been defined as the creation of clearly defined rules and standards which set reasonable restrictions upon the legislative power to zone . What follows are statements of community assets , constraints , and objectives . These factors influence the planning , development , and enjoyment of land in the Town . It is the opinion of the Planning Board that these factors should , therefore , be considered in the preparation of documents such as the Zoning Ordinance and Map , Subdivision Regulations , Environmental Review Regulations , Sign Law , Highway Master Plan , Park and Open Space Plan , Water and Sewer Master Plan . It is through these specific documents that the comprehensive planning process is expressed . SECTION II . ASSETS • 1 . Ithaca has a great deal of open land , both public and private , which contributes to a sense of spaciousness . Planning Board 20 May 21 , 1985 • 2 . The community has two large , stable employers in Cornell University and Ithaca College . 3 . The Town of Ithaca contains residential communities with attractive , diversified neighborhoods . 4 . Glacial history has provided the Town with dramatic scenery and a varied local topography . 5 . Strip or sprawl commercial development does not exist in the Town . 6 . Heavy industry is not prevalent in the Town and existing manufacturers have not detracted from the quality of life . 7 . There are a number of community parks and playgrounds throughout the Town which provide common play areas in residential neighborhoods . 8 . The Town has a well - educated , articulate population . 9 . The local geography offers many sloping , south - facing sites suitable for passive or active solar housing . 10 . The Town of Ithaca has a large university population which is a consistent market for rental housing . 11 . Cornell University is an educational institution with a well - deserved • reputation for both basic research and industrial applications . 12 . Ithaca College is an acknowledged leader in music education as well as other fields and contributes to the cultural and artistic resources of the community . 13 . The Village of Lansing and the City of Ithaca both contain substantial commercial districts accessible to the East and South Hill communities of the Town . 14 . The Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission has adaquate capacity to meet growing residential , commercial , and industrial demands in the community , and the new Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility will have adaquate treatment capacity to satisfy projected demand for the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden and the City of Ithaca . CONSTRAINTS : 1 . A substantial percentage of the land in the Town is tax exempt , which puts a burden on the remaining land when raising revenues . 2 . The local labor market is dominated by stable , but relatively low -paying , service sector employment . 3 . There are relatively few commercial or manufacturing enterprises to • generate local employment and tax revenue . w Planning Board 21 May 21 , 1985 • 4 . The local geography has favored a radial road network converging on downtown Ithaca and limiting circumferential movement from East to South to West Hills , 5 . The local climate , though temperate , is characterized by long , cold winters . 6 . Demand for rental housing is high and conflicts can occur between members of the community who prefer single - family residential neighborhoods and others who wish to provide rental housing . 7 . Steep hillsides in most residential areas of the Town contribute to soil erosion if proper drainage methods are not followed . 8 . There are no shopping centers , commercial districts , Town parks , or fire protection services on West Hill from the City of Ithaca to the Village of Trumansburg . 9 . The Tompkins Community Hospital is isolated from fire and ambulance service whenever the rail line through the City of Ithaca is in use . OBJECTIVES : 1 . The Town of Ithaca provides suitably zoned land for equity and rental housing alternatives at all economic price ranges . • 2 . Local businesses are encouraged to remain and grow and diversify in the Town . 3 . The cost of public utility installation and maintainance are controlled through comprehensive subdivision and development controls . 4 . Fire and life safety protection in our community are achieved by thorough code enforcement , mandatory installation of smoke detectors in all dwelling units , and the support of paid and volunteer fire professionals . 5 . There is a variety of open space and recreational facilities , both active and passive , provided for in the subdivision and site development process . 6 . The practice of energy conservation in building construction and use of solar energy , where practical , is encouraged . 7 . There is a distinction between multiple residence uses which are compatible with a residential neighborhood and those which are more appropriate with a commercial or non- residential area . 8 . The use of public transportation is encouraged . The Planning Board encourages developers of large projects to consider the effect of their proposal on the transit network . • 9 . Emergent industries which are compatible with university setting are encouraged , however , heavy industry or industries which rely on the Planning Board 22 May 21 , 1985 • use of hazardous substances , toxic materials , or dangerous procedures have been and will continue to be incompatible with the primarily residential character of this community . 10 . A commercial shopping center capable of serving a regional market would be a desirable addition to the West Hill community . 11 . To promote new development on West Hill , and to better serve the existing community and the Tompkins Community Hospital , improved access from the City of Ithaca is necessary . 12 . Future large scale residential developments in the Town are encouraged to retain an east -west orientation in order to preserve the southern exposures necessary for optimal solar access . 13 . Residential developments which preserve open space , constructively use the prevailing site terrain , provide moderately priced housing and reduce the cost of utilities and public roads are encouraged . 14 . The protection of the natural environment and other aesthetic concerns are valid planning objectives which are balanced with economic consi - derations when land use decisions are made . 15 . The creation and maintenance of a safe , scenic , and effective bikeway system throughout the Town is desirable . • 16 . Wetlands are an essential part of the natural ecological balance . The Planning Board prefers to see new development in areas which would not interfere with existing , natural wetlands . 17 . Developmentally disabled persons have the opportunity to live in existing residential neighborhoods and enjoy the natural and cultural qualities of our community . 18 . Activities and land uses in the Town are classified and regulated on the basis of their prospective environmental impacts . Performance standards are the basis of the Town ' s land use decisions . 19 . A fire station should be constructed on South Hill in the short range and a station on West Hill should be considered in the longer range . 20 . Intermunicipal cooperation with the City of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights in the field of police protection is desirable and should be established . 21 . The improvement and relocation of Route 96 should proceed toward completion before the end of this decade . 22 . The Town of Ithaca is committed to the creation and maintenance of public parks in appropriate areas throughout the Town . • 23 . Areas which are located wholly or partly within a HUD -designated Flood Hazard Zone should be considered for regional recreation and open space areas and development of these areas is discouraged . . r z Planning Board 23 May 21 , 1985 24 . The experience of the Hospital bus , Northeast Transit , the East Ithaca Transit , and TOMTRAN systems indicates that bus systems are practical through the more heavily populated areas of the Town , City , and County if attractive routes and schedules are offered . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the May 21 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . •