Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-06-04 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD JUNE 41 1985 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , June 4 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , Barbara Schultz , Edward Mazza , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Ted Pope ( Planner ' s Aide ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Martha Hertel , John Hertel , T . G . Miller , Lawrence Hoffman . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 35 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 7 , 1985 MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz . RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of May 7 , 1985 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . • Aye - May , Grigorov , Schultz , Mazza , Langhans , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . STAFF REPORT - Peter M . Lovi Mr . Lovi reported that the zoning ordinance amendments which the Board considered at its last meeting [ May 21 , 1985 ] have been forwarded to the Town Board to be considered and a public hearing will be set at their upcoming meeting and also the Lacy rezoning will be considered by the Town Board at that meeting , Monday , June 10th . Mr . Lovi reported that , in addition to Lacy , he is preparing a list of other property owners similar to Lacy who are served by public water and sewer and zoned R30 , and commented that they are basically her neighbors . Mr . Lovi stated that he has proposed that they be rezoned and asked for a public hearing at the Town Board ' s July meeting . Mr . Lovi noted that the Secretary had distributed to each Board member a copy of a four - page document entitled " Draft Amendment : Mobile Homes " , under date of June 4 , 1985 . Mr . Lovi commented that even though this proposal was not meant for discussion at this particular meeting , he would like to summarize it briefly and then have the Board study it for discussion at a future meeting . Mr . Lovi stated that the motivation for this amendment to the zoning ordinance is that there is a trailer park existing in the Town on Seven Mile Drive owned by a Mr . Jacobs . Mr . Lovi stated that there are twenty - four trailers on the site which existed prior Planning Board 2 June 4 , 1985 • to the enactment of zoning in the Town . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Jacobs is proposing to add to the park and has a master plan of some forty additional trailers , adding that he has purchased land behind his parcel for this purpose and now has almost 25 acres in total and has proposed to add to this use . Mr . Lovi observed that the problem is , as the Board knows , the Town Zoning Ordinance is quite restrictive when it comes to the issue of trailers . Mr . Lovi stated that he has discussed the matter with the Town Attorney , John Barney , and the consensus seems to be that for the Zoning Board of Appeals to hear the matter as an extension of a legal non - conforming use is a little beyond the scale one usually associates with a non - conforming use , adding that it really is a change in use and the legislative body should speak to it . Mr . Lovi commented further that the Zoning Board of Appeals should not hear an appeal of this scale and the Town Board should consider the issue of mobile homes in the Town and the circumstances under which they may be permitted . Mr . Lovi stated that he put this draft amendment together utilizing the 1981 draft of the proposed zoning ordinance and standard planning reference works such as Anderson on Zoning Law and Practice and APA standards . Mr . Lovi commented that the draft is similar to the Town ' s multiple residence districts in the present ordinance , following much the same form and , so , is procedurally much the same . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought the draft amendment would be sufficient to handle the overall planning issue . Court decisions have indicated that a municipality cannot institute a blanket restriction on mobile home parks in their town , however , a town can put valid restrictions as to where or where not mobile • homes can be . Mr . Lovi noted that these proposed regulations would limit the areas where these homes could be located , much like multiple residence uses are regulated , and mentioned items such as buffers , improvements to the parcel , etc . Mr . Lovi commented that some of that sort of thing is similar to what the Town does in its clustered housing requirements and spoke of buffer yard , common meeting space , common garages , common storage . Mr . Lovi suggested that the Board take the next couple of weeks to look this proposal over in order to consider it at the next meeting , adding that that gives the Planning Board a couple of meetings to consider this prior to the Town Board meeting in July [ July 8th ] . Mrs . Grigorov wondered if Mr . Jacobs would have to bring his present park up to the standards set in this proposed amendment . Mr . Lovi offered that over the years the park would have to come up to the standards , adding that he has not pinned all that down as yet . Mr . Mazza wondered if there were not also other State regulations and Health Department regulations with respect to mobile home parks . Mr . Lovi stated that there were , adding that they are not duplicated in this proposal . There followed a brief discussion with respect to the College View Trailer Park not having public utilities in place . Mr . Lovi described his concerns for a park in an area that has all municipal services in place which was followed by a discussion of various approaches to water and sewer facilities in terms of homeowners ' associations , etc . Mr . Klein commented that he was sure they have those sorts of things in mobile home parks in Florida . i The Draft Amendment hereinabove described is set forth below . Planning Board 3 June 4 , 1985 • " DRAFT AMENDMENT : Mobile Homes RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca add and hereby does add the following definitions to the Zoning Ordinance : Mobile Home : A transportable dwelling unit suitable for year - round occupancy . A mobile home is designed and built to be towed on its own chassis , comprised of frame and wheels , and connected to either public or private utilities . The unit may contain parts which may be folded , collapsed , or telescoped when being towed and expanded later to provide additional cubic capacity . A mobile home may also be designed as two or more separately towable components designed to be joined into one integral unit capable of again being separated into the components for repeated towing . This definition excludes travel or camping trailers towed by an automobile and neither wider than 8 feet nor longer than 32 feet . Self -propelled motor homes , or modular housing which is not built with an integral chassis and which must be transported on a separate vehicle from factory to housing site are also excluded from this definition . Mobile Home Lot : a parcel of land used for the placement of a single mobile home and the exclusive use of its occupants . This lot may be located only in a mobile home park as defined by this ordinance . Mobile Home Park : A parcel of land owned by an individual , partnership , or corporation which has been planned and improved for the placement of mobile homes for nontransient use . This parcel may be no less than fifteen acres • in size . Mobile Home Stand : That part of an individual mobile home lot which has been reserved and improved for the placement of the mobile home , appurtenant structures and additions . AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca amend and hereby does amend the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance : 1 . Article II , Section 2 is amended by adding to the list of permitted districts a Residence District R5 . 2 . A new Article and sections are added to the Ordinance . The text of this Article and Sections is given in Appendix A . • APPENDIX A RESIDENCE DISTRICTS R5 SECTION 1 . Location . With the approval of the Town Board , a Residence District R5 may be established in any Residence or Agricultural District of the Town . SECTION 2 . Use Regulations , In Residence Districts R5 no building shall be erected or extended and no land or building or part thereof shall be used for other than a mobile home park . Planning Board 4 June 4 , 1985 • SECTION 3 . Accessory Uses . Permitted accessory uses in Residence Districts R5 shall include the following : 1 . Automobile parking and garages , subject to the further requirements of this section . 2 . Structures and open land for recreation , intended for residents of the mobile home park . 3 . Such areas and structures as may be necessary for home - making activities , such as a common laundry or garden plots . The use of any such area or structure shall be limited to residents of the mobile home park . SECTION 4 . Area , Yard , Coverage and Height requirements shall be as follows : 1 . Area : a minimum tract of fifteen ( 15 ) acres is required for the development of a Residence District R5 . 2 . Lot Size : Each mobile home lot shall have a minimum gross area of 5 , 000 square feet . The arrangement of lots in the park shall facilitate the efficient development of land and permit the convenient access of emergency vehicles . 03a Stand Location : The location of the mobile home stand on each lot shall be identified on the site plan . SECTION 5 . Special Requirements shall be as follows : 1 . Stands . The mobile home stand shall be provided with anchors and other fixtures capable of securing and stabilizing the mobile home . These anchors shall be placed at least at each corner of the mobile home stand . 2 . Skirting : Each mobile home owner , within thirty days after the arrival of the mobile home in the park , shall be required to enclose the bottom space between the edge of the mobile home and the mobile home stand with a skirt of metal , wood or other suitable material . This skirt shall be properly ventilated and securely attached to the mobile home . 3 . Parking : One garage or lot parking space shall be provided for each mobile home , plus one additional lot space for each 3 mobile homes . No parking lot shall be located farther than 100 feet from the dwelling unit it is intended to serve . Each parking space shall have a minimum of 180 square feet . 4 . Buffer Yards : A buffer yard at least 30 feet wide shall be provided around the perimeter of the mobile home park . No structures are permitted in the buffer yard and the Planning Board may require that • suitable landscaping be provided in order to effectively screen the mobile home park from adjacent properties . Planning Board 5 June 4 , 1985 • 5 . Access and Sidewalks : Access drives shall be paved with black - top , concrete , or other solid material . Driveways and walkways shall provide safe access , egress , and traffic circulation within the site . The placement , size , and arrangement of access to public ways shall be subject to the approval of the appropriate highway authority . Where the density of population or school bus routes make it necessary , sidewalks and bus shelters may be required . 6 . Open Space and Recreation Areas : The applicant shall provide recreation areas on the premises for children . The Planning Board shall review and approve all such areas . Ten per cent ( 100 ) of the gross lot area of the mobile home park , exclusive of the area reserved for buffer yards , shall be permanently maintained as open space . 7 . Storage Areas : The developer shall construct common storage structures in convenient locations . These storage areas shall be enclosed and secure and may be located in a common building containing laundry and meeting space . The minimum size of each storage area shall be eight feet high , eight feet deep , and four feet wide . 8 . Screening of Waste and Refuse : One or more common areas shall be provided for the disposal of waste and refuse . These area shall contain secure garbage bins of a suitable size . These areas shall be screened from public view by shrubbery or a fence . • 9 . Signs . A single sign at each entrance of the mobile home park is permitted . The size and other characteristics shall be regulated by the Town of Ithaca Sign Law . SECTION 6 . Site Plan Approvals . No building permit shall be issued for a building within a Residence District R5 unless the proposed structure is in accordance with a site plan approved pursuant to the provisions of Article IX . " BUILDING INSPECTOR ' S REPORT - Lewis D . Cartee The Board members each had before him / her a copy of Mr . Cartee ' s Report of Building Permits Issued for the month of May 1985 which showed that 19 permits were issued in May 1985 for $ 797 , 600 . 00 in improvements , as compared with May of 1984 when 16 permits were issued for $ 336 , 050 . 00 in improvements . Chairman May commented on the significant increase in construction costs . REPORT OF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - Carolyn Grigorov Mrs . Grigorov reported on the County Planning Board meeting of May 8 , 1985 and stated that Robert Augenstern , Director of the Southern Tier East Regional Planning Development Board ( STERPDB ) was the guest speaker . Mrs . Grigorov noted that STERPDB was organized under the New York State General Municipal Law but is principally funded by the Federal government . Mrs . Grigorov reported that Mr . Augenstern spoke of the Water Resources • Management Program - - not quality , but quantity , and areas where it may become inadequate - - and described three major elements in this program , ( 1 ) population projections , ( 2 ) employment , and ( 3 ) public hearings . Mrs . Planning Board 6 June 4 , 1985 • Grigorov reported that Mr . Augenstern spoke of an economic census and pointed out that the City of Ithaca has twice the average per capita number of businesses and the number of automobiles and furniture is three times the average . Mrs . Grigorov reported that Mr . Liguori reported on the preliminary design concept and floor plans for the new Public Safety Facility Building / Jail . Mrs . Grigorov reported that there will be a wing for the dormitory section , a medium security section , a maximum security section , and a section for women , with one - quarter of the building being for the Sheriff ' s offices . Mrs . Grigorov reported that there will be electronic controls everywhere thus eliminating the need for keys . Mrs . Grigorov reported that the new facility will provide 55 beds with 35 secure cells and 20 dormitory - type beds . Chairman May thanked Mrs . Grigorov for her report . PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE FOR JUNE AND JULY MEETINGS OF THE TOWN BOARD After discussion , it was agreed that Mrs . Grigorov will attend the June 10th Town Board meeting and Mrs . Langhans , the July 8th meeting . SKETCH PLAT REVIEW FOR A 14 - LOT SUBDIVISION , CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE , AND DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 280 - a OF TOWN LAW , 127 WARREN ROAD [ OFF CREST LANE ] , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 66 - 3 - 3 [ . 2 ] ; JOHN • HERTEL , OWNER , At 8 : 05 p . m . , Chairman May welcomed Mr . and Mrs . Hertel and Mr . Thomas G . Miller , their representative , of T . G . Miller , P . C . , Engineers and Surveyors , Ithaca , N . Y . The Board members had received with their Agenda the following documents : 1 . " Staff Report : ( Peter M . Lovi ) John Hertel_ Subdivision 127 Warren Road [ Off Crest Lane ] # 66 - 3 - 3 [ . 2 ] Description : The action is a subdivision of a 16 . 6 acre parcel on Warren Road , Mr . Hertel has prepared a sketch plan dated May 24 , 1985 showing the approximate configuration of thirteen building lots fronting on a cul -de - sac and one lot which will be accessed by way of a 20 - foot alley from Crest Lane . A 1 . 3 acre parcel on the north side of the property has been designated as open space . It is proposed that this land be deeded to Cornell University to serve as a buffer between lots # 1 - 6 and the driving range . A 60 - foot right - of -way approximately 770 ' which ends in a 60 ' radius cul -de - sac has been provided for the development of a future Town Road . The zoning in the area is R15 and the proposed lots meet all lot , area , and yard requirements . A Short Environmental Assessment Form has been • completed and reviewed . This is an Unlisted action for which I have recommended a negative declaration of significance . Planning Board 7 June 4 , 1985 • The motivation for this plan is the intent of Mr . Hertel to sell a parcel of land , now referred to as lot # 14 , to a Mr . Loehr . This lot would not front on a public street . Under Section 280 - a of Town Law , the Zoning Board of Appeals may vary the requirement that all building lots front on a public street if it can be shown that the prospective development of the town highway system will not be compromised . I have discussed the subdivision requirements with Mr . Hertel and recommended that he develop a master plan for the subdivision of his lands which would provide for the compact and efficient development of Town roads and utilities . This has been done . If the Planning Board approves of this subdivision concept , then it should recommend to the ZBA that the requirement that lot # 14 be on a public street be varied , since the efficient provision of public streets will not be compromised and suitable access for fire and other life safety vehicles has been preserved . Mr . Hertel would then prepare any requested revisions to this plan so that it may be granted preliminary approval for lots # 1 - 13 , and so that final approval may be waived for lot # 14 . Since lot # 14 is the only parcel intended to be developed at this time , and it is presently served by water and sewer utilities as shown , further engineering details for lots # 1 - 13 should not be required at this time . Actions to be Considered : For the Planning Board meeting of June 4 , 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 would be most appropriate . 3 . Review of attached SEAF . 4 . Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a variance be granted for lot # 14 pursuant to Section 280 - a of Town Law on the grounds that : a ) Access to the property will be adequately preserved by a private alley to be jointly owned and maintained by Messrs . Hertel and Loehr , their successors and assigns . b ) Lot # 14 will have access to public utilities available on Crest Lane through private utility services as shown on the sketch plan and that the Town will not assume maintenance or replacement responsibilities for these lines . c ) The efficient development of land and public streets in the Town would be promoted by this development . d ) The recommended variance is the smallest required in order to permit the proposed development and not impose extensive land preparation costs on Mr . Hertel . e ) Since the land to be subdivided is zoned R15 and is adjacent to existing residential properties of comparable size , the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be affected . f ) The comprehensive planning practice of the Town , as expressed in the Policy Statement of the Subdivision • Regulations , calls for the economical development of land . The proposed plan minimizes the amount of public highway and utility lines needed for the subdivision of this property . Planning Board 8 June 4 , 1985 • Insofar as such site development costs are directly related to the price of building lots , this plan is in accordance with our comprehensive plan for economical subdivision development . " 2 . Vicinity Map , Hertel Subdivision , Warren Road , Ithaca ( T ) , Tompkins Co . NY , dated May 22 , 1985 , by T . G . Miller Associates P . C . 3 . Short Environmental Assessment Form , as signed and submitted by John P . Hertel and Martha W . Hertel under date of May 24 , 1985 , and as reviewed by the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , under date of May 28 , 1985 , as follows : " . . . This is a simple residential subdivision upon lands suitably zoned , with available public utilities , adjacent to a large , permanent open space . The subdivision is in accordance with all zoning requirements , with the exception that a variance would be needed from the Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 280 - a of Town Law so that lot # 14 could be built upon . Such a variance should similarly create no adverse environmental impact . Provision shall be made during subdivision approval for the maintenance of open space by the subdivider or by Cornell University . In either case , a vegetative buffer should be planted to screen adjacent houses from the driving range . " 4 . " Sketch Plat s Subdivision " , dated May 24 , 1985 , by T . G . Miller Assoc . P . C . , Engineers & Surveyors , drawn on " Map of Lands of John Hertel located at No . 127 Warren Road , dated December 23 , 1974 , by T . G . • Miller , P . C . , showing 14 lots , proposed street , open space , and lands to be retained by Hertel . Mr . Miller appeared before the Board on behalf of Mr . and Mrs . Hertel and stated that the Hertels would like to convey proposed lot # 14 , shown on the Sketch Plat , north of the fourth existing lot [ Loucks ] and also adjacent to their new home which they have built . Mr . Miller stated that , in doing so , they have been advised that they should present a sketch plat of the development of the rest of the property to assure Mr . and Mrs . Hertel and the Board that things all fit together . Mr . Miller commented that a proposal was sent in a number of years ago for similar lots , but that has changed . Mr . Miller pointed out the one single street with lots fronting on it , and added that all the proposed lots are in excess of the R15 requirements for the area . Mr . Miller noted that open space is shown on the north side of the subdivision , which is in excess of the 10 % suggested for subdivisions , and seems a logical and good addition to the Cornell University Golf Course immediately north of the Hertel property . Mr . Miller stated that the subdivision would be watered and sewered out the proposed street to Warren Road where the utilities already exist . Speaking particularly of proposed lot # 14 , Mr . Miller stated that that lot has been served by water and sewer from the system that was put in in recent years , adding that sewer is on the north side of lot # 14 and water does go up the proposed lane shown on the east of the Loucks ' property with one line serving Hertel and lot # 14 . Mr . Miller noted the access over a joint drive shared with the Hertels . Mr . Miller stated that he would be glad to answer • any questions . Planning Board 9 June 4 , 1985 Mr . Lovi pointed out that , in regard to the matter of the proposed • recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , there will be an Appeal on this matter of there being no frontage on a Town road at the Board of Appeals meeting on June 12th . By way of background , Mr . Lovi stated that when Mr . Hertel first came to the office discussing his desire to sell lot # 14 , he [ Lovi ] suggested to him that he prepare this map showing how this land will ultimately be developed . Mr . Lovi commented that the Board of Appeals could waive the requirements of Section 280 - a of Town Law if it can be shown that the mapping of that lot will not compromise the eventual development of the road network and there will be safe ingress and access . Mr . Lovi noted that final approval by the Planning Board would be for lot # 14 only , with preliminary approval for the other lots . Mr . Miller stated that he would like to mention a lot shown on the sketch plat , west of lot # 14 , which is occupied by a shed and shown " to be retained by Hertel " , and which may be combined with some adjacent lot at some future time . Mr . Miller pointed out a 20 - foot right of way over from the large portion containing the Hertel ' s home to provide access to that lot with the shed on it . Chairman May wondered where the utilities are coming from for lot # 14 . Mr . Miller pointed out that they are already there . Indicating on the sketch plat , Messrs . Miller and Lovi pointed out the location of the manhole on proposed lot # 14 , the two water services and the sanitary sewer . Mrs . Langhans wondered where the Merschrod property was . Mr . Hertel • stated that that lot is not shown but the Merschrod property was purchased from the Fabbronis after the Fabbronis purchased their parcel some years ago . Referring to the area on the sketch plat , at the northern boundary , denoted as " Open Space - - To Cornell Univ . " , Mr . Mazza asked if Mr . Hertel were intending to deed that portion to Cornell University or just leave it open and let the golf balls land there . Mr . Miller responded that he did not think that had been decided yet . Mr . Mazza commented that , if the intention is as just open space , for those people who might purchase the lots [ 1 - 6 ] there in that area , it is not a good location . Mr . Lovi offered that he thought the intent was for it to be planted and reserved . Mr . Miller stated that they would not like to make a commitment to it going to Cornell University at this point , but just have it reserved as open space . Chairman May asked if there were any further questions . There being none , Chairman May asked that the Board turn to the Short Environmental Assessment Form . Mr . Lovi stated that the Planning Board would be the Lead Agency in the matter of environmental review , however , he thought that it might be better if it were considered at the preliminary public hearing . Mr . Lovi suggested that the Board could recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals on the road situation and it could do the EAF , however , the Board usually does the EAF at the public hearing . Chairman May asked if there were any comments on the EAF , noting that the Board members had all read it and Mr . Lovi ' s review of it recommending that there was no significant * environmental impact . Mr . Lovi pointed out that he had noted on the EAF that whether this open space is retained by the subdivider or transferred to Cornell University , they should consider planting a vegetative buffer on Planning Board 10 June 4 , 1985 the north side as this area is the most likely to be affected by the Golf Course , so , some appropriate plantings should be done . Mr . Lovi suggested that perhaps Cornell University would be interested if the land were to be eventually given to them . Mr . Mazza stated that he thought that would be something that would make those lots safer , adding that he has seen a lot of golf balls go in there , although he does not have that problem himself . Chairman May , noting that the Board is not taking any official action on this proposal at this time , inquired , however , for the record , if anybody saw any problem with the Short EAF that needs to be pointed out to the Zoning Board of Appeals . No one spoke . Chairman May stated that that matter appears to be all in order . Chairman May asked if , in regard to lot # 14 , anyone had any comments or questions . Mrs . Langhans stated that the only question she had in that connection was with respect to the lot in back of Likens and Merschrod , and asked if these people , or Mr . Loehr , might not want a little more land . Mr . Hertel stated that they use that shed for storage now and they would like to retain it , adding that it could go two or three different ways eventually . Mr . Miller pointed out that they have it shown with a dotted line to lot # 13 . Mr . Mazza stated that , obviously , a concern is fire protection for that lot , and asked if that which is shown is going to be adequate enough entry for that lot - - for lot # 14 and even for Mr . Hertel ' s lot . Mr . Lovi pointed out the 30 - foot access way off Crest Lane for both Hertel and lot # 14 , indicating that that would be fine . Mr . Mazza wondered if that driveway were in now , with Mr . Hertel responding , yes . Mr . Mazza asked if it were gravelled , to which Mr . Hertel responded , yes . Mrs . Langhans agreed that it was wide and clear . Mr . • Mazza suggested some kind of maintenance agreement , in case there might be neighbors who do not like each other , to make sure it will always be clear . Mr . Lovi asked Mr . Hertel if the agreement with Mr . Loehr would state that both of them had the right to keep the driveway clear of all obstructions . Mr . Hertel indicated that his attorney , Mr . Hamilton , would see to that . Chairman May pointed out that the Board ' s only concern is strictly for the Hertels ' safety so that emergency vehicles could get up into the area for any need , and stated that the Planning Board does not want to ever see an obstruction . Chairman May suggested that Mr . Hertel should think about that in his discussions with Attorney Hamilton about any agreement with Mr . Loehr . Mr . Mazza commented that if any motion is made to recommend a variance it should include that it be conditioned upon the easement showing that both owners have the right to keep that right of way clear of all obstructions and the right to maintain it , as well as any other agreements that they might have as to access . Mrs . Langhans observed that the owner would be the Hertels . Mr . Mazza concurred , adding that Mr . Loehr should have the right to clear it too . Mr . Lovi , commenting that he would like to make one comment on item # 4 ( b ) of his staff report , stated that there has been discussion by the Town that if a satisfactory pressure test is made with respect to the sewer the Town may take over this private utility service , and adding that he made this point just so the Board would be aware , however , he would suggest that item # 4 ( b ) be left as it is . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca recommend and * hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a variance be Planning Board 11 June 4 , 1985 • granted pursuant to Section 280 - a of Town Law for lot # 14 as described on the subdivision plan of John Hertel on the grounds that : a ) Access to the property will be adequately preserved by a private alley to be maintained by Messrs . Hertel and / or Loehr , their successors and assigns . b ) Lot # 14 will have access to public utilities available on Crest Lane through private utility services as shown on the sketch plan and that the Town will not assume maintenance or replacement responsibilities for these lines . c ) The efficient development of land and public streets in the Town would be promoted by this development . d ) The recommended variance is the smallest required in order to permit the proposed development and not impose extensive land preparation costs on Mr . Hertel . e ) Since the land to be subdivided is zoned R15 and is adjacent to existing residential properties of comparable size , the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be affected . f ) The comprehensive planning practice of the Town , as expressed in • the Policy Statement of the Subdivision Regulations , calls for the economical development of land . The proposed plan minimizes the amount of public highway and utility lines needed for the subdivision of this property . Insofar as such site development costs are directly related to the price of building lots , this plan is in accordance with our comprehensive plan for economical subdivision development . g ) The Planning Board declares itself to be Lead Agency in a unified SEQR review of this action . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Schultz , Mazza , Langhans , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Mr . Lovi pointed out to Mr . Hertel that Mr . Loehr will be appearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 12th , and , if Mr . Hertel were ready for the June 18th Planning Board meeting , he could schedule a public hearing for preliminary approval and consideration of the waiving of final approval , for the 18th . Chairman May inquired of Mr . Hertel if it would be better for him to do that at the Board ' s first meeting in July [ July 2 , 19851 . Mr . Miller replied that he would have to have material in by this Friday and added that he would not be able to survey lot # 14 but he could • specify dimensions . Mr . Miller allowed as how they could make the meeting on the 18th and commented that he would also like to show the relationship of lots on a smaller map . Mr . Lovi , commenting that the eventual • Planning Board 12 June 4 , 1985 development of these lands - - lots 1 - 14 - - is substantially as shown on the extant sketch plan , suggested that the Board could refer to this sketch plan , since it is very complete , together with a detail of lot # 14 and its immediate surroundings . Chairman May stated that Mr . Lovi ' s suggestion was probably alright with the understanding that nothing can be done with the other lots until final approval has been granted . Mr . Miller and Mr . and Mrs . Hertel thanked the Board for their time and consideration . DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS At 8 : 40 p . m . , the Planning Board turned to discussion of the draft amendment to the Zoning Ordinance , as prepared by Mr . Lovi , with respect to Dish Antennae which had been before the Board at its May 21 , 1985 meeting and which had been set aside for Board discussion at a future meeting . The draft amendment under discussion is set forth below . " 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 park , or separate business establishments in a single business building ; 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 Planning Board 13 June 4 , 1985 • 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 . 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 • Planning Board 14 June 4 , 1985 • 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 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 " Chairman May stated that Section I , the first paragraph thereof , should be changed to read : ' Dish Antenna ' is defined as a large parabolic antenna , the purpose of which is to receive television from * orbiting satellites . This device may also be known as a satellite antenna or satellite earth station . Regulations on dish antennae apply to all types of installations , such as : " Discussion followed , led by Mr . Lovi , Planning Board 15 June 4 , 1985 • with the Board deciding that Section I , the first paragraph thereof , should read : " ' Dish Antenna ' is defined as a large parabolic antenna , 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 or satellite earth station . Regulations on dish antennae apply to all types of installations , such as : " The Board discussed , briefly , Section I , sub - section 1 ) , and agreed that it was acceptable . With respect to Section I , sub - section 2 ) , Chairman May stated that the reference here to dish antennae serving a number of users on separate but nearby lots , etc . , is prohibited now under FCC regulations . Mr . Lovi suggested that sub - section 2 ) be taken out , the Board members concurred . Chairman May stated that he would suggest also taking out Section II , sub - section 3 ) . [ 113 ) 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 . " ] Mr . Lovi argued that 3 ) is important because , otherwise , there would be no restrictions with regard to multiple residences . Mr . Lovi suggested that , perhaps , changing Section II , sub - section 2 ) , to read " In all Zoning Districts , a free - standing dish antenna with a diameter or height of more than 10 feet shall require site plan review . " - - would be acceptable . Discussion followed with respect to the proposed 10 ' size requiring site plan review and with respect to whether Section II , sub - section 3 ) should be left in or taken out . Chairman May commented that he could probably handle an antenna under 10 ' not requiring site plan , but over 101 , he would definitely require site plan review . Mr . Mazza expressed his concern that , if these dishes are getting smaller and smaller as the technology improves , the Town could see a lot of 7 ' dishes . Chairman May pointed out that Section II , sub - section 5 ) ( b ) ( i ) - " Pad size : A pad of at least one cubic yard of poured concrete ( 3500 The mix or greater ) . " - - was a rather enormous amount of concrete and probably not necessary . Chairman May also recommended deleting Section II , sub - section 5 ) ( b ) ( iii ) - - " Electrical connections : . . . " Mr . Lovi posed the question to the Board as to whether there are particular things throughout the Town of Ithaca which the Board would like to protect , commenting that he did not think the Board had a problem with considering these dishes as an accessory use , similar to a shed in someone ' s yard . Mr . Lovi pointed out , however , that the stereotype is , of course , that great big dish sitting there aimed at the sky , and added that they have to be at an angle to get a clear view of a satellite . Mrs . Grigorov observed that if one of these antenna is on the roof , * the Town has height limitations . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the height requirements in the Subdivision Regulations exclude antennae along with chimneys , etc . Mr . Lovi asked if the Board wanted that to be the case . • Planning Board 16 June 4 , 1985 Mr . Lovi stated that the proposal could be made a lot simpler , he • thought , without it being less restrictive , thus , he would take the draft back and do some rewriting , adding that he had a good sense of what everyone thinks . DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY STATEMENT Chairman May stated that he hoped the Board would discuss this matter tonight , however , Mr . Lawrence Hoffman , of HOLT Architects , had requested an informal discussion with the Board with respect to an addition to the Wilson Synchrotron at Cornell University . NEW BUSINESS : ADDITION - - WILSON LABORATORY , CORNELL UNIVERSITY , LAWRENCE HOFFMAN , ARCHITECT . At 9 : 00 p . m . , the Board welcomed Mr . Hoffman . Mr . Lovi commented that , as the Board was aware , Ithaca College will routinely come before this Board when they have some sort of construction planned , however , that has not been the case with Cornell , however , McGuire and Bennett came in last week and applied for a building permit for some reconstruction at the Wilson Synchrotron and dropped off a huge set of specifications . Mr . Lovi noted that the NYS Dormitory Authority is not involved in the obtaining of this permit . Mr . Lovi stated that , since our regulations do talk about site plan review for educational institutions , he had suggested that , to begin with , Mr . Hoffman should informally run the matter by the Board at • this time , prior to a more formal review . Mr . Hoffman thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak to the Board informally about the project which , he thought , was funded by the National Science Foundation , Mr . Hoffman stated that construction started about three months ago and his field man said - - hey , where is the building permit ? Mr . Hoffman stated that Mr . Cartee did not stop work on the job , however . Mr . Hoffman stated that it was neither his firm ' s intention nor Cornell University ' s intention to try to do anything sneaky , commenting that , in his opinion , the work is relatively insignificant in terms of the over - all building . Mr . Hoffman had with him a brochure - type booklet about the Wilson Laboratory and displayed , for the Board , what he termed an overview of the facility on a slightly retouched photograph . Mr . Hoffman pointed out the Synchrotron Lab that is above ground and pointed out how it sits between Kite Hill and Cascadilla Creek , and noted that there is about 80 , 000 square feet of building . Mr . Hoffman stated that the " Ring " is all underground , adding that they are not adding to the Ring . Mr . Hoffman described the project as adding back - up space for the two clients of the Synchrotron , noting that the Laboratory of Nuclear Studies is the basic owner of the Ring and there is another user called " CHESS " . Mr . Hoffman noted that the Lab operates 24 hours a day and the CHESS group has people coming in routinely from industry who work there for a couple of days or so . Mr . Hoffman stated that their project was relatively simple , commenting that out of an 80 , 000 square foot building with about a 35 , 000 square footprint , they are adding 10 , 000 square feet with a 3 , 200 square foot footprint , bounded by the Ring and the Creek . Mr . Hoffman stated that * the new addition sits on the only spot available to put it , adding that the grades gave them no problem with the Creek . Mr . Hoffman spoke of curved walls and showed an elevation , noting that the intent is to match the architectural vocabulary in place . Mr . Hoffman , noting that the f ► Planning Board 17 June 4 , 1985 • Town has a complete set of contract documents , stated that the second floor is mainly office space dedicated to CHESS and the third level is for the Laboratory of Nuclear Studies , Mr . Hoffman stated that it is a dry laboratory . Mr . Hoffman showed the Board the floor plan and the reworked area , pointing out the edge of the Ring . Mr . Hoffman stated that , when industry people come in to use the facilities , they are providing for them in the new building some office space and a computer lab because at the present time the place is noisy . Mr . Hoffman stated that the area that the addition goes in was a grassy knoll which was regraded and there were a couple of trees that were planted at the time the building was built . Mr . Hoffman stated that they are relocating the trees that can be relocated and planting new ones to dress it up a little . Mr . Hoffman commented that the project area is very confined and has to be done so as not to interrupt what is going on . Mr . Hoffman showed two other elevations . Chairman May stated that it seemed to him that there has to be an environmental assessment on this and a public hearing . Mr . Lovi noted that the regulations do not require public hearing on site plan . Speaking to Mr . Hoffman , Chairman May stated that without an EAF and review he was afraid that he [ Hoffman ] would be open to all sorts of problems . Mr . Hoffman stated that he would be happy to complete an Environmental Assessment Form , Mr . Hoffman stated that he would leave the three sheets which he had displayed for the Board , fill out the EAF , and come back to the next meeting [ June 18 , 19851 . • DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY STATEMENT Mr . Lovi introduced Mr . Ted Pope , who is working for the Town this summer under The Cornell Tradition as a Planner ' s Aide and who is working on a land use survey for the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Lovi stated that last week he and Mr . Pope went around the Town , commenting that it probably looked pretty silly since they put the Town video camera in the open hatch of his [ Lovi ' s ] car and ran around Town running video tape of the land uses in the Town . Mr . Lovi stated that so far they have been around the Northeast , East Ithaca , and parts of South Hill . Mr . Lovi explained that the work Mr . Pope is doing is land use mapping utilizing airphotos and video checks , and , at this point also doing a fairly course analysis of the land use patterns . Mr . Lovi commented that he did not know how much they can accomplish in the summer , the goal being a more fine - grained analysis of land uses . Mr . Lovi noted that they are going to finish Elmira Road and West Hill next . Mr . Lovi now discussed what he envisioned would come out of the research , time , and efforts with respect to a Town Comprehensive Plan Policy Statement . He described " viewsheds " and a concept of " gateways " , as some of the kinds of things which would be an important aspect of and would be tied into the Planning Board ' s statement of policies , assets , goals , and objectives , as well as a technical appendix . It was agreed that there will be further discussion of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Statement at the Board ' s next meeting . • ADJOURNMENT a o • Planning Board 18 June 4 , 1985 e Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the June 4 , 1985 meeting of the • Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9040 puma Respectfully submitted , Nancy Mo Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . •