HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-10-01 awl
• TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 1 , 1985
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , October 1 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , Edward Mazza ,
Barbara Schultz , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Peter M .
Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) ,
Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Esther Eckert , Walter Eckert , Bill Johanson , Daisy
Johanson , William F . Albern , Alethea C . Hall , William
L . Hall , Robert G . Berggren , Sam Matychak , Louis
Michael , Walter Lane , George Brenner , Marie Mello ,
Harold Fishburne , Merrill E . Hartz , Gary Wilhelm ,
Gordon W . Maycumber , Jack Eckert , Paul A . Jacobs , Ted
Huntington ( WTKO News ) .
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 40 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 September 23 , 1985 and September 26 , 1985 ,
respectively .
Chairman May announced that the McCord / Scarofile Subdivision
Hearing had been cancelled for this evening .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 2 , 1985
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mrs . Virginia
Langhans :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and
hereby does approve the Minutes of the July 2 , 1985 meeting of said
Planning Board , as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Schultz .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 16 , 1985
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn
• Grigorov :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and
Planning Board 2 October 1 , 1985
• hereby does approve the Minutes of the July 16 , 1985 meeting of said
Planning Board , as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Schultz , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Mazza .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
STAFF REPORT - Peter M . Lovi
Mr . Lovi stated that the only thing he would like to talk about
is a comprehensive plan study that he was doing with respect to
investigating locations in the Town that would be suitable for the
siting of trailer parks . Mr . Lovi stated that , as the Board knows ,
trailers and trailer parks are not permitted at all in the Town ,
although we are looking at a zoning ordinance amendment which would
allow a zone to be established . Mr . Lovi stated that what he is
doing in this study is starting off from a series of guidelines and
going through all the land in the Town and gradually excluding all
those that would not meet those guidelines and , then , evaluating
guidelines for those that remain . Mr . Lovi stated that he can
present a summary of this later tonight when we talk about trailer
parks , and , the Board can ask him to make them more restrictive or
less restrictive .
Chairman May asked if there were any questions for Mr . Lovi .
There were none at this time .
BUILDING INSPECTOR ' S REPORT - Lewis D . Cartee
Mr . Cartee ' s Report of Building Permits Issued for the month of
September 1985 showed that 17 permits were issued for $ 220 , 576 . 00 of
improvements , as compared with September 1984 when 21 permits were
issued for $ 348 , 899 . 00 of improvements .
Chairman May asked Mr . Cartee if he had anything he wished to
add , with Mr . Cartee responding , no , and adding that the Board has
his Report in hand . Chairman May asked if there were any questions ;
there were none . Chairman May thanked Mr . Cartee for his report .
DISCUSSION OF THE CLUSTER REGULATIONS
Speaking to Mr . Lovi , Chairman May noted that he was going to
bring back some additional information from the Board ' s last meeting
on this subject [ September 23 , 1985 ] .
Mr . Lovi , commenting that that was correct , stated that ,
starting on Page 21 of the Subdivision Regulations [ Article V , Rules
• and Regulations for Clustered Subdivisions ] , there are a series of
restrictions which pertain only to cluster subdivisions which are
more stringent and give the Planning Board a great deal more control
Planning Board 3 October 1 , 1985
• over a development than over traditional site plan review , and , with
these we do have that sort of authority here , specifically , on Page
22 , we regulate the number of dwelling units permitted - - Section 32 ,
Paragraph 4 , Sub - paragraphs a ) through h ) - - and there is some
language setting out the authority . Mr . Lovi read : " Considerations
which the Planning Board may use in order to limit the number of
dwelling units or lots which may be developed in any clustered
subdivision include but are not limited to : "
Mr . Lovi read sub - paragraph a ) : " will such a development be
substantially and materially injurious to the ownerhsip , use and
enjoyment of other property in the vicinity or neighborhood ; " Mr .
Lovi commented that this is the sort of broad language that you find
in ordinances and asked , what does it really mean ? Mr . Lovi stated
that he believed that , as with the other consideration that follow ,
the Planning Board has the authority , under these Regulations , to
start with a number that is physically possible , that is , grid out a
subdivision , multiply every lot by two , and that gives you what we
call the upper bound , provided it is not over 3 . 5 units per gross
acre . Mr . Lovi explained that , in other words , you meet all the
requirements , and that is , say , 62 , and you multiply by two which
equals 124 , which you would then cluster , as in Commonland .
Mr . Lovi stated that these considerations , in Paragraph 4 , give
the Planning Board the authority , under certain circumstances , to
• reduce that number below what would be permitted , because it
recognizes the different aspects of " cluster " which are , in fact ,
different from regular subdivisions . Mr . Lovi stated that the only
caution he would give to the Board is that whenever the Board does
apply restrictions , it should be reasonable in following the
guidelines , and , the Board should have as much evidence as possible
to show that the subdivision which it is restricting , the Board will ,
in fact , have the facts that give it the right to restrict the number
of units , such that it gives the subdivider due process and that
subdivider knows what the Board is doing and has access to the same
material and has time to respond .
Mr . Lovi stated that there are several other sections in the
Cluster Regulations which go beyond merely limiting the number of
units which would be permitted , but get into the real site planning
considerations and which we never could get into in a conventional
subdivision plan , where we only see lot lines and not color of
shingles . Mr . Lovi noted that , if you look on Page 23 , Section 34 ,
Regulation of Exterior Characteristics , the Board can modify the
proposed development so that the construction phasing , and other
aspects , are as compatible as possible with other developments and
the comprehensive plan of the community . Mr . Lovi pointed out that
the Board may consider the view that adjacent owners have , as public
property , and what would be that view . Mr . Lovi commented that , if
you had a subdivision which was going to interfere with the view , say
there was open field and slope and ten buildings in there , and
• because of the angle , it will block property of that view , the Sub
Regs would give the Board the authority to relocate that house so
that the view is not unduly affected . Mr . Lovi commented further
w
Planning Board 4 October 1 , 1985
. that in the case of Cornell University , had there been existing
landowners who said they have this magnificent view of Cayuga Lake
and this will block it , the Board , if it established good purpose ,
could make a change in the site plan . Mr . Lovi pointed out that
other places do this sort of thing , commenting that this is not a
Trotskyite authority .
Mrs . Grigorov noted that Mr . Lovi had said that the Board cannot
do this kind of thing in other subdivisions . Mr . Lovi said that that
was right , adding that in cluster , because of the modification of lot
and area requirements and the flexibility the Board has , it is given
additional authority to say , yes , you are going to give the developer
flexibility in siting , but , you have very strong powers to control
siting . Continuing , Mr . Lovi stated that the Board could also
regulate the size , type , and color and shape of materials ; it could
require a certain range of materials . Mr . Lovi stated that the Board
could permit a range from , for example , say , within these " five "
types , adding that there is this kind of expertise on this Board , and
it has that authority and could use it well . Mr . Lovi stated that it
was true that Commonland was brought in by an architect and had
certain attractive elements , but the subdivider may not always be the
developer who may build many different buildings , and the Board might
require that developer to present a series of building plans , a
series of elevations , so that you know , and the public knows , ahead
of time , as part of the subdivision review , what type of housing ,
• what sort of look , this community is going to have . Mr . Lovi stated
that this is not the kind of control that you have in a conventional
subdivision . Mr . Lovi offered , if you take Eastern Heights , for
example , you can see many varieties of architecture - - Georgian ,
Italianate - - which is all well and good , but there is no site plan
control over that . Mr . Lovi stated that he was certainly not an
advocate of all houses in a development being the same , but , perhaps ,
the facades could be regulated . Mr . Lovi commented that the Board
may not need to get into the exact styling of every individual house ,
however , you may if you want to . Mr . Lovi pointed out that these are
open- ended regulations and as long as the steps taken are reasonable ,
they are going to be upheld .
Mr . Mazza wondered , if that is attractive , why could we not pass
an amendment to our zoning ordinance that says - - in our subdivision
regulations we have those same controls - - such that any house in
that subdivision is going to have certain features . Mr . Lovi
responded , you could , but there has to be a public purpose that the
legislation is serving , It was noted that the case may be made that
all subdivisions come under subdivision control . Mr . Lovi offered
that it is more clear that because cluster subdivisions are of a
different kind and they do allow something different , site plans and
other restrictions are supportable .
Mr . Mazza stated that he almost gets the feeling that we look at
clusters as something negative and , if you are going to do that sort
• of negative thing , you have to do all that " additional stuff " in the
cluster reqs . Chairman May commented that they may offer more
incompatibility to a neighborhood than a standard subdivision . Mrs .
• Planning Board 5 October 1 , 1985
• Langhans stated that you are dealing with units that are together , so
you would want each to be sort of the same , or harmonious , but the
individual owner may want " green " or " pink " . Mr . Lovi offered that
Mrs . Langhans had made the case for those kinds of clusters we have
seen . Mr . Lovi stated that you could have a clustered subdivision
where every single unit is a single unit , detached . Mrs . Langhans
wondered why that would be a " cluster " , with Mr . Lovi responding ,
because of a smaller size lot , but with the number of units not
exceeding that which could be built as a standard subdivision . Mr .
Lovi stated that they could be single family homes , adding that it is
the size of the lots that is at issue . Mr . Lovi stated that , for
there to be development of affordable housing these days , the problem
is the size of the lot - - large lots are expensive and the reason
cluster is attractive to builders , clustering allowing for more
economical development . Mrs . Langhans stated that that was not her
perception of cluster . Mr . Lovi offered that that gets to the heart
of the matter .
Chairman May stated that Mr . Mazza had pointed out that there is
more control through cluster . Chairman May stated that one of the
things that came out of our last meeting on the 23rd of September was
that many of the things , if not all - - in fact some of the people
felt all - - that were being asked for in the duplex amendment already
existed within the cluster regulations and , therefore , the question
arose as to why we were trying to set up a separate amendment .
Chairman May stated that Mr . Lovi was asked to specifically to point
out these controls that we have in the present cluster regulations in
order to address specific concerns related to duplexes in a
development .
Mr . Lovi stated that in a development that is large enough to be
a cluster - - not infill development - - there are three very clear
restrictions , being , the number of units , regulation of exterior
characteristics , and the restriction of the number of unrelated
persons . Referring to Article V [ Rules and Regulations for Clustered
Subdivisions ] , Section 35 , page 24 , of the Subdivision Regulations ,
Mr . Lovi pointed out that the Board has the authority to make
specific limitations on the number of unrelated persons who may be
entitled to live in either a unit or in the whole subdivision . Mr .
Lovi , asking - - why is that a problem - - stated - - because the way
our zoning ordinance is structured , the number of persons permitted
to live in a one - family house and a two - family house are one and the
same , which is three , adding , whether that is intended or not , which
may be an arguable point , it is the case . Mr . Lovi stated , so , in a
cluster where each house is a single family you would automatically
double the number of persons who could live there , therefore , these
cluster regulations were written to permit restricting the number of
unrelated persons , for example , as in Commonland , where 124 units
times three could have allowed 372 people . Mr . Lovi offered that you
want to have the authority to restrict the number of unrelated
persons , and you do have that authority . Mr . Lovi stated that that
• is really all he had to say .
Chairman May thanked Mr . Lovi and stated that he thought we
Planning Board 6 October 1 , 1985
. should leave that and go on to our next agenda item , unless the Board
has any questions for Mr . Lovi . There were no questions .
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( FROM SEPTEMBER 17 , 1985 ) : CONSIDERATION OF
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 7 -LOT SUBDIVISION AT 118
COMPTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 . ROBERT BERGGREN ,
OWNER / SUBDIVIDER .
Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 09 P . M . Mr . Berggren was
present .
Chairman May asked the Secretary to read aloud the report
prepared by Assistant Town Engineer , Robert Flumerfelt . The
Secretary read :
" MEMORANDUM
TO : Peter Lovi
FROM : Bob Flumerfelt
RE : Berggren Subdivision - Compton Road
DATE : October 1 , 1985
On Friday , September 27 , 1985 , you and I met with several owners
of property adjoining this proposed subdivision . It was raining
heavily and , in that respect , it was a good time for us to be there
as one of the group ' s major concerns is what provisions will be made
• in the new subdivision for handling surface water runoff .
It appears that , even in relatively dry periods , there are soggy
areas in that locality . Mr . Michael , the neighboring property owner
to the west , pointed out such an area on the east side of his lot
where a dump truck had sunk in significantly even in the driest part
of this summer . The Tompkins County U . S . D . A . Soil Survey indicates
the predominant soil in this area is Erie channery silt loam , a soil
type that exhibits a seasonally high water table and slow
permeability . I believe it is quite important , therefore , that in
new development in this area careful attention be given to stormwater
drainage provisions and siting and design of sewage disposal systems .
Surface water drainage from this proposed subdivision should be
handled in a manner that will not add to drainage problems that some
of the neighbors are apparently already experiencing .
My recommendation is that Mr . Berggren submit a stormwater
drainage plan for the 15 ± acre parcel to be subdivided before the
Town grants final subdivision approval . The plan should show
contours at a 5 - foot contour interval , existing water courses ,
proposed drainage swales , proposed roadway grades , and gradients and
direction of flow of proposed roadside ditches . Culvert locations ,
sizes and slopes should be indicated . With regard to sewage disposal
provisions , we should be sure that the Tompkins County Health
Department has approved the design of sewage disposal systems . "
Chairman May asked Mr . Berggren if he had had the contour map
done as yet . Mr . Berggren responded , no , not yet , adding that as far
as sewage disposal , he has not designed that yet , but he has talked
to the Health Department . Mr . Berggren stated that he would suggest
that he would like to have preliminary approval on this and , before
Planning Board 7 October 1 , 1985
final , he would come in with the maps . Mr . Berggren stated that he
has talked to Mr . Flumerfelt and he was aware of what he [ Flumerfelt ]
needs .
Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi if there were anything he wished to
add . Mr . Lovi stated that he did go out with Mr . Flumerfelt on
Friday and he concurred with his recommendation . Mr . Lovi stated
that we do have a subdivision map which would be suitable for
preliminary approval if that was the Board ' s pleasure , adding that
the granting of preliminary approval in no way implies that the Board
would grant final approval , and further adding , as long as Mr .
Berggren and the public understands that . Mr . Lovi noted the
recommendations indicated by Mr . Flumerfelt for final approval - -
contour , directions , etc . Mr . Lovi noted one matter which Mr .
Flumerfelt had recommended which would be somewhat difficult to get
because of the review policies of the Health Department , and that
would be an approval of the provisions for sewage disposal , since ,
usually they do not approve a plan until this Board has given its
approval . Mr . Lovi noted that we have usually made approval
contingent upon Health Department approval . Mr . Lovi pointed out
that the Health Department has a five - lot minimum for what it
considers a realty subdivision , adding that he has discussed this
with Mr . Fabbroni and it is their opinion that this subdivision , as
it is completely proposed , is seven lots , with only three presented
now , as Stage I . Mr . Lovi stated that , certainly , the impacts , when
fully developed , are for seven lots , and , as the soil type is
• predominantly Erie channery silt loam across that land , it is
reasonable to ask for Health Department approval for Phase I and
Phase II unless the Health Department deemed it okay .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he was looking at this plat ,
and the requirements for Preliminary Approval , and it seems a little
deficient . Town Attorney Barney asked if there were waivers in
place . Mr . Lovi stated that the Planning Board has the authority ,
under Section 10 [ page 51 of the Subdivision Regulations , to waive
any specifications or provisions under certain circumstances . Mr .
Lovi stated that it has been the practice of this Board in similar
subdivisions - - two or three lots - - not to require the full list of
items in Article VI [ page 251 . Mr . Lovi stated that the Board could ,
of course , if it wanted to , however , Mr . Berggren ' s Preliminary
Subidivision Map [ " Schembri - Hollister Estates " , dated September 16 ,
1982 , amended March 27 , 1985 , further amended July 29 , 1985 ] , is very
similar to those which the Planning Board has approved for
preliminary subdivision approval .
Mr . Mazza wondered what purpose would be served by giving
preliminary subdivision approval tonight when we do not have the
drainage worked out in a way that we know is workable , adding that he
did not see that information , and , unless Mr . Berggren can tell him
that the Board is going to have that , it may impact the design . Mr .
Mazza commented that , usually , when we do preliminary , it seems on
• more minor things .
Mrs . Grigorov stated that she and other Board members went up to
1
Planning Board 8 October 1 , 1985
• the site on Sunday , adding that it seemed to her that three houses
were not going to make the situation any worse , and further adding
that it is a very large piece of land . Mrs . Grigorov stated that
they know , now , the size of the lots and the number of houses , adding
that she did not know if he needs this for some other purpose .
Chairman May commented that , possibly , preliminary approval might
mislead Mr . Berggren in some of his development - - either him or
someone else .
Mr . Berggren offered that he talked to Mr . Flumerfelt and he
sees no problem with the drainage , adding that , basically , he is
doing it to appease the neighbors . Mr . Klein noted that that is not
what he says in his report , adding that when we looked at it , it was
rather dry . Mrs . Langhans pointed out that that was only two days
after the hurricane , adding that there were some soggy spots . Mr .
Klein stated that Mr . Michael ' s house is at the bottom of the slope ,
adding that the concern with the high slope is spillage from the
septic fields . Mr . Klein stated that he thought Mr . Flumerfelt ' s
report summarized the observed situation very well , adding that he
tended to agree with Mr . Mazza , further adding that there are a lot
of waivers here that we would have to grant in order to do
preliminary , and further adding that we need to see more detail . Mr .
Klein stated that the site slopes to the back , adding that he was not
sure how some of those ditches are going to work out , and commenting
that it may be chanelling into other lots . Mrs . Langhans offered
• that it may be to the back and described a common spot . Mr . Berggren
stated that that is where Mr . Flumerfelt wants the drainage to go to .
Mr . Klein commented that there are no sewage systems there . Mr .
Berggren , noting again that he talked to the Health Department ,
stated that he can get approval from the Health Department for them ,
adding that they did not know what the Board wanted and if he could
tell them what the Board wanted it would help . Mr . Berggren stated
that he asked them that same question about sewage flowing into the
fields and they said " NO " that is why they design the sewage systems
the way they do .
Chairman May stated that he thought it was important here to
have the Town Engineer approve a drawing , adding that he has
indicated problems and he wants to see a contour map to show how Mr .
Berggren is handling the drainage area . Chairman May stated that he
thought the Board needs an opinion from the Town Engineer as to a
specific proposal . Chairman May reiterated his opinion to the public
as to something specific .
Mr . Louis Michael , 116 Compton Road , spoke from the floor and
asked where Mr . Berggren was going to drain " this " . Chairman May
responded that that question was not appropriate at this time .
Chairman May stated that the Board has asked for the Town Engineer ' s
opinion against a specific plan .
A gentleman spoke from the floor and asked when " they " are
• proposing to come up this road with sewer and water . Chairman May
stated that this Board cannot answer that question , suggesting that
they go to the Town Board and ask for that information .
Planning Board 9 October 1 , 1985
• Town Attorney Barney addressed Chairman May and asked if Mr .
Berggren were clear on what he is required under " this " section ,
adding that there are an awful lot of things . Town Attorney Barney
suggested that , in fairness to him , the Board should tell him what it
is willing to waiver , or , perhaps , it should delegate that to Mr .
Lovi . Mr . Lovi offered that we have a good deal of this information
in hand . Mrs . Langhans pointed out that pages 25 and 26 of the Sub
Regs have the list .
Speaking to Mr . Berggren , Chairman May stated that ,
realistically , he did not think he could make the October 15th
meeting . Mr . Mazza agreed , adding that if he thought he could do it ,
he would suggest that he go for it . Mr . Berggren stated that this
thing has been put off for six weeks now , adding that we are into
Fall and almost into Winter . Mr . Mazza commented that the Board is
trying to do it in the most economical way for him .
MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the matter
of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed
Schembri - Hollister Estates be and hereby is adjourned to October 29 ,
1985 , at 8 : 00 p . m . , for consideration of the materials that Mr .
Berggren has been requested to get .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
_
Aye May , Grigorov , Mazza , Schultz , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of the subdivision as proposed
by Mr . Berggren duly ajourned at 8 : 38 p . m . , and announced to the
public the specific adjournment of the matter to October 29 , 1986 , at
8 : 00 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR A 2 - LOT
SUBDIVISION OF . 812 ACRES AT 1048 DANBY ROAD ; TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL 39 - 1 - 12 . JANETTE McCORD AND RON SCAROFILE ,
OWNERS / SUBDIVIDERS .
Chairman May repeated his announcement that this matter had been
cancelled for tonight .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE ADDITION
OF A CHEMICAL STORAGE BUILDING TO GENERAL STORES WAREHOUSE # l . TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL 64 - 1 - 1 . CORNELL UNIVERSITY , OWNER / DEVELOPER .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 40 p . m . Mr . Merritt E . Hartz , Director of
• Facilities , Mr . Gary Wilhelm , Architect , Mr . Gordon Maycumber ,
Director of Life Safety , and Mr . Jack Eckert , all of Cornell
University , were present .
Planning Board 10 October 1 , 1985
• The following documents were before the Board .
1 . Long Environmental Assessment Form as completed , signed , and
submitted by Henry E . Doney under date of September 24 , 1985
[ Part I , 7 pages ] , with attachment , as follows :
" Cornell University
Life Safety Services and Insurance
Toboggan Lodge , Ithaca , New York 14853
July 11 , 1984
To . General Stores
From : Life Safety Services and Environmental Health
Subject : Emergency Procedures for Chemical Spills
The General Stores chemical inventory has been reviewed and
all identifiable chemicals have been assigned the appropriate
U . S . Department of Transportation identification number .
Also , the National Fire Protection Associate Standard 704
has been applied to each item identified as a hazardous
material .
The NFPA 704 Standard defines each chemical and assigns a
number from 0 - 4 for each of three categories ; Health ,
Flammability , Reactivity , and a notation of the material if the
material is water reactive ( W ) or an oxidizer ( OXY ) .
Each number indicates the severity of the hazard for each
of the categories . The NFPA 704 Standard provides only a
• general guideline and the numerical system tends to treat
materials in the most severe light .
Example : 1726 Aluminum Chloride 3 - 0 - 2 -W
Using the 704 Standard the following information relative
to Aluminum Chloride is :
Health - 3 Extremely dangerous to enter vapor or
liquid .
Flammability - 0 Will not burn .
Reactivity - 2 Violent chemical change ( reaction )
possible .
W Reactive with water .
Procedure : Notify Life Safety Services
immediately , evacuate the immediate
area only . Ventilate the area by
opening doors and windows .
It should be remembered that dry materials such as
crystals , flakes , chips , powders , etc . , will cause less of a
problem than liquids as long as they do not mix with other
materials , such as organic oils , to form a reactive mixture .
Also , dry materials are easier to contain and usually do
not give off noxious or toxic fumes .
Spilled liquids are more difficult to contain and may give
off toxic or corrosive vapors . Liquids can usually be contained
with vermiculite .
Small quantities of spilled materials are less hazardous
than large quantities .
• In the event of any spill , notify Life Safety Services
immediately and an emergency response will be made to your
location either to advise General Stores personnel in the clean
Planning Board 11 October 1 , 1985
. up of the material safely or to actually perform the clean up
task . ( Life Safety Services , 256 - 3741 Public Safety ,
256 - 1111 . )
Deliveries of leaking or damaged chemical containers should
not be accepted .
A copy of the Department of Transportation ' Emergency
Response Guide ' is being provided also as a reference .
The D . O . T . identification number corresponds to a number
listing appropriate actions and precautions in a chemical
emergency . "
[ Six -page Emergency Responde Guide attached . ]
The Long EAF was reviewed and recommended upon by the Town
Planner , Peter M . Lovi , under date of September 26 , 1985 [ Parts
II and III ] , as follows :
" PART II : Project Impacts and Their Magnitudes
RE : Cornell University Chemical Storage Relocation
Impacts on Land
1 . There will be no adverse environmental impact as a result
of physical changes to the project site . Regrading and
fill with minor grade changes are the only significant
• physical changes which will be made to the project site .
2 . There are no unusual landforms on the site which would be
adversely affected by this project .
Impact on Water
3 . There are no protected water bodies which would be affected
by this project .
4 . There are no non -protected water bodies which would be
affected as a result of this project .
5 . This project will , have no effect on groundwater quality .
6 . This project has a small potential impact on drainage flow
and surface water runoff . The construction of the new
facility will not appreciably increase surface runoff or
soil erosion , given the moderate slope of the site and the
small size of the building .
Impact on Air
7 . This project will not have an adverse environmental impact
on air quality .
. Impact on Plants and Animals
8 . There are no known threatened or endangered species of
Planning Board 12 October 1 , 1985
. plant or animal which will be adversely affected by this
project .
9 . There will be no adverse environmental impact on non -
endangered or non - threatened species of plants and animals .
Impact on Visual Resources
10 . The project will have no adverse impact on views , vistas ,
or other aspects of the neighborhood or community visual
character . The project is a warehouse which will match the
existing land use .
Impact on Historical Resources
11 . This project will not impact upon any site or structure of
historic , pre - historic or paleontological importance .
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
12 . This project will have no impact on the quality and
quantity of existing and future open spaces or recreational
opportunities in the community .
Impact on Transportation
• 13 . This project will not significantly affect the existing
transportation system . The relocation of one truck per
week from the Humphreys Service Building storage facility
to the proposed storage facility is a negligible change on
the overall level of traffic in the area .
Impact on Energy
14 . This project will have no effect on the community ' s sources
of fuel and energy .
Impact on Noise
15 . There will be no significant odors , noises , glare ,
vibration or electrical disturbances as a result of this
project .
Impact on Health and Hazards
16 . This project may have a beneficial impact on public health
and safety . At present , a wide variety of chemicals are
kept in the existing chemical storage facility ( see list
attached ) . Some of these chemicals are extremely
dangerous , flammable , or chemically reactive . The existing
facility , located in the Humphreys Service Building , is
• adjacent to a large residential area in the City and active
portion of the Cornell Campus . In the event of a fire , a
considerable number of people could be put at risk .
Planning Board 13 October 1 , 1985
• By relocating this facility to the " Orchards " and
building a new structure , the fire hazard has
been lessened and the potential population
affected by a fire and a toxic smoke plume is
reduced . This new facility will be constructed
to building and life safety codes and it has been
stated by the project ' s sponsors that this
warehouse will be safer than the existing
chemical storage warehouse located in the
Humphreys Service Building .
Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
17 . This project will have no significant impact on the growth
and character of the existing community . The character of
the area is presently service buildings , research orchards ,
and warehouses serving the Cornell community . The surroun -
ding land in the area is owned by the University and its
rate of growth is determined by their needs and priorities .
It is presumed that this facility does not conflict with
the University ' s master plan .
18 . The project may be compatible with the zoning of this area .
The " Orchards " is zoned Residence District R30 . In this
zoning district the permitted uses include , " . . . any
institution of higher learning including dormitory
• accommodations by approval of the Board of Appeals . The
application for such approval shall be referred to the
Planning Board and no final action shall be taken unless
the Planning Board has submitted its report or failed to
submit its report within 30 days . " When reviewing this
project , the Zoning Board of Appeals will act as Lead
Agency in the SEQR review and will need to consider the
requirements of Section 77 , Number 7 .
19 . There is no public controversy concerning the project which
has been received by this reviewer as of September 26 ,
1985 . "
" PART III : Reviewer ' s Recommendations
This project is an Unlisted action according to Local Law
# 3 , 1980 . A Long Environmental Assessment Form has been
completed and reviewed for this project because there are
particular questions relating to the materials to be stored
which could be better answered using this document .
Most of the issues reviewed above have been determined to
have no adverse environmental impact . The evidence
supporting these determinations has been gathered from
Comprehensive Planning Studies and technical appendices
• prepared by the reviewer and by the Tompkins County
Planning Department .
Planning Board 14 October 1 , 1985
• The principal issue of environmental concern is the effect
of this project on the fire protection system . The
information presented indicates that this project will
improve the fire safety of chemical storage at Cornell and
will reduce the general risk of this storage to the
population in this area . I do not foresee any adverse
impact on the environment as a result of this action and I
recommend a declaration of negative environmental
significance . "
2 . Very large Map , entitled " Cornell University , Ithaca , New York " ,
showing all of Cornell ' s properties in the Town of Ithaca , the
City of Ithaca , and the Village of Cayuga Heights , dated June
1982 , and also showing , marked in , the proposed addition to the
M . S . O . Warehouses , Salt Storage Building , and the MSO Garage ,
3 . Site Plan , Chemical Storage Addition , Warehouse # 1 , Sheet No . 1 ,
Approval Date - - 9 / 23 / 85 .
4 . Floor Plan , Details , Bldg . Section , Chemical Storage Addition ,
Warehouse # 1 , Sheet No . Al . Approval Date - - 9 / 25 / 85 .
5 . Mechanical , Chemical Storage Addition , Warehouse # 1 , Sheet No .
M1 , Drawing Date - - 9 / 27 / 85 ; attached thereto , Sheet M - 1 ,
dated 10 / 1 / 85 , Notes [ 5 ] .
• Mr . Hartz appeared before the Board and appended a map to the
bulletin board which he termed a partial map of Cornell University ,
and , indicating thereon , noted the area being developed , stating that
it is in the area of the Orchards . Mr . Hartz , commenting on the
modifications and changes in the area , stated that they got
permission to move the Garage Facility recently , which is under
construction . Mr . Hartz stated that the facility they are asking for
permission on this evening is a Chemical Sales area , in the form of
an addition to an existing building - - a warehouse under the
direction of Jack Eckert . Mr . Hartz stated that this facility is
presently located in the Humphreys Service Building and they are
seeking permission to relocate to this area to sell chemicals to the
academic community for whatever their desires are with regard to
teaching and research . Mr . Hartz noted that the proposed addition to
already existing General Stores Warehouse # 1 is only 24 ' by 4514 " ,
will be cinder block , and will have a mechanical room and storage
rooms , air - conditioned to meet safety regulations with regard to
temperature and ventilation , adding that it has a heating system .
Mr . Hartz stated that it has no floor drains , rather it has a curb
inside to contain any spills , adding that it has fire sprinklers .
Mr . Hartz stated that it is one - story , with a shed - type roof , has . no
basement , and it is inter - connected to " this " existing warehouse
building . Mr . Hartz stated that if there were any other details
which the Board would like to know , he or his colleagues would be
happy to answer , adding that the Board had a site plan , and also ,
• submitted tonight for the record and as part of the record , floor
plan and details and building section and mechanical
section / ventilation .
Planning Board 15 October 1 , 1985
• Speaking of the proposed addition , Mr . Mazza asked if it were
going to have doors to the outside , to the other building , or , just
how is the access flow to this building . Mr . Gary Wilhelm , Cornell
Architect , appended a drawing to the bulletin board and oriented the
drawing to the partial site plan . Mr . Wilhelm pointed out the
existing building and stated that what they are doing is opening up
an entryway through one of the bays from the pole barn . Mr . Wilhelm
described concrete block with fire retardant doors and pointed out an
emergency exit from the flammable storage area . Mr . Wilhelm pointed
out that , also , from " this corridor " there is an exit in the other
direction by fire retardant doors . Mr . Wilhelm noted that
construction will meet all New York State Code requirements and the
NFPA requirements . Mr . Mazza observed , so , people who come there to
buy chemicals will have exit ways . Mr . Wilhelm stated that those
people will not be in there , pointing out that the only people who
will come into the addition are employees of Mr . Eckert who have been
trained and who have received the material attached to the LEAF from
Life Safety , Mr . Wilhelm stated that the staff goes in and picks up
the bottles , adding that the main check - out counter is located about
over " here " [ indicating ] . Mr . Wilhelm commented that all these
orders are placed by the departments and delivered . Mr . Eckert
commented that 90 % are delivered to places like Baker Lab .
Mrs . Langhans noted that the sales counter is in the Warehouse .
Mr . Mazza , noting that these chemicals have to be obtained from some
• place , asked how they are actually delivered , wondering if there were
a receiving area . Mr . Wilhelm stated that there is a receiving area
and pointed out that it was " here " on the drawing , adding that all
deliveries come up " these docks " , are unloaded " here " , and then the
idea is to have them taken around and put into the storage area as
immediately as one can do . Mr . Wilhelm pointed out the main aisle .
Mr . Wilhelm stated that this is a distinct improvement as to how the
chemicals are handled now , commenting that , fortunately , there have
been no mishaps .
Chairman May stated that he wondered about the area from
receiving to the storage area . Mr . Wilhelm pointed out that the
chemicals are all in approved containers . Mr . Eckert stated that
they are shipped in DOT boxes . Mr . Mazza assumed that they were not
out of these boxes until they were in the storage area . Town Attrney
Barney wondered if there were a reason for not making receiving
directly into the storage area , with Mr . Wilhelm responding that that
is not required under Codes . Mr . Gordon Maycumber , Director of Life
Safety at Cornell , stated that he thought they have addressed all of
the requirements of NFPA 30 and the Building Codes . Mrs . Langhans
wondered if they were all liquids , with Mr . Eckert responding , no ,
some are dry .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he still comes back to his
question as to why they are not received directly . Mr . Maycumber
offered that it would be redundant and also expensive . Discussion
• followed as to access ways and how the material actually comes in .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he was puzzled as to why there is
not a door big enough to bring it in . Mr . Hartz spoke of elevation
Planning Board 16 October 1 , 1985
• problems , difficulties with trucks , and described certain hoists .
Mr . Hartz stated that " this " is easy access , well - lighted , etc . and
spoke of " it " being a little tough for security . Town Attorney
Barney continued to be puzzled .
Mr . Mazza wondered how many deliveries there were - - daily ? ,
weekly ? , monthly ? , yearly ? . Mr . Eckert stated that there are four
deliveries a year , that is , quarterly ; supplies are monthly . Mr .
Mazza assumed there would not be a change in suppliers , so ,
deliveries would remain at 4 times a year . Mr . Eckert stated that
there was basically one supplier . Mr . Mazza offered that they are
talking about a very small number of receipts . Mr . Wilhelm noted
that there must be a 50 - foot clearance area around this storage area .
Chairman May , noting that difficulty getting a truck in there had
been mentioned , asked if that meant there would be difficulty getting
a fire truck back into that area . Mr . Wilhelm assured the Board that
in everything they do here they recognize the necessity for fire
truck access and design according to Code . Mr . Wilhelm noted that ,
also , there is the sprinkler system and the roof has been designed
for explosion .
Chairman May asked if there were any other questions from the
Board . There were none . Chairman May asked if anyone from the
public wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the
Public Hearing at 9 : 00 p . m . and asked the Board to turn to the matter
of the Long EAF ,
• Speaking to Mr . Lovi , Chairman May noted that he had recommended
the Zoning Board of Appeals as Lead Agency in the matter of
environmental assessment . Mr . Lovi stated that that was correct ,
adding that the reasoning for that is that the zoning ordinance says
that educational institutions are permitted in R30 upon special
approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals , therefore , they are the lead
agency . Chairman May commented that he was not sure whether a
warehouse falls into that category . Mr . Mazza pointed out that Mr .
Hartz had indicated that the chemicals are used by members of the
University faculty and staff to do their procedures , so it is related
as educational . Chairman May concurred .
Chairman May asked if there were any further questions or
comments . There were none .
MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
WHEREAS :
1 . The Planning Board has reviewed an Environmental Assessment Form
on October 1 , 1985 .
2 . The Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency in the review of
this matter .
• 3 . A Public Hearing was held on October 1 , 1985 for the purpose of
considering comments of support and opposition from interested
Planning Board 17 October 1 , 1985
• parties concerning this matter and there was no public
opposition heard .
4 . The Planning Board has reviewed a site plan which describes the
action to be taken by Cornell University .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Conditional
Site Plan Approval for the construction of the chemical storage
facility as described in the following documents :
a . Site Plan , Chemical Storage Addition , Warehouse # 1 , Sheet
No . 1 , Approval Date - - 9 / 23 / 85 .
b . Floor Plan , Details , Bldg . Section , Chemical Storage
Addition , Warehouse # 1 , Sheet No . Al ,, Approval Date - -
9 / 25 / 85 .
c . Mechanical , Chemical Storage Addition , Warehouse # 1 , Sheet
No . M1 , Drawing Date - - 9 / 27 / 85 [ Progress Print dated
10 / 1 / 851 ; Sheet M- 1 , dated 10 / 1 / 85 , Notes [ 5 ] , attached .
2 . That the above -referenced Site Plan Approval is conditioned upon
the following actions :
a ) Completion of the environmental review process with the
Zoning Board of Appeals as the Lead Agency .
b ) Granting of Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals
pursuant to Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . In granting Site Plan
Approval , the Planning Board recognizes that the Zoning
Board of Appeals may attach additional conditions to any
approval it may consider .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Schultz , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of the site plan review of the
chemical storage addition to Cornell ' s General Stores Warehouse # 1
duly closed at 9 : 07 p . m .
The Secretary reminded Mr . Hartz that the Zoning Board of
Appeals meets next on October 23rd . Mr . Hartz asked if he was
correct in thinking that no action could be taken on this until the
Zoning Board acts . Chairman May stated that that was correct . Mr .
• Hartz and his colleagues thanked the Board for its time and
consideration .
Planning Board 18 October 1 , 1985
• REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING
BOARD - Carolyn Grigorov ,
Mrs . Grigorov reported that the September 11 , 1985 meeting was
held at the CFR Building at the Airport , and was a Joint Meeting of
the Tompkins County Planning Board , the Ithaca -Tompkins County
Transportation Commission , the Transportation Planning Committee , and
the Traffic Safety Board , because the program was a presentation
describing Fire / Disaster / Ambulance services in Tompkins County by
Jack Miller , County Fire and Disaster Coordinator , and Ed Olmstead ,
City of Ithaca Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Coordinator . Mrs . Grigorov
reported that there were videos and slides and the presentations were
very interesting , adding that there are thousands of " events " to
respond to in a year . Mrs . Grigorov reported that the coordination
of all the paid and volunteer personnel and the equipment from all
the different areas of the County is very impressive . Mrs . Grigorov
reported that the biggest problem is hazardous materials going
through the City by truck .
Mrs . Grigorov reported that in other business , it was noted that
many public groups and municipalities have passed resolutions
favoring Alternative " C " - - Route 96 , Mrs . Grigorov reported that
Town Engineer Fabbroni was there and brought a request from Town
Supervisor Noel Desch that they pass a resolution asking the State to
study a minor route location change in the Hospital end of new Route
96 which would go through the Paleontological Research Institute
• building so that they could get enough compensation from the State to
relocate . Mrs . Grigorov commented that that would be better for the
Hospital too and would not interfere with parking . Mrs . Grigorov
stated that she thought maybe this Board [ the Town Planning Board ]
would consider passing a resolution on one of the options .
Mrs . Grigorov reported that Mr . Liguori had reported that the
Jail / Safety building should go out to bid in October , the target
being to start work before winter on this $ 5M project . Mrs .
Grigorov , commenting that the County is always worrying about
garbage , stated that Mr . Liguori had reported that a solid waste
disposal plan was being discussed with the Board of Reps committee
and that the present costs will double , there apparently being no
reasonable alternatives to contain cost . Mrs . Grigorov stated that
DEC requirements must be met as to both environmental and health .
Mrs . Grigorov reported that Mr . Liguori had reported on the needs of
the County for more space and indicated that that study was still
underway with seven alternatives , including the Old Hospital , being
evaluated and that a decision will probably be made in a couple of
months . Mrs . Grigorov stated that , finally , Mr . Liguori had reported
on a land use study of activities at the Airport and vicinity , which
is a joint effort of Lansing Town and Village , Dryden Town , Ithaca
Town , and Tompkins County .
Chairman May thanked Mrs . Grigorov for her report and stated
• that he thought her suggestion as to this Board making a resolution
on Route 96 was very good , adding that we should do that . Town
Attorney Barney cautioned against such action , stating that he was
Planning Board 19 October 1 , 1985
• concerned about the Town speaking with two voices . Mrs . Grigorov
suggested that , maybe , the Planning Board could consider a
recommendation to the Town Board with respect to Route 96 . Mr . Lovi
wondered to whom this recommendation would go . There did not appear
to be an answer to Mr . Lovi ' s question . Town Attorney Barney stated
that his feeling was that the Town Board was holding off to see which
way would really happen .
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
1 . Mobile Homes
The following document was being discussed . Mr . Paul Jacobs was
present for the discussion .
" MOBILE HOME AMENDMENT Revised : September 25 , 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 .
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 .
Planning Board 20 October 1 , 1985
• 2 . A new Article and Sections are added to the Ordinance . The text
of this Article and Sections is given in Appendix A .
[ End of Page 11
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 .
SECTION 3 . Accessory Uses . The following accessory uses are
permitted in Residence District R5 :
1 . Automobile parking and garages , subject to the further
requirements of this Article .
2 . Structures and open land for recreation , intended for use by the
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 may 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 51000 square feet . The arrangement of lots in the park shall
facilitate the efficient development of land and permit the
convenient access of emergency vehicles .
3 . 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 .
• [ End of Page 21
Planning Board 21 October 1 , 1985
• 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 . Parking spaces are not permitted in the buffer
yards .
5 . Access Drives and Walkways : 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
( 10 % ) 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 storage structures
in convenient locations . These storage areas shall be enclosed
and secure and may be located in a common building . 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 .
( End of Page 31
• 9 . Signs . A single sign for the mobile home park is permitted .
The size and other characteristics shall be regulated by the
Town of Ithaca Sign Law .
Planning Board 22 October 1 , 1985
. 10 . Permits . An operating permit shall be required for all mobile
home parks . This permit shall be renewable annually . The
Building Inspector shall make periodic inspections of the mobile
home park to determine whether such park is in compliance with
the terms and conditions of the permit , the Zoning Ordinance and
the site plan approval . The fee for the permit shall be in
accordance with the following schedule :
1 - 4 units $ 25 . 00
5 - 9 units $ 50 . 00
10 - 24 units $ 100 . 00
25 - 49 units $ 200 . 00
50 - 100 units $ 400 . 00
over 100 units ( Number of Units ) X $ 5 . 00
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 and approved by the Tompkins County Health
Department ,
Revised : September 25 , 1985
Peter M . Lovi
Town Planner "
• ( End of Page 4 ]
Mr . Lovi noted that the changes that were discussed at the last
meeting were several - - access drives and walkways , storage areas ,
and buffer yards with no parking in them . Mr . Lovi stated that he
had drafted up a new proposal from all of these suggestions , but he
had not distributed it . Mr . Lovi stated that he would like to
apprise the Board of a proposed new section - - " Permits " . Mr . Lovi
read aloud , as follows :
" 10 . Permits . An operating permit shall be required for all mobile
home parks . This permit shall be renewable annually . The
Building Inspector shall make periodic inspections of the mobile
home park to determine whether such park is in compliance with
the terms and conditions of the permit , the Zoning Ordinance and
the site plan approval . The fee for the permit shall be in
accordance with the following schedule :
1 - 4 units $ 25 . 00
5 - 9 units $ 50 . 00
10 - 24 units $ 100 . 00
25 - 49 units $ 200 . 00
50 - 100 units $ 400 . 00
over 100 units ( Number of Units ) X $ 5 . 00
Mr . Lovi explained his rationale for proposing the inclusion of
• this section on Permits as there being no economies of scale in the
fee and , this way , unlike the Health Department when it reviews the
sanitary system where there are some economies of scale , a building
Planning Board 23 October 1 , 1985
inspector inspecting 100 units , he thought , requires twice the time
of doing 50 .
Mr . Klein asked about size , with Mr . Lovi responding that
various locations were studied .
Chairman May suggested that , before doing that , he would like to
ask Mr . Jacobs what he thought of these modifications . Mr . Lovi
noted that the biggest change is the " permit " . Mr . Jacobs stated
that , as far as the permit goes , that is about what he thought would
come out of it . Mr . Jacobs stated that the sign thing is okay and
also the storage is okay .
Mr . Lovi stated that the question of locations will be important
when a time comes to look at a specific trailer park such as Mr .
Jacobs ' .
Mr . Lovi had with him a seven - page Draft Comprehensive Plan
Study relative to Trailer Park Locations , in addition to these seven
pages of text , were six pages of maps - - portions of the zoning
ordinance , marked up . Mr . Lovi stated that what he did was use the
most recent zoning map , a copy of which the Board members had been
given , and then he made up a series of guidelines and , on the basis
of those guidelines , he eliminated the areas in the Town which would
not meet those guidelines , adding that the Board should question him
on those guidelines . Mr . Lovi stated that that process took it down
to a much smaller number of areas in the Town and , then , within that ,
he looked for parcels which were greater than 15 acres , which is the
minimum size we have indicated for the zone . Mr . Lovi stated that ,
on that basis , he has a number of sites which could be rezoned to a
mobile home park district .
Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Lovi if he had looked at 15 -acre parcels as
such or , say , three times five - acre parcels , with Mr . Lovi
responding , no , just those that are 15 acres presently . Chairman May
assumed that Mr . Lovi had a gross number of parcels which could be
developed right now using that as the only criteria . Mr . Lovi
replied that that was not the way it was done . Mr . Lovi stated that
he started with guidelines , adding that they disregard large areas of
the Town . Mr . Lovi began reciting the guidelines , as follows :
111 . Property must be in a Residence District 30 or Agricultural
Zone . This guideline was established to exclude from
consideration any land largely developed with conventional , site
built homes . The justification for this exclusion is the
judgment that trailer parks are perceived by most homeowners as
diminishing the value of their property . Given this perception ,
it will be difficult to justify the rezoning of existing R15 or
R9 lands for trailer park use .
2 . Property must be at least 1000 feet from any existing Residence
•
District 9 , Residence District 15 , or Multi le Residence
District . This guideline was used to establish a buffer between
the medium density residential areas and those lands which are
Planning Board 24 October 1 , 1985
suitable for trailer parks . The distance of 1000 feet is a
judgment of what a reasonable standard should be . This standard
is used consistently in other guidelines . "
Town Attorney Barney pointed out , at this point , with respect to
the proposed draft ordinance on mobile home parks , that Section 1
[ Location ) states that a " . . . Residence District R5 may be established
in any Residence or Agricultural District of the Town . " Mr . Lovi
stated that if it says that , it would have to be changed .
Mr . Lovi continued reciting the guidelines .
3 . Property must be at least 1000 feet from any municipal boundary
or State Park . This guideline was established to extend to
adjacent municipalities and State Parks the same level of
protection which we provide to our R9 , R15 and Multiple
Residence zones .
4 . Property must be at least 1000 feet from a wetland , floodplain ,
or Critical Environmental Area . This guideline was established
to exclude trailer parks from low- lying areas which are prone to
flooding , or environmentally sensitive areas , such as wetlands
or Critical Environmental Areas . It is a judgment that the
sewage disposal requirements and the density of land use
associated with a trailer park is incompatible with sensitive
• environmental areas .
5 . Property may not front on a State Highway . This guideline was
established to exclude from consideration open land adjacent to
well - traveled public highways . The justification for this
exclusion is that State Highways in the more rural sections of
the Town , particularly State Routes 96B , 96 , 79 , and 89 are
scenic ' gateways ' to the Ithaca Area . It is a judgment that
trailer parks are visually incompatible with the existing and
future character of these roads . The cost of designing ,
landscaping or otherwise buffering trailer parks in order to
make them more compatible with the scenic character of our
gateway roads is unnecessary when there is adequate suitable
land elsewhere in the Town .
6 . Property should not be visible from a Scenic Road , Panoramic
View , or Distance Landscape View . This guideline was
established to protect the scenic qualities of County and Town
Roads which have scenic characteristics similar to the ' gateway
roads ' described in # 5 . The base data for the Scenic Roads ,
Panoramic Views , and Distance Landscape Views were taken from a
Planning Study prepared by the Tompkins County Planning
Department and included in the Technical Appendix to the Town
Comprehensive Plan .
7 . Property may not be built on slopes in excess of 25 per cent .
• This guideline was established to exclude land which is too
steeply sloped to safely permit the siting of mobile homes .
Land of this type is also associated with low bearing capacity ,
w
Planning Board 25 October 1 , 1985
• high erodability , and other serious limitations for development .
8 . Property should contain at least 15 acres . This guideline was
established as a minimum threshold in order to set a reasonable
limit on the number of trailer parks which might be sited in the
Town . The judgment is that it is preferable for there to be a
smaller number of large trailer parks in the Town for which the
costs of proper design , construction and maintenance can be
amortized with scale economies .
The alternative of choosing a smaller minimum acreage is that ,
while there could be a greater number of available sites , the
number of trailers which could be sited in a park would be
smaller and the improvement costs would have to be spread over a
smaller number of units . The result would be that smaller
trailer parks would have to charge more money than large parks
per lot . The cumulative effect would be to put economic
pressure on the smaller trailer park owners to cut back on the
improvements and maintenance of the park in order to reduce
their costs .
The alternative of choosing a higher minimum acreage is that
there would be a greatly reduced number of potential sites
available . The owners of land suitable for the rezoning to a
trailer park use would receive a monopoly land rent as a result
of the higher minimum threshold . The cost of this higher
• threshold would be passed on to the eventual occupants of the
trailer parks in higher rental fees and the owners of the
trailer parks would be receiving a higher than average profit as
a result of the artificial scarcity of suitably zoned land . "
Mr . Lovi asked if there were any questions on these guidelines .
There being none at the moment , Mr . Lovi continued and stated that
part of the discussions we have been having has to do with whether or
not these properties should be on public water and sewer . Mr . Lovi
commented that there is a practical perception that he hears which
would indicate that the opposition we have heard to a cluster
subdivision in any residence zone would be mild compared to a trailer
park in any residence zone . Mr . Lovi stated that as a practical
matter , it would be unrealistic to expect trailer parks in R15 areas ,
so that leaves you with R30 and Ag lands . Mr . Lovi stated that there
is a small part of the Town - - lands on Coddington Road - - which are
served by public water but are still R30 as they do not have sewer ,
so , a park could be in that area .
Mr . Lovi , commenting that if these guidelines were set , stated
that five broad areas come out . Mr . Lovi stated that he would pass
around two pages of maps which show these general areas , and
proceeded to do so , reading aloud from his text as follows :
" GENERAL AREAS :
• Coddington , East King , Troy Roads ( Map # 1 Area W ) This area
contains the only properties which are served by public utilities .
Planning Board 26 October 1 , 1985
• Public water is available along Coddington and East King Roads .
There are distance landscape views which limit the development of
property fronting on Troy Road and there are severe building
limitations indicated for the higher elevation property interior to
East King and Troy Roads .
Sandbank and West King Roads ( Map # 2 Area ' B ' ) : Most of this tract
is described as having severe building limitations . A portion of
this property is also described as having severe frost heaving
potential .
Calkins , Seven Mile Drive , Bostwick , Culver , Poole Roads ( map # 2
Area ' C ' ) : This is the largest single tract of generally suitable
land in the Town . However , much of the land is sloped and described
as having severe building limitatins or inaccessible from existing
public roads . There is a band of suitable land to the southeast of
this tract , which is trisected by Calkins Road and Seven Mile Drive .
Expansion of parks from this area to the northwest would be limited
by unstable conditions , steep slopes , and frost heaving soils .
Bundy and Hayts Roads ( Map # 3 Area ' D ' ) . This is the second largest
tract in the Town and the one which contains the largest available
amount of suitable land . There are two strips of land which are
described as susceptible to frost heaving and a considerable amount
of land which is not accessible from an existing public road .
• Duboise and Indian Creek Roads ( Map # 3 Area ' E ' ) : This tract is
characterized by severe building limitations and soils which are
susceptible to frost heaving . "
Mr . Lovi pointed out that part of the Technical Appendix to our
Comprehensive Plan includes a study done by the Tompkins County
Planning Department wherein unobstructed views are defined . Mr . Lovi
spoke of ten miles as a " Distance Landscape View " , and also spoke of
a " Panoramic View " and a " Scenic Road " . Referring to the eight
guidelines , Mr . Lovi spoke of the political and social facts
contained therein , as he had mentioned , and further , described a
second set of characteristics which are physical , for example ,
wetlands , municipal boundaries , etc . , and then problem areas such as
frost level , slope , and so on . Mr . Lovi , commenting that these
guidelines are the broad picture , stated that from there he went
through and identified tracts . Mr . Lovi explained that it was in
these concepts that he looked for specific parcels that would have at
least 15 acres , adding that he excluded severe building limitations
and frost heave and so on . Mr . Lovi explained that the whole process
was now narrowing down the potentiality of the land to where he came
up with about a dozen tracts , as follows :
" SPECIFIC TRACTS :
Coddington Road East ( Map # 4 Tract 1 ) : This tract contains more than
• 50 acres and is zoned R30 . This tract is served by public water .
The existing land use of this tract is as open land and one and
Planning Board 27 October 1 , 1985
• two- family houses . There is one parcel ( see List # 1 ) which contains
more than 15 acres .
Coddington Road West and East King Road North Map # 4 Tract 2 ) : This
tract contains more than 87 acres and is zoned R30 . Most of this
tract is served by public water and much of which is already
subdivided and developed with one and two family houses . There are
no parcels larger than 15 acres within this tract .
East King Road South ( Map # 4 Tract 3 ) : This tract contains somewhat
more than 20 acres and is zoned R30 . Some of this tract is served
with public water . The tract is presently open land . There is one
parcel ( see List # 1 ) which contains more than 15 acres . It is a
portion of a larger ( 122 . 9 acre ) parcel , most of which is unsuitable
for the location of a trailer park .
Sandbank Road ( Map # 5 Tract 4 ) : This tract contains somewhat more
than 20 acres and is zoned R30 . This property is not served by
public water . The tract is presently open land surrounded by land in
agricultural production . There is one parcel ( see List # 1 ) which
contains more than 15 acres . It is a portion of a larger ( 252 . 8
acre ) parcel , most of which is unsuitable for the location of a
trailer park .
Calkins Road South ( Map # 5 Tract 5 ) : This tract contains more than
25 acres and is zoned R30 with a small portion zoned Agricultural .
• This property is not served by public water . The tract is presently
in agricultural production . There is one parcel ( see List # 1 ) which
contains more than 15 acres . It is a portion of a larger ( 146 acre )
parcel , most of which is unsuitable for the location of a trailer
park .
Calkins Road North and Seven Mile Drive West ( Map # 5 Tract 6 ) : This
tract contains over 50 acres and is zoned R30 . This property is not
served by public water . Most of the tract is presently in
agricultural production . The only existing trailer park in the Town
is located in this tract . There are three parcels ( see List # 1 )
which contain more than 15 acres .
Poole Road South ( Map # 5 Tract 7 ) : This parcel contains over 105
acres and is zoned Agricultural . This parcel is not served by public
utilities and is presently in agricultural production . There are two
parcels ( see List # 1 ) which contain more than 15 acres .
Seven Mile Drive East ( Map # 5 Tract 8 ) : This tract contains over 70
acres and is zoned R30 . This parcel is not served by public
utilities and is presently in agricultural production . There is one
parcel ( see List # 1 ) which contains more than 15 acres .
Bundy Road North ( Map # 6 Tract 9 ) : This tract contains roughly 40
acres and is zoned Agricultural . This parcel is not served by public
• utilities and is presently in agricultural production . There is one
parcel ( see List # 1 ) which contains more than 15 acres .
Planning Board 28 October 1 , 1985
• Hayts Road South ( Map # 6 Tract 10 ) : This tract contains over 60
acres and is zoned Agricultural . This parcel is not served by public
utilities and is presently in agricultural production . There are two
parcels ( see List # 1 ) which contain more than 15 acres .
Hayts Road North ( Map # 6 Tract 11 ) : This tract contains over 125
acres and is zoned Agricultural . This parcel is not served by public
utilities and is presently in agricultural production . There are two
parcels ( see List # 1 ) which contain more than 15 acres .
Bundy Road South ( Map # 6 Tract 12 ) : This tract contains roughly 30
acres and is zoned Agricultural . This parcel is not served by public
utilities and is presently in agriculatural production . There is one
parcel ( see List # 1 ) which contains more than 15 acres . "
Mr . Lovi noted that within some of those tracts , some are
already subdivided and there may not be a single parcel which has 15
acres and there may be some that have more . Mr . Lovi stated that he
could now evolve a list of properties which meet all of the criteria ,
as follows :
" LIST # 1 : Properties with more than 15 acres which meet general
guidelines for the establishment of a Trailer Park .
TRACT # 1 :
• 1 . 48 - 1 - 9 . 2 685 - 87 Coddington Road 26 . 87 acres
TRACT # 3 :
1 . 46 - 1 - 15 . 2 803 Coddington Road ( portion ) 122 . 9 acres
TRACT # 40
i . 35 - 2 - 11 King Road ( portion ) 252 . 8 acres
TRACT # 5 :
1 . 33 - 1 - 7 . 2 812 Elmira Road ( portion ) 146 . 0 acres
TRACT # 6 :
1 . 33 - 2 - 7 708 Elmira Road ( portion ) 41 . 9 acres
2 . 33 - 2 - 3 . 2 126 Seven Mile Drive 22 . 5 acres
3 . 33 - 2 - 1 146 Seven Mile Drive 22 . 0 acres
TRACT # 7 :
1 . 32 - 1 - 2 179 Sheffield Road ( portion ) 95 . 6 acres
2 . 32 - 1 - 15 380 Bostwick Road 239 . 5 acres
• TRACT # 8 :
1 . 33 - 3 - 1 . 2 Seven Mile Drive ( portion ) 85 . 5 acres
Planning Board 29 October 1 , 1985
TRACT # 9 :
1 . 24 - 5 - 10 222 Bundy Road 19 . 0 acres
TRACT # 10 :
1 . 24 - 5 - 2 257 Hayts Road ( portion ) 57 . 0 acres
2 . 24 - 5 - 7 211 Hayts Road ( portion ) 257 . 0 acres
TRACT # 11 :
1 . 24 - 1 - 32 Hayts Road 18 . 1 acres
2 . 24 - 1 - 23 1410 Trumansburg Road ( portion ) 69 . 8 acres
TRACT # 12 :
1 . 27 - 1 - 7 241 Bundy Road 75 . 0 acres "
Mr . Lovi noted that there were about 16 parcels all in all .
Mr . Lovi posed the question - " Now , how does this fit Mr .
Jacobs ? " Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Jacobs ' existing trailer park
falls within an area that would be acceptable according to these
criteria , although , of course , his existing trailer park is just a
little under three acres , so , if he were starting now , he would not
have the 15 acres , but he has acquired additional property . Turning
back to the " General Areas " part of his study , Mr . Lovi noted that
his information shows that " much of the land is sloped and described
as having severe building limitations or inaccessible from existing
public roads . There is a band of suitable land to the southeast of
this tract , which is trisected by Calkins Road and Seven Mile Drive .
Expansion of parks from this area to the northwest would be limited
by unstable conditions , steep slopes , and frost heaving soils . "
Concluding , Mr . Lovi stated that having guidelines is one thing ,
but for specific properties , " these " maps are not sufficient - - we
would need site specific maps . Mr . Lovi , noting that this is a draft
and something he was working on a good deal of last week , suggested
that he go over it some more and come back .
Chairman May offered that the Board did not need that to
complete a recommendation to the Town Board for a rezoning , with Mr .
Lovi responding , no , not really , and adding that they are dependent
but they can proceed independently .
Mrs . Grigorov indicated that she was intrigued with the matter
of " views " , and asked if they were from houses , with Mr . Lovi
responding that most are from highways - - Town roads , etc . Mrs .
Grigorov offered that public views are not applied to houses , with
Mr . Lovi answering that the study eliminates those properties .
Chairman May wondered where Mr . Jacobs stood and asked him if he
were still in hopes of doing something this year . Mr . Jacobs stated
that he was in hopes of doing something this Spring and , now , it is
• than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or other
occupants .
Planning Board 30 October 1 , 1985
Fall. Mr. Jacobs stated that he bought the property last May, adding
that he has a couple of beef cows there, but that is not why he
bought it.
Chairman May stated that he thought we were progressing -- but
slowly. Speaking to Mr. Lovi, Chairman May stated that, at the
least, we ought to get all of the revisions of this proposed
ordinance to the Board so that we could decide whether or not it is
an appropriate thing to send on to the Town Board. Mr. Lovi stated
that- that was fine. Chairman May stated that he thought Mr. Lovi Is
other report was excellent and he believed we can start the work on
it, but the recommendation to the Town Board should be made
separately.
Town Attorney Barney stated that he would comment on the draft
when Mr. Lovi gets it done. Town Attorney Barney wondered if Mr.
Jacobs were being held up waiting for this and stated that he might
suggest that Mr. Jacobs apply for an extension of a non-conforming
use. Town Attorney Barney asked Mr. Cartee if he had applied for
that, with Mr. Cartee responding, no. Mr. Lovi offered that that is
why we came to this proposal. Mr. Cartee wondered what we were
really talking about -- 45 units now or over a period of time. Mr.
Jacobs stated that he was talking about over a period of time, maybe
six or eight a year -- something like that. Chairman May asked Mr.
Jacobs how many trailers are sited now, with Mr. Jacobs responding,
24. Mr. Cartee asked Mr. Jacobs why he would not consider an
extension of his legal non-conforming use for, say, a year. Town
Attorney Barney offered that that might get Mr. Jacobs some mileage
this Fall, adding that "this" [the proposed amendment] , he might say,
will take some time. Chairman May suggested to Mr. Jacobs that he
should contact Mr. Cartee and the two of them go about how to come up
with that approach.
DISCUSSION OF DUPLEX AMENDMENT
The following document was being discussed at this time.
"DRAFT AMENDMENT: Duplexes Revised: September 10 , 1985
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:
A. "Duplex" is defined as "a two-family dwelling for which the
second dwelling unit exceeds 750 of the floor area excluding the
basement of the primary dwelling unit.
B . Article III, Section 4 , Number 1 (R9) is amended as follows:
1 . One Family Dwellings. The following occupancies shall be
permitted in a one family dwelling:
a) If the one family dwelling is occupied by a single
Planning Board 31' October 1 , 1985
family, such dwelling may be also occupied by not more
than two boarders, roomers, lodgers or other
occupants .
b) If the one family dwelling is not occupied by a
f amily, then the total number of boarders, roomers,
lodgers and other occupants shall be no more than
three.
C. Article III , Section 4 , Number 2 (R9) is amended as follows:
2 . A two family dwelling, provided that the second dwelling
unit shall not exceed 50% of the floor area excluding the
basement of the primary dwelling unit. Where the second
dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement
area, it may exceed 50% but shall not exceed 75% of the
floor area of the primary dwelling unit.
A new permitted use shall be added to this section as follows :
Duplexes, provided that the lot to be built upon has at
least 50% greater lot area and has no less depth or width
than otherwise required by this Article. All side yard
setbacks shall be 20% greater than otherwise required by
this Article. The following occupancies shall be permitted
in a duplex:
a) If each of the units in a duplex is occupied by a
family, then the total number of boarders, roomers ,
lodgers, or other occupants shall be no more than
three. No more than two boarders, roomers, lodgers or
other occupants shall be permitted in a unit.
b) If one of the two units in a duplex is occupied solely
by a family, then the total number of boarders ,
roomers, lodgers, or other occupants shall be no more
than four. No more than three boarders, roomers,
lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a
unit.
C) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by
a family, then the total number of boarders, roomers
and lodgers shall be no more than five. No more than
three boarders, roomers, lodgers or other occupants
shall be permitted in a unit.
D. Article IV, Section 11 , Number 1 (R15) is amended as follows:
1. One Family Dwellings. The following occupancies shall be
permitted in a one family dwelling:
a) If the one family dwelling is occupied by a single
family, such dwelling may be also occupied by not more
than two boarders, roomers, lodgers or other
.a
Planning Board 32 October 1, 1985
occupants.
b) If the one family dwelling is not occupied by a
family, then the total number of boarders, roomers,
lodgers and other occupants shall be no more than
three.
E. Article IV, Section 11, Number 2 (R15) is amended as follows :
2 . A two family dwelling, provided that the second dwelling
unit shall not exceed 500 of the floor area excluding the
basement of the primary dwelling unit. Where the second
dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement
area, it may exceed 50% but shall not exceed 75% of the
floor area of the primary dwelling unit.
A new permitted use shall be added to this section as follows :
Duplexes, provided that the lot to be built upon has at
least 50% greater lot area and has no less depth or width
than otherwise required by this Article. All side yard
setbacks shall be 20% greater than otherwise required by
this Article. The following occupancies shall be permitted
in a duplex:
a) If each of the units in a duplex is occupied by a
family, then the total number of boarders, roomers,
lodgers, or other occupants shall be no more- than
three. No more than two boarders, roomers, lodgers or
other occupants shall be permitted in a unit.
b) If .one of the two units in a duplex is occupied solely
by a family, then the total number of boarders,
roomers, lodgers, or other occupants shall be no more
than four. No more than three boarders, roomers,
lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a
unit.
C) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by
a family, then the total number of boarders, roomers
and lodgers shall be no more than five. No more than
three boarders, roomers, lodgers or other occupants
shall be permitted in a unit.
F. Article V, Section 18 , Number 1 (R30) is amended as follows:
1 . One Family Dwellings. The following occupancies shall be,
permitted in a one family dwelling:
a) If the one family dwelling is occupied by a single
family, such dwelling may be also occupied by not more
than two boarders, roomers, lodgers or other
occupants.
` Planning Board 33 October 1 , 1985
• b ) If the one family dwelling is not occupied by a
family , then the total number of boarders , roomers ,
lodgers and other occupants shall be no more than
three .
G . Article V , Section 18 , Number 2 ( R30 ) is amended as follows :
2 . A two family dwelling , provided that the second dwelling
unit shall not exceed 50 % of the floor area excluding the
basement of the primary dwelling unit . Where the second
dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement
area , it may exceed 50 % but shall not exceed 75 % of the
floor area of the primary dwelling unit .
A new permitted use shall be added to this section as follows :
Duplexes , provided that the lot to be built upon has at
least 50 % greater lot area and no less depth or width than
otherwise required by this Article . In no case shall the
permitted lot size be less than that required by the
Tompkins County Health Department . All side yard setbacks
shall be 20 % greater than otherwise required by this
Article . The following occupancies shall be permitted in a
duplex :
a ) If each of the units in a duplex is occupied by a
• family , then the total number of boarders , roomers ,
lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more than
three . No more than two boarders , roomers , lodgers or
other occupants shall be permitted in a unit .
b ) If one of the two units in a duplex is occupied solely
by a family , then the total number of boarders ,
roomers , lodgers , or other occupants shall be no more
than four . No more than three boarders , roomers ,
lodgers or other occupants shall be permitted in a
unit .
c ) If neither of the two units in a duplex is occupied by
a family , then the total number of boarders , roomers
and lodgers shall be no more than five . No more than
three boarders , roomers , lodgers or other occupants
shall be permitted in a unit . "
Chairman May stated that he had been convinced that we have all
of the requirements we need within the cluster regulations and ,
maybe , all we need to do is determine the number of units and the
siting of them ( referring to Ivar Jonson ' s proposal ] .
Mr . Lovi wondered if it were appropriate , when he next speaks
with the developer and his engineer , to have them bring it back to
• this Board on the 15th for another sketch plan , as a cluster
subdivision , to come up with that number . A lengthy discussion
followed with respect to the Ivar Jonson proposal ( off Honness Lane ]
• Planning Board 34 October 1 , 1985
• as the Board members reiterated some of the points made at the
September 23rd meeting of the Board .
Chairman May mused that there may be a need for a " duplex
amendment " but he was not sure it should be done under the pressure
of one development .
Mr . Mazza offered that he would suspect that the neighbors in
that area are not so concerned about duplexes as they are concerned
with numbers of people .
Mr . Cartee asked for some clarification of the " 750 " portions of
the proposed amendment , with Chairman May obliging . Mr . Cartee
wondered if , in counting the density , the Jonson proposal has 1 . 75
units . Chairman May observed that that has not been resolved as yet .
Mr . Lovi wondered what might happen as far as the duplex amendment
went , if it were not active . Nobody seemed to know .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the October 1 , 1985 meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 25 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
•
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•