Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-07-16 1 � TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD JULY 16 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , July 16 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : James Backner , Sam Peter , Robert R . Sprole Jr . , Christopher B . Black , James Iacovelli , Anna K . Stuliglowa , Donna Dubuc ( Q104 FM News ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 35 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on July 8 , 1985 and July 11 , 1985 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the neighbors of the applicable lot in question , upon the applicants whose lots are in question , upon the Clerk of the Town of Enfield , and upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning on July 9 , 1985 . • DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY STATEMENT The Planning Board had before it the document which had been under its review since May 21 , 1985 , as 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 2 July 16 , 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 adequate capacity to meet growing residential , commercial , and industrial demands in the community , and the new Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility will have adequate 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 . Planning Board 3 July 16 , 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 , although 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 provide 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 costs of public utility installation and maintenance 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 a university setting are encouraged , however , heavy industry or industries which rely on the Planning Board 4 July 16 , 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 considerations 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 . Planning Board 5 July 16 , 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 . " Mr . Lovi recalled for the Board that we were putting together a brief policy plan which would be a statement of assets , constraints , goals and objectives and which would accompany other material , such as conventional planning material , soils , slopes , physical features , etc . - - the whole assemblage of which we would call our Comprehensive Plan . Mr . Lovi commented that this would be the reference work to guide the Planning Board ' s work and be helpful to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Town Board . Mr . Lovi stated that this general reference work has two aspects - - ( 1 ) a statement of what is out there , for example , physical features , topography , etc . Mr . Lovi noted that a lot of this type of information is available at the County level ; ( 2 ) a statement of what " we " want to see . Mr . Lovi stated that this second aspect is the part the Planning Board is working on here with the document before it , being the part that is up to the Planning Board members . Mr . Lovi , noting that the Planning Board talks a lot about health , safety , and welfare , stated that in the Preamble the Board gets a chance to take those general phrases and give them a little more texture . Mr . Lovi commented that this draft preamble is an attempt to get us thinking along those lines . With respect to item # 8 under Constraints , Chairman May stated that he • felt the statement was a little strong and suggested changing " no fire protection services on West Hill " to " no fire stations on West Hill " . Mr . Lovi noted the suggestion , commenting that it was a good one . Referring again to Constraints , Mr . Klein questioned that item # 1 which refers to " a substantial percentage of the land in the Town is tax exempt . . . " does not really say what that is . Mr . Klein stated that he would be more comfortable with real numbers . Chairman May wondered if the number was not 550 . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought it was . Continuing , Mr . Klein stated that he was completeley unaware of the statement in item # 2 which indicates that the local labor market is " relatively low-paying " . A discussion between Mr . Klein and Mr . Lovi followed , with Mr . Lovi commenting that it is a matter of definition as the Town is relatively a bedroom community and Mr . Klein commenting that item # 2 should be made clearer . Mr . Lovi indicated that 400 of employment is in education . Mr . Klein stated that it would seem that relatively low-paying is the wrong word . It was suggested that there be more facts set down and more specifics , for example , the citing of the Town of Ithaca , as appropriate , and Tompkins County , as appropriate . The same suggestion as to referencing the Town of Ithaca was put forth with respect to item # 3 under Constraints . With respect to Objectives , it was suggested that items # 10 and # 11 might well be linked together . Chairman May stated that further discussion of the Comprehensive Plan ' s portion on objectives would continue , however , it was now time for • the Public Hearing on the proposed extension to Sam Peter ' s store . Planning Board 6 July 16 , 1985 • PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN EXTENSION TO AN EXISTING BUSINESS AT 1083 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 43 - 1 - 5 . SAM PETER , OWNER . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 05 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Peter was present . The Board members each had before him / her a copy of the following documents : 1 . Copy of Short Environmental Assessment as completed and signed by Sam Peter under date of 7 / 12 / 85 , together with attached review prepared by the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , as follows : " PART II SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Applicant : Sam Peter Project : Building Extension Location : 1083 Danby Road A . The project does not exceed any Type I threshold on Town of Ithaca Local Law # 3 , 1980 . B . This Unlisted Action will not receive a coordinated review . C1 . No adverse environmental effect on air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , solid waste production or disposal , • potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems is expected . The project is a 15 ' x 861 addition to an existing building to be used as a warehouse and TV repair shop . The construction of this addition will permit the renovation of the interior of the existing building and the expansion of existing showroom . Though no adverse impact on existing traffic patterns is expected , there is presently a deficiency in the required number of parking spaces which will be increased by the proposed addition . According to Section 38 of the Zoning Ordinance , one parking space is required for each 200 square feet of space in a retail store . By this standard , 41 spaces are required at present and 47 spaces will be required after the addition . Using a standard of 200 square feet for each parking space , no more than 22 parking spaces are available at present . This impact is not considered significant because the parking lot infrequently approaches its present capacity . C2 . There are no historic , archeological , visual , aesthetic , or other natural or cultural resources which would be adversely affected by this action . The project is not located in an agricultural district and the land uses in the immediate vicinity are retail and residential . C3 . There [ are ] no vegetation , fauna , fish or wildlife species or significant habitats which could be affected by this action . C4 . This project is a permitted use in a Business C zone . This action is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance , C5 . The expansion of the business is likely to increase the volume of merchandise sold . It is unlikely that the proposed action will • increase commercial traffic to such an extent that additional development by other merchants will directly follow . Planning Board 7 July 16 , 1985 • C6 . The overall expansion of commercial capacity at the King Road , Danby Road intersection will likely continue in the future . This is expected and in accordance with comprehensive community planning and zoning for this area . C7 . This is planned to be an unheated building and there will be no substantial change in the community ' s energy use as a result of this action . PART III DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE I do not believe that this action will have a significant negative effect on the environment . The reasons I have used to support this recommendation ares 1 . The extension is of small size and is strictly accessory to the existing business use . 2 . The required parking areas are seldom filled to capacity and it is unlikely that this addition will create a significant problem . For these reasons , I recommend that the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency , make a determination of negative environmental significance . " 2 . Copy of " Plot Plan " of " Sam Peter ' s Addition " , dated 07 / 01 / 85 , showing " Extension " of 15 ' x 86 ' to existing 90 ' square building , located on Danby Road between East King Road and " The Old King Road " . Mr . Peter appeared before the Board and stated that he wanted to extend his building out toward Old King Road by 15 ' by about 90 ' as the plan shows . Mr . Peter stated that he did not see any problem with it , • adding that he thought the Town should be very happy that he is putting on an extension and further adding that his business has been a credit to the Town for 37 years . Chairman May asked about the warehouse addition which did not appear to be shown on the site plan . Mr . Peter stated that he added that in 1980 . Chairman May noted that there may be a problem with respect to parking . Mr . Peter stated that he did not have a parking problem at all , pointing out that his business is not like a supermarket . Mr . Peter stated that the addition will be his office . There followed discussion about the parking situation at Sam Peter ' s . Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against the matter of the proposed extension to Sam Peter ' s . No one spoke . Chairman May asked that the Board turn to the matter of the Short EAF before it . Mrs . Schultz pointed out that item # 10 - - " Does action involve a permit / approval , or funding , now or ultimately , from any other governmental agency ( Federal , state or local ) ? " - - should be changed from " No " to " Yes " . Mrs . Schultz wondered also whether item # 8 - - " Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? " - - should be changed from " Yes " to " No " . Mr . Lovi agreed that item # 10 should be changed to " Yes " and stated that item # 8 should be changed to " No " , adding , with respect to item # 8 , that he could add that a variance from the parking restriction would be necessary . Following further discussion , the Board did not indicate that that should be done . Mr . Peter resigned and redated the EAF . • MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . Montgomery Mays Planning Board 8 July 16 , 1985 RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead • Agency with respect to environmental review , make and hereby does make a determination of negative environmental significance with respect to the proposed extension to an existing business , known as Sam Peter , located at 1083 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 5 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May asked again if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the proposed addition at Sam Peter ' s . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 25 p . m . Mr . Lovi pointed out that paragraph 2 of Section 46 - a , Site Plan Requirements [ Article IX ] , of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Board may make such reasonable changes in the requirements as it may deem appropriate . Mr . Lovi noted that the Planning Board is at public hearing as required and , so , it seems that if the Board deems it appropriate to make the available parking adequate , it could consider such . Discussion followed as to the adequacy of the site plan presented . Mr . Lovi indicated that he did not see any problem with the addition itself . Mr . Lovi suggested that , given the circumstances of this particular case and the . matter of access as it relates to the Old King Road , the Board may wish to pass on the sufficiency of the site plan , however , the Board may wish to require , in the future , that staff should require surveys which provide metes and bounds descriptions . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Montgomery May : WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board determines that : i . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed locations 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 ; 4 . The areas available for parking are sufficient for this business use , NOW , THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED , that said Planning Board grant Final Site Plan Approval for the extension to the existing Sam Peter business premises , as proposed and presented by Mr . Sam Peter at Public Hearing , this date , July 16 , 1985 , and as shown on plan presented by Mr . Peter entitled " Plot Plan Sam Peter ' s Addition " , dated July 1 , 1985 , such extension shown on said " Plot Plan " to be 15 feet by 86 feet . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . • Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein . Nay - Schultz . Planning Board 9 July 16 , 1985 • The MOTION was declared to be carried . Chairman May declared the matter of the Sam Peter addition duly closed at 8 : 50 p . m . Mr . Peter thanked the Board for being so considerate and , speaking to Mr . Lovi , commented that he thought he got him in a little jam here with respect to the parking . Mr . Peter stated that he realized Mr . Lovi was being nice in getting this matter to the Board so quickly , however , he wished he had been told more about the issues . Mr . Lovi stated that he would appreciate a resolution from the Planning Board on two questions - - ( 1 ) Would the Board like to have the language before it in the form of draft resolutions pertaining to each of the matters for which a decision is being proposed prepared prior to the meeting at which action is proposed to be taken , or , " stock " resolutions for environmental review determinations and site plan reviews ; ( 2 ) When there are particular circumstances , like this meeting when the Board did not want to meet in August , it would have been a lot easier to get the material in order if submittals had to be in within a certain time period . Chairman May stated that he believed the Board has stated on several occasions how nice it is and how much it has helped to have a draft resolution in hand , adding that it give the Board a starting point . Each of the Board members indicated their agreement . Chairman May stated that , with respect to the other item , he thought the Board needed to get its • by - laws finished and look at what it has said in the past on that . Chairman May stated that the Board is supportive of Mr . Lovi in his statement that he must have this information prior to a meeting , adding that he also believed that was reiterated several months ago , and commenting that it should be the Planning Board , not the Planner , that says that so it can be required by the staff . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN EXTENSION TO AN EXISTING MANUFACTURING OPERATION AT HUDSON ST . EXTENSION , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 54 - 2 - 1 . THERM , INC . , OWNER . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 55 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Messrs . Robert Sprole , Christopher Black , and James Backner , of Therm , Inc . , were present . Chairman May announced , for the record , that because of the possibility of a conflict of interest he would not participate in the discussion with respect to Therm , Inc . and will abstain from voting . The members of the Planning Board each had before him / her a copy of the Short Environmental Assessment Form covering the proposed 50 ' x 130 ' steel and cement block building extension to Therm , Inc . , as signed and completed by Robert R . Sprole , Jr . , under date of July 2 , 1985 , with attached review as prepared by Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner , under date of • July 11 , 1985 , as follows : " PART II Planning Board 10 July 16 , 1985 SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Applicant : Therm , Inc . Project : Manufacturing Building Extension Location : Hudson Street Extension A . The project does not exceed any Type I threshold set by Town of Ithaca Local Law # 3 , 1980 . B . This Unlisted Action will not receive a coordinated review and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board will be the Lead Agency . Cl . No adverse environmental effect on air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems is expected . The project is a 50 ' x 130 ' addition to the existing main manufacturing building . The building will be used for grinding and manufacturing processes . Solid and liquid wastes will be disposed of through the present sanitary sewer system . C2 . There are no historic , archeological , visual , aesthetic , or other natural or cultural resources which would be adversely affected by this action . The project is not located in an agricultural district and the land uses in the immediate vicinity are light industrial and residential . C3 . There [ are ] no vegetation , fauna , fish or wildlife species or significant habitats in the immediate area which could be affected by this action . C4 . This project is a permitted use in a Light Industrial zone . This action is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan . • C5 . A gradual expansion of the factory is planned . This expansion will be realized in modules of roughly similar size to the present expansion . C6 . Unless employment at Therm increases markedly , it is unlikely that this action will have other than marginal effects on the community at large . C7 . There will be no substantial change in the community ' s energy use as a result of this action . PART III DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE I do not believe that this action will have a significant negative impact on the environment . I recommend a determination of negative environmental significance . The reasons I have used to support this recommendation are : 1 . The project does not substantially increase the scale of operations at Therm . 2 . Adverse effects on the physical environment are expected to be negligible . " Mr . Sprole stated that Mr . Arnold Albrecht , the engineer who usually represents Therm , was not able to attend because he , unfortunately , is in the hospital . Mr . Sprole displayed for the Board a large topographical map of the Therm lands , entitled " Therm Incorporated , Proposed Manufacturing Additions , 7 / 16 / 85 " , Scale . 024 " = 1 Ft . , upon which had been drawn the Therm buildings , parking , and the proposed manufacturing addition , shown as 50 ' x 1321 , and proposed " pad " attached to it . Mr . Sprole also displayed what he termed a " conceptual " drawing of the proposed addition and pad , * entitled " Proposed 1985 Manufact . Addit ' n . [ undated ] , and a drawing showing the ribs of the building , prepared by Seneca Engineering Co . , Montour Planning Board 11 July 16 , 1985 • Falls , N . Y . , entitled " Proposed Plans for Future Building No . 18 , Therm Inc . , Ithaca , N . Y . " , dated 7 - 2 - 85 . Mr . Sprole noted that this was a new drawing , being an update of the one presented earlier to Mr . Lovi . Mr . Sprole pointed out that the addition is the same size as the existing manufacturing building , that is , 132 ' , and will extend out 50 ' and will have attached to it a similarly sized pad . Mr . Sprole stated that the proposed extension will be an addition to the rear of their existing manufacturing building and will follow a pattern similar to that of their previous additions . Mr . Sprole commented that their proposed additions for the next 800 feet will probably be in the same type of increments . Mr . Sprole stated that the parking that they propose would be running across the " top side " of the property line parallel to the land buffer between residential properties and the plant building , as well as the fence border . Mr . Sprole noted that the security fence is not a property line fence . Mr . Sprole stated that the pad is a loading pad , however , it could be a future addition and is going to be prepared as such with footings . Mr . Sprole stated that no housing will be interfered with by this addition , adding that their land extends beyond the back end of the reservoir . Mr . Sprole pointed out that Therm has owned the house in between there for some thirty years . Mr . Sprole stated that the building construction will be a single - storied , 50 ' x 132 ' , type of addition , the same height as the existing building immediately behind it . Mrs . Schultz noted that the parking that is parallel to Pennsylvania Avenue slopes down . Mr . Sprole stated that the parking is where it has • always been . Mrs . Schultz wondered if Mr . Sprole knew how much the parking area drops down . Mr . Black stated that it drops down twenty feet as shown on the elevation drawing submitted by Mr . Albrecht earlier . Mr . Black described a hedgerow of shrubbery . Mr . Sprole commented that with this expansion they envision 50 additional new jobs . Chairman May asked if there were anyone from the public who wished to comment . No one spoke . Chairman May asked if there were any questions from the Board . Mrs . Schultz stated that in all of these hearings with respect to Therm expansions she has never heard a word from anyone , adding that , if the parking is 20 ' down from the houses that are there and also since the parking is already there , she had no problems with the proposal . Mr . Klein wondered if the slope referred to were planted now . Mr . Black stated that it is to some degree , further stating that they are moving some shrubs along the fence line . Mr . Sprole commented that this will include shrubs , evergreens , plus some leaf trees , probably maple . Mrs . Schultz stated that most of the Therm parking is landscaped and looks nice . Chairman May inquired if the Board would like to turn to the matter of review of the Short EAF , and noted that a declaration of negative environmental significance had been recommended by the Town Planner . MOTION by Mrs . Barbara Schultz , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as lead Planning Board 12 July 16 , 1985 • agency in the review of the proposed 50 ' x 132 ' addition to the manufacturing building of Therm , Inc . , approve and hereby does approve the Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , Part 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent information that the above -mentioned action will not significantly impact the environment and , therefore , will not require further environmental review . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Schultz , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein . Nay - None . Abstain - May . The MOTION was declared to be carried . MOTION by Mrs . Barbara Schultz , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Site Plan Approval for a 50 - foot by 132 - foot addition and similarly - sized pad to the existing manufacturing building of Therm , Inc . , • Hudson Street Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 2 - 1 , as shown on plan presented by Therm , Inc . , at Public Hearing this date , July 16 , 1985 , entitled " Therm Incorporated Proposed Manufacturing Additions " , dated 7 / 16 / 85 , Scale . 024 " = 1 ft . , initialled by CGB . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Schultz , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein . Nay - None , Abstain - May . The MOTION was declared to be carried . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the proposed Therm , Inc . addition duly closed at 9 : 14 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A TWO - LOT SUBDIVISION AT 1478 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 . CARL UPDIKE , OWNER ; ANNA STULIGLOWA , AGENT , Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 9 : 15 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Ms . Stuliglowa was present . The Board members had before them the following documents : • 1 . A copy of the Short Environmental Assessment Form as signed and Planning Board 13 July 16 , 1985 • submitted by Anna K . Stuliglowa , for George Rhoads , under date of July 11 , 1985 , with site plan attached as an Addendum delineating the buildings or structures which exist on the property proposed to be purchased by Mr . Rhoads , and , as reviewed by Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner , under date of July 11 , 1985 , as follows : " PART II SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Applicant : George Rhodes [ sic . ] Project : Two - lot subdivision of the lands of Carl Updike Location : 1478 Mecklenburg Road A . The project does not exceed any Type I threshold on Town of Ithaca Local Law # 3 , 1980 . B . This Unlisted Action will not receive a coordinated review . Cl . No adverse environmental effect on air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems is expected . The project is a two - lot subdivision ; Mr . [ Rhoads ] wishes to subdivide a four - acre parcel with approximately 561 ' of road frontage on Mecklenburg Road from Mr . Updike ' s 22 - acre tract . He plans to live in the existing house on the property and remodel the concrete buildings labelled ' S ' and 16 ' on the attached map as an artist ' s studio for his own use . C2 . There are no historic , archeological , visual , aesthetic , or other • natural or cultural resources which would be adversely affected by this action . The project is located in an agricultural district and the land uses in the immediate vicinity are agricultural and residential . C3 . There [ are ] no vegetation , fauna , fish or wildlife species or significant habitats which could be affected by this action . There is a pear orchard , the greater part of which will be located on Mr . [ Rhoads ' ] parcel . It is hoped that this orchard will be maintained . C4 . This action is a permitted use in an Agricultural Zone . This action is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance . C5 . It is unlikely that the proposed action will increase the rate of future development . C6 . There is no secondary or cumulative development expected as a result of this action . However , all parties should recognize that some future use will likely be made of the large chicken barn which remains on Mr . Updike ' s property . An agricultural use of this structure is unlikely , given the economics of modern poultry research and production . It is reasonable to suppose that an attempt may be made to reuse this building for some other , nonagricultural purpose . C7 . There will be no substantial change in the community ' s energy use as a result of this action . PART III DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE I do not believe that this action will have a significant negative • effect on the environment . I recommend that the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency , make a determination of negative environmental Planning Board 14 July 16 , 1985 • significance . The reasons I have used to support this recommendation are : 1 . This is a minor subdivision which will permit a logical future resubdivision of lots along Mecklenburg Road . 2 . There are no identified environmental impacts which are both large and unable of being successfully mitigated , " 2 . Survey , dated July 8 , 1985 , entitled " Portion of Lands of Carl R . & Edna M . Updike - Mecklenburg Road - Town of Ithaca - Tompkins County New York " , signed and sealed by Kenneth A . Baker , P . L . S . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that she was representing the buyer , Mr . George Rhoads , who has submitted a purchase offer to the Updikes for approximately four acres out of a total acreage of about 22 acres . Ms . Stuliglowa noted again that the buyer would like to have about four acres of land . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that she believed the subdivision request meets all zoning requirements . Ms . Stuliglowa , commenting that there are all kinds of buildings on the proposed property , seven in all , pointed out that one is a residential building , and , of the other two larger structures , one is a shed and one is a concrete building . Ms . Stuliglowa pointed out that the concrete structure , labelled " 4 " and " 5 " on the drawing , was used by Babcock , adding that " 4 " and " 5 " will be the artist ' s studio where he will pursue his sculpturing and also store his materials . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that the property will not be used for retail purposes , it will be used only for his own purposes . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that Mr . Rhoads is a very famous artist , his kinetic sculptures sitting in such places as Kennedy • International Airport . Ms . Stuliglowa stated that Mr . Rhoads needs a place for his work since he is also a painter and this is a perfect building for him , there being so much room and open space and views . Ms . Stuliglowa related the Survey to the site plan for the Board members , describing the access provided for Mr . Updike over a 52 - foot -wide area , running through a portion of the pear orchard , off Mecklenburg Road , and also , which buildings are included on the proposed property . Ms . Stuliglowa noted that the subdivision will accommodate both the owner , Mr . Updike , and the buyer , Mr . Rhoads , and will leave approximately 18 acres for Mr . Updike with good access to the remaining pieces . Ms . Stuliglowa pointed out that the " field " is a part of this subdivision request . Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against the subdvision request . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 25 p . m . and asked the Board to turn to the matter of the Short EAF as submitted and as reviewed by Mr . Lovi with a recommendation of negative environmental significance . MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the review of the proposed two - lot subdivision of the lands of Carl Updike , 1478 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form as completed , and • FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , Part 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted , and Planning Board 15 July 16 , 1985 FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has • determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent information that the above -mentioned action will not significantly impact the environment and , therefore , will not require further environmental review . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Mrs . Langhans asked Mr . Lovi about the pear orchard which he had mentioned in his review . Ms . Stuliglowa answered that she and Mr . Rhoads tried to maintain as much of the pear orchard as possible , and added that she did not know what the Updikes will do with the remaining pear orchard if that access is used . Mrs . Langhans stated that she was really asking if Mr . Rhoads will maintain the orchard . Ms . Stuliglowa responded , yes , absolutely . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval for a two - lot subdivision at 1478 Mecklenburg , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 , Carl Updike , Owner , • as presented by Anna K . Stuliglowa on behalf of George Rhoads , Buyer , at Public Hearing held this date , July 16 , 1985 , and as shown on Survey , dated July 8 , 1985 , entitled " Portion of Lands of Carl R . & Edna M . Updike - Mecklenburg Road - Town of Ithaca we Tompkins County - New York " , signed and sealed by Kenneth A . Baker , P . L . S . , and on site plan attached as an Addendum to the Short Environmental Assessment submitted delineating the buildings or structures which exist on the property proposed to be purchased by Mr . Rhoads , such " new " parcel to contain 3 . 65 acres , and further RESOLVED , that said Planning Board waive and hereby does waive Final Subdivision Approval for said two - lot subdivision hereinabove described . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the Updike / Rhoads two - lot subdivision duly closed at 9 : 40 p . m . CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL BY CORNELL PLANTATIONS TO USE A PORTION OF A TWO - FAMILY HOUSE AT 117 McINTYRE PLACE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES . • Mr . Lovi stated that he had been informed by Mr . Robert E . Cook , Director of Cornell Plantations , that Cornell University has withdrawn its : r Planning Board 16 July 16 , 1985 • proposal to occupy and use the upstairs of the residence of Mr . and Mrs . Edwin Oyer as administrative offices for the educational purposes of its programs . SKETCH PLAT REVIEW FOR AN 8 - LOT SUBDIVISION AT [ 118 ] COMPTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 ; ROBERT BERGGREN , OWNER / SUBDIVIDER . Mr . Lovi laid before the Board a new sketch plan which had been submitted by Mr . Berggren , Mr . Lovi stated that the Berggrens are in the process of preparing their final plan , and so , he wanted to point out to the Board , at this point , that the orientation of their proposed cul de sac roadway has been changed a little bit from that which the Board saw at sketch plan review in May [ May 21 , 1985 ] . Mr . Lovi pointed out that , in the actual laying out of the cul de sac on paper it was discovered that a very nice hedgerow exists and in order to save that the road had to be changed slightly such that it is not just a straight run . Mr . Lovi noted that all the proposed lots are in excess of the requirements and there still will be a cul de sac . Indicating on the drawing , Mr . Lovi pointed out that certain lots are actually improved because the hedgerow and the trees will not have to be taken down . Chairman May stated that he did not think the Board needed to take any action at this point , however , the Board should have a final , proper survey showing just where the roadway will be . • PERSONS TO BE HEARD Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . James Iacovelli was present this evening to run a couple of items by the Board for their comments . Mr . James Iacovelli appeared before the Board to discuss , informally , a sketch plan and his intentions with respect to a parcel of land which he purchased from Heinz Biesdorf and which runs between Slaterville Road and Pine Tree Road , Mr . Iacovelli described an old barn which is in place on the Pine Tree Road side of this large , odd - shaped parcel , and stated that his plan was to move the barn off its foundation as far as he possibly can . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he had to be careful about this and watch out for the sewer line . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he is going to build a new structure but he wanted to use the foundation of the barn . Mr . Iacovelli stated that the parcel contains one acre and he wanted to make two lots of one - half acre each . Mr . Iacovelli commented that Mr . Michael Pichel is his neighbor and does not seem to have any problems . Mr . Iacovelli stated that his proposal is that there will be no exit onto Slaterville Road . Mr . Iacovelli stated that the proposal meets all the requirements for site plan except for the barn foundation . Chairman May pointed out that no matter which way the Planning Board goes on this proposal , it has to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Lovi stated that that was correct , however , even though the Planning Board does not meet in August , the Zoning Board of Appeals is meeting on August 21st and , he assumed , will ask what the Planning Board thinks about • it . Chairman May stated that he thought the Board should try to hold to not meeting in August , although , if the Board wished , it could say that it has reviewed the sketch plan for the Board of Appeals ' information . After . f Planning Board 17 July 16 , 1985 • discussion , it was the Board ' s feeling that this was not necessary . Mr . Iacovelli thanked the Board and stated that he had another item which he would like to talk about . Mr . Iacovelli described , using a portion of Tax Map No . 54 and a sketch plan , his plans for his Pennsylvania Avenue / Kendall Avenue property . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he was proposing to take down the presently existing residence at 241 Pennsylvania Avenue and was requesting permission to construct two new residences . Mr . Iacovelli stated that six lots are being tied up to do this . Mr . Lovi stated that the issue on this development is that one cannot have two principal structures on one lot so , somehow , these six lots will have to get divided into two lots so that Mr . Iacovelli could have the two structures . Mr . Lovi commented that it is likely that parking would be on a common line . Discussion followed with respect to the question of the need for subdivision . Mr . Lovi suggested that the Board of Appeals could be requested by Mr . Iacovelli to vary the requirement for there being no more than one principal building on one lot , however , if not granted , the question is where is it best to draw a new lot line . Chairman May stated that he thought the best way for Mr . Iacovelli was to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals first . Mr . Lovi offered that Mr . Iacovelli has six lots so he is not resubdividing anything , noting that there is a lot line there . Mr . Lovi commented that if the matter is looked at that way , then Mr . Iacovelli is only asking for the parking area to • straddle between the two new residences . Speaking to Mr . Iacovelli , Chairman May stated that the Board would recommend that he go to the Zoning Board of Appeals with his proposal because it seems to be a matter of variance rather than a matter of subdivision . Mr . Iacovelli thanked the Board for its time and considertion . DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS The Board had before it those Draft Amendments having to do with Dish Antennae and Mobile Homes which were before it at its meeting of July 2 , 1985 . Chairman May , referring to the Draft Amendment on Dish Antennae , asked Mr . Lovi if there were any comments from the Town Building Inspector , Mr . Cartee . Mr . Lovi stated that there were not at this time because Mr . Cartee has been on vacation . Chairman May stated that he thought it important for the Board to have comments from Mr . Cartee . Mr . Lovi inquired if Chairman May was referring to both the Dish Antennae proposal and the Mobile Homes proposal , with Chairman May responding , yes , on both . With respect to any draft amendment pertaining to Mobile Homes , Chairman May reiterated his liking of a definition which refers to a permanent foundation . The hour being quite late , Chairman May stated that discussion of the proposed Draft Amendments would continue in September . PG Planning Board 18 July 16 , 1985 . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the July 16 , 1985 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10030 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy Mo Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .