HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1986-11-18 FILED
• TOWN OF ITHACA
Date�� AZ L /yl
r1OWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk •3
•
NOVEMBER 18 , 1986
The Town. of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , November 18 , 1986 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Edward Mazza , Carolyn Grigorov ,
Robert Kenerson , James Baker , Virginia Langhans , David
Klein , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , John C . Barney , Esq .
( Town Attorney ) ,
ALSO PRESENT : Peter R . Hoover , James Kerrigan , Esq . , Norbert H .
Schickel Jr . , William J . Schickel , James W . Mayer ,
Nancy Boodley , Scot Raynor , Christine M . Stratakos ,
Herbert Deinert , Helen Wardeberg , Anton J . Egner ,
Robert Berggren , Louis G . Michael .
Chairman . May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 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 November 10 , 1986 and November 13 , 1986 ,
respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by
• Mail of said Notice upon each of the various neighbors of each of the
properties under discussion , upon the Clerk of the Town of Enfield ,
upon the Clerk; of the Town of Ulysses , upon the Clerk of the Town of
Ithaca , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the City
of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Administrator , upon the Tompkins
County Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of the applicants
and / or agent , as appropriate , on November 13 , 1986 .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 0 . 1 ± ACRE PARCEL OF LAND ,
OWNED BY SUMMERHILL TOWNHOUSES , OFF ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD , BEING A PORTION
OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 127 , FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONVEYANCE OF SAID PARCEL OF . LAND TO TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO ,
6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 122 , 1026 ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD , OWNED BY SUMMERHILL TOWNHOUSE
APARTMENTS , SUMMERHILL LANE , SUMMERHILL TOWNHOUSES , OWNER ; JAMES M .
KERRIGAN , ESQ . , AGENT .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr .
Kerrigan was present .
Mr . Kerrigan appeared before the Board and thanked the Board for
letting him start first , since he had another meeting to attend at the
City of Ithaca this evening . Mr . Kerrigan , noting that he had given
the Board maps which they may have looked at , stated that he was going
to put them in larger perspective . Mr . Kerrigan stated that what he
thought they were trying to do is come in and add a sliver of land so
that another parcel of land will comply with the Zoning Ordinance or ,
c
Planning Board - 2 - November 18 , 1986
•
• at least , that was what he thought he was doing . Appending a drawing
to the bulletin board , Mr . Kerrigan stated that this was a bigger
sketch of the entire parcel and noted that the portion to the right of
his ruler was the portion the Board has on the map , adding that the
map the Board has is what he was adding to . Mr . Kerrigan stated that
he was proposing to take , on behalf of his clients , one , and maybe a
second , which he will come into in a moment , sliver of land to meet a
side yard requirement . Mr . Kerrigan stated , " To give you your
bearings , on the larger parcel are the buildings shown on the map , and
the materials , which I think were distributed to you , are in this
area , which would correspond to what Susan has . The map that you have
is the green portion with gold to the right of my ruler . I am asking
to subdivide , if you will , the larger portion , which is presently
vacant land . "
Mr . Kerrigan stated , " To give you perspective , this is Summerhill
Lane , the motel , which I think has been before the Board recently , is
under construction here . The shopping plaza is here . I think it is a
senior citizen housing project , here , between this project and Ellis
Hollow Road . So , what I want to do - - this is about a 6 . 3 acre parcel
of land - - is to take about a tenth of an acre from this larger parcel
and add it to this area , here , so it will meet with setback or side
yard requirements . "
Mr . Kerrigan stated , " A little bit of background is that the
• entire tract was acquired by three people . It has been developed by a
couple of different entities . At the present time , a limited
partnership owns the apartment house and there is a proposed sale of
that pending . A different partnership , with some of the same
principals , owns the remaining undeveloped land . Back in about 1980 ,
for mortgage and investment and tax reasons , when the Phase I of the
project was completed - - up until that point it had been one deed - - a
line was drawn by a surveyor , probably at my request , so that we could
mortgage this portion of land , and also so that some investors could
invest in the joys of owning real estate on this portion of land .
That line was drawn ; deeds were drafted and filed ; all prior to the
effective date! , through the promulgation or , perhaps , even discussion ,
of your Subdivision Ordinance . So , I do not believe there was any
violation of the Subdivision Law at that point . If there was , I will
take responsibility for it . In drawing that line , the surveyor drew
the line about a foot and a half from this building , here , which you
see - - and that is the area where I have sketched in - - and what you
have before you - - my sliver of land , which is 40 feet by a 100 feet . "
Mr . Kerrigan stated , " To add , the purpose of that is that I am
trying to establish an appropriate side yard since this is the front
yard on Summerhill Lane for this building , back here . I have computed
the 40 feet with two mistaken assumptions , at least . One of them was
that the requirement in the area was twice the height of the nearest
building - - that is a rear yard , not a side yard . Second , was the
assumption that they are 20 - foot buildings . They are 24 - foot
• buildings . So , the Zoning Ordinance - - if this parcel , which already
exists , would require a side of , I believe , 24 feet , one times the
height of the nearest building . In discussing this problem with Susan
Planning Board - 3 - November 18 , 1986
• Beeners , she inquired in an area that I have , maybe , one of your
questions as to whether or not this building , here - - I think it is
shown as Building 1 on the map that you have - - complies . I thought
at the time that it did ; I am now not sure that it does . The area
between that building and the line drawn by the surveyor back in 1980
by rule , assuming that it is to sketch , is something in the order of
17 or 18 feet . It would appear that there should be another eight
feet added in terms of a similar sliver of land , if you will , in this
area . "
Mr . Kerrigan stated , " I think , and I have not talked to my
clients since I have talked about that - - the clients who owned this
portion of land - - I am assuming that they would agree to - - if this
parcel has to be 100 by 24 or 25 feet - - that they would be willing to
add an additional parcel of land , here , that would be a hundred feet
by the 8 feet or so . The total square footage of my original proposal
would be approximately the same . So , I am asking , first to add the
sliver of land drawn on your map in order to get an appropriate side
yard for this building . I am indicating a little bit beyond express
authority from my clients that , if my first mistake was assuming that
was supposed to be 40 feet is corrected so this can be 24 or 25 feet ,
I am assuming that my clients would be willing to also add , to this
parcel , a portion of land that would be a hundred feet by 8 feet . The
total square footage would be the same so that both buildings , which
are not equi - distant from a somewhat artificial line which was drawn
• in 1980 , would comply with side yard requirements . "
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were anybody out there who wished to say anything on this matter
at all . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing and
brought the matter back to the Board .
Chairman May noted that Mr . Kerrigan was doing away with this
right of way which was the Summerhill Townhouse right of way . Ms .
Beeners pointed out that R/ O was Reputed Owner , indicating " that
section there . " Mr . Kerrigan wondered which right of way . Chairman
May stated that there was no road right of way . Mr . Kerrigan stated
that that was the Town highway , asking if Chairman May were pointing
to Summerhill Lane , Chairman May stated that he was not , he was
indicating " this , right here . " Mr . Kerrigan asked if he could check
his bearings . Ms . Beeners reiterated , " That should indicate reputed
owner there . " Mr . Kerrigan stated , " That is Summerhill Townhouse , the
reputed owner of this the remaining parcel of land . The names are
similar , but they are different entities . That is not in reference to
the right of way . I think that stands for reputed owner just as this
here refers to Cornell University , reputed owner of the next parcel of
land . There is no right of way down here . It goes for another six
acres . " Mr . Mazza stated , " Right of way " is ROW ; R / O is Reputed
Owner . "
Chairman May thanked Mr . Mazza and asked if there were any other
comments or questions .
Ms . Beeners stated , " I have a comment and that would be that I am
Planning Board - 4 - November 18 , 1986
• not sure that it is timely for the Board to even act on this if you
have not decided , or discussed with your clients , the issue about your
reducing that down , and add some additional land over near unit one .
Are you going to make any adjustments in this ? "
Mr . Kerrigan stated , " If the Board would like to resolve the
second building as well , which I would be happy to do , I would hope we
can do them al: the same time . I am assuming , since the total area of
the two would be the same , that they would be happy to do so . I would
hope that would be timely . "
Mrs . Langhans stated that she would like to ask what brought this
up . Mr . Kerrigan responded , " The sale of the existing structure , and ,
as I am preparing documents for title , I am saying , sooner or later
someone is going to want a legal side yard . So , I said , let ' s come in
and try and give it a shot - - try and straighten out a problem that
happened by happenstance . " Mrs . Langhans commented , " Sort of a
patchwork type of arrangement . " Mr . Kerrigan quipped , " Since I like
quilts , I would say thank you - - of course . "
Mr . Mazza. offered , " So , whether or not this was ever subdivided
before , this line was just arbitrarily put in , or was it not ? It was
a line that was drawn in for convenience . " Mr . Kerrigan responded ,
" Correct . " Mr . Mazza continued , " Approval was made . This was not a
magic line , it was just a line that was drawn in for convenience ? "
• Mr . Kerrigan responded , " Correct . "
Chairman May stated , " Since this thing really ends up being a
kind of a mess - - doing it this way - - why do you not move that whole
arbitrary line 25 feet ? " Mr . Kerrigan responded , " Because the owners
of the remaining parcel of land , which are different from the owners
of the apartment , are not willing to surrender that much land . They
are related , :come of the same principals . I am not saying they are
total strangers , but there is a difference in the ownership . "
Chairman May offered that that makes a real mess in the lines .
Mr . Kerrigan agreed . Chairman May stated , " What you are asking for
right now , corrected , as I understand it , is 25 feet where you had it
marked 40 previously ? " Mr . Kerrigan responded , " Yes , sir . " Chairman
May continued , " And 24 - and - a -half feet or 25 feet ? " Mrs . Langhans
noted that Mr . Kerrigan had said 8 feet . Mr . Kerrigan stated , " It
would be , I think , about eight feet and this building would make the
total 24 or 25 . Chairman May noted , " We do not know what the distance
to the side line there is , at this point . " Mr . Kerrigan responded , " I
am not willing to certify it , but , by rule , - - I am not willing to
certify it by rule in a survey . That is supposed to be scale - - at 17
feet , but without - - I was up there today . I see no surveyor ' s marks
and I am not sure . I am not willing to guarantee it is 17 . I am
happy to say that a parcel of land 100 feet in width meeting the side
yard requirement would be an appropriate addition . "
® Chairman May stated , " It would be 150 feet , would it not ? " Mr .
Kerrigan responded , " There would be two , totalling - - I am not sure I
understand the 150 feet , sir . " Chairman May stated , " Eight feet by
Planning Board - 5 - November 18 , 1986
• 150 It and 25 by 100 . " Mr . Kerrigan responded , " I think I am suggesting
Chairman May stated , " This parcel is a hundred and fifty . " Mr .
Kerrigan stated , " I think I am suggesting an area that is 8 feet by a
hundred feet near the original building . " Chairman May stated ,
" Again , you are cutting the line ? " Mr . Kerrigan responded , " Yes ,
sir . " Chairman May commented , " It just does not seem to make a lot of
sense to me . "
Mrs . Grigorov stated , " It is just a different line ; it is still
two pieces . If it is agreeable to both parties - - . " Mrs . Langhans
commented , " It: just does not make a neat map , but , if it is agreeable
to both parties - - . " Ms . Beeners offered , " It should be 150 , though ,
along unit one . " Chairman May noted , " He is saying 100 . "
Town Attorney Barney asked , " Where would the 100 go , Jim , from
where to where ? " Mr . Kerrigan responded , " I would suggest that it
would be centered at the midpoint of the building that is labeled " the
old building " . on the map that you have there . " Chairman May asked ,
" So , that is saying it would not even necessarily go to the back
line ? " Mr . Kerrigan asked , " To the road ? " Chairman May responded ,
" No , to the back line of that property . " Mr . Mazza stated , " It would
not necessarily go to the front . " Chairman May noted , " It would not
necessarily go to the front or the back . It would be an eight foot
parcel that would dangle . " Mr . Kerrigan replied , " IIdo not want to
get in a discussion of dangling or messy . The additional - - I would
• assume they would probably be willing to take that out to the roadway .
I do not know . I do not see that either . The additional parcel that
would be left , under my suggestion , would be 8 feet by 25 or 30 feet
- - that would be fine . " Chairman May indicated that he was not sure
what Mr . Kerrigan meant . Mr . Mazza suggested , " If you took it out to
the roadway - Mr . Kerrigan stated , " I am happy to take it out to
the roadway . " Chairman May noted , " So , from the back line to the
roadway , now , you are saying 8 feet ? " Mr . Kerrigan questioned , " From
the back line ,, sir ? I am talking about an area somewhere east of
Building 1 . That would be between 100 to 150 feet . " Chairman May
noted , " You are not saying it is a back line ? " Mr . Kerrigan indicated
that he did not know what Chairman May meant . Mrs . Langhans pointed
out that Mr . Kerrigan was not saying 150 feet . Chairman May stated ,
" You are not saying that . " Mr . Kerrigan responded , " That is correct . "
Mrs . Langhans noted , " It would go from the roadway back enough to get
- - . " Mr . Kerrigan continued , " Enough to get past the building without
making it too messy or too dangly . " Mr . Mazza queried , " This whole
parcel , even though this one is parcelled off , is owned by the same
owner , is that right ? " Mr . Kerrigan responded , " Everything shown on
the map in front of you is owned by the same owner , that is correct ,
limited partnership . " Mr . Mazza noted , " This thing being staked off
it - - . " Mr . Kerrigan said , " At one point , it was owned by a different
owner . It is no longer . That was the first four units built a number
of years before . And that deed - - this deed description that is shown
in that upper :Left -hand corner - - goes back to the late ' 70s , if I am
not mistaken , but I do not know . " Mr . Mazza wondered , " Did you look
back through the history of this approval to see what , if any ,
conditions may have been placed on this ? " Ms . Beeners replied , " There
were no conditions related to this here . " Chairman May noted that it
Planning Board - 6 - November 18 , 1986
started out with Ivar Jonson . Ms . Beeners continued , " Yes , it started
out with Mr . Jonson and there were two site plans that were approved
for the entire parcel , including , as we see here , with this being a
second site plan that was approved . But there were no conditions or
anything that I could pick up that would give help at all in trying to
determine this: situation here . " Mr . Mazza continued , " It did not say
they are supposed to reserve a certain amount of open space in this
other land ; anything to be done in this other land in order to get
this approval ? " Ms . Beeners responded , " No . " Mr . Mazza offered , " The
way I look at it is , there is no approval on this other parcel then ? "
Ms . Beeners stated , " Just the 1981 site plan approval for the whole
thing on the vacant land . " Mr . Mazza noted , " I am talking about what
would be remaining that is not shown on this - - the undeveloped . " Ms .
Beeners agreed , " Yes , on that . All we have is the approval that is up
here , which was for the entire piece . And , any conditions , as far as
the site development of the first phase , which is the one that is
already built , have been met per Larry Fabbroni . I discussed that
with him and mainly it was drainage . It was about drainage . "
Chairman May queried , " This full approval was 181 , did you say ? " Ms .
Beeners replied , " Yes . " Chairman May wondered , " So that is no longer
valid , right ? " Mrs . Langhans noted , " Here it says site plan approval
on the first SEQR . It says they were subdivided in 1980 prior to the
requirements of subdivision approval for such by the Planning Board
this Short SEQR that you have . " Ms . Beeners responded , " Yes , I mean ,
as far as what happened with the subdivision that Mr . Kerrigan
• described , they are exempt from going back and putting any
requirements on that . As far as any development on the vacant land , I
am basically just recommending that , as would happen anyway , that a
new site plan be submitted for that project . It appears to me that
running a full. strip all the way down along the boundary would not
interfere too much with anything because , probably with any kind of
development , you would be getting somewhat of central open spaces as
is shown here . However , I guess I do not have too many problems with
this , the irregular - - two irregular - - parcels that he is
suggesting . "
Town Attorney Barney asked , " There is nothing to the north , it is
all vacant land ? " Ms . Beeners replied , " Yes . " Mrs . Langhans noted ,
" That is the proposed plot - - beyond the trees . It is not to say that
it would come knack crooked like that - - . " Mr . Mazza queried , " Are you
saying that we are going to have the chance to review the plans for
any development on the vacant land ? " Ms . Beeners replied , " Yes . " Mr .
Mazza stated , " If that is the case , I do not necessarily care that
much where the line is - - if it is irregular , straight , or what . We
are going to have a chance to decide what is there . " Town Attorney
Barney queried , " This entire site plan ? " Ms . Beeners noted , " This
entire site plan received two final site plan approvals . " Town
Attorney Barney questioned , " Two ? " Ms . Beeners responded , " Yes . One
was in 1977 , I think it was , and then this one in 1981 with the
increase in units . So , I guess , just from that favorite section in
here , on site plan approvals , they were never specified developments ,
as proposed , that the site plan would have to come in , and it would
anyway for multiple residences . Town Attorney Barney mused , " So ,
unless it is constructed in accordance with , exactly in accordance
• Planning Board - 7 - November 18 , 1986
• with , the previously approved site plan - - . " Ms . Bee ners agreed ,
" Right . " Chairman May wondered , " Nothing has been started on that ?
Town Attorney Barney wondered , " They have the first 32 units ? " Ms .
Beeners repliEld , " Yes . If the site plan approval is further required
in any resolution that you do on this proposal right now , then , I
would think that would cover things . "
Town Attorney Barney asked , " Would that be a problem if this
subdivision that you are talking about tonight were granted but with
the condition that any further development to the north , I guess it
is , would require site plan approval ? " Mr . Kerrigan stated , " My
assumption is - - this is somewhat academic because , if a separate
owner comes in and wants to develop this , you are going to have the
same problem that I stumbled across , that these buildings will not
meet the side yard requirements . In terms of revoking the earlier
one , I think there would be serious problems because it would preclude
future common ownership of the entire tract in proceeding under the
original already approved plan . I do not think somebody can come in
under the existing plan , if this deed is recorded , which has a variety
of other problems with it , because these two buildings would be too
close to the line . " Chairman May commented , " If there is one owner ,
they do not need any change . " Town Attorney Barney stated , " I think
the problem I have with that is that you are asking for subdivision
and there is not a subdivision for it . " Mr . Kerrigan responded ,
" There was no requirement for subdivision at the time when they were
• divided . " Mrs . Langhans noted that there were different Subdivision
Regulations in ' 78 and ' 80 .
Town Attorney Barney asked , " Has there been a deed recorded of
this piece now that we are talking about ? " Mr . Kerrigan replied ,
" Yes , separate ownership - - related , but separate . " Town Attorney
Barney responded , " I see . " Mr . Mazza noted , " Different partners in
different projects , " Mr . Kerrigan responded , " All the same . There
has been a deed recorded in 1980 conveying and mortgaging the
completed 32 units , "
Chairman May stated , " Well , what is your pleasure ? Apparently ,
this weather is getting pretty bad out there , so we maybe need to
think about that also . I have difficulty seeing it - - what is the
problem with going ahead and making this a line 25 feet wide ? If it
remains in the present ownership , then there is no problem to them . "
Mr . Kerrigan stated , " The owners of the remaining land are not willing
to convey that much additional land . " Chairman May responded , " Yes ,
alright . Anybody have any further questions or comments ? If not , do
you want to go to the Short SEQR Form , which is , of course , not in
compliance with what is being requested at this point - - nor ,
actually , is our draft motion at this point , because we have a change
in the original proposal from 40 feet to 25 feet and the additional
proposal , which is not on the record at this point . What is your
pleasure ? John , this is a Public Hearing asking to do something that
is in excess really - - well , wait a minute - - if the area is the same
• - - . " Mr . Mazza noted that the area is the same . Chairman May
continued , " If the area is the same , we would still be in compliance
with the Public Hearing requirements . " Mr . Mazza stated , " Susan - - I
Planning Board - 8 - November 18 , 1986
® guess we would have to call for her recommendation which refers to
unit one on the SEQR . " Mrs . Langhans wondered , " On the SEQR ? " Mr .
Mazza replied , " Yes . " Ms . Beeners offered , " Yes , we can do that if
you want . It is my feeling , really , that the information is not right
here before us in any kind of format near what should be given any
kind of preliminary subdivision approval . " Chairman May stated , " I
have a little concern too . I do not know whether there was any public
that came in here and looked at this . We had no public that has
spoken to it , but if any public came in and looked at this previously
and assumed that was the way it was and , then , now , we do something
differently , that is not really in compliance with our trust . " Mr .
Mazza wondered , " What public would be concerned with this issue other
than the other property owners remaining who - - I understand , Mr .
Kerrigan represents both parties . " Chairman May replied , " I cannot
really see that there is any necessarily , but - - . " Mr . Mazza stated ,
" The rest of the public does not really know where this line goes
anyway and does not much care . " Mrs . Langhans noted , " The acreage is
the same . " Town Attorney Barney noted , " We have two parcels instead
of one . " Mrs „ Langhans agreed , " Yes , that is true . " Town Attorney
Barney suggested , " You might consider a preliminary subdivision
approval subject to receiving a plat in final form showing precisely
what is going on , with some dimensions along the easterly side . Mr .
Kerrigan responded , " I agree with that . In our initial instructions ,
we said anything would be conditional upon submission of final
surveys . " Town Attorney Barney suggested , " Then you could renotify on
• your next meeting and have a final subdivision approval with proper
notice and have a plat that the public can look at . On the other
hand , I do not think you want to start Mr . Kerrigan preparing his
clients down that road with the thought of coming in with a plat we
are going to reject - - because it dangles . "
Mr . Mazza noted , " The first issue would be to approve the
environmental assessment form and have Susan change her
recommendation . " Ms . Beeners stated , " It can be changed per the
information that has come in here tonight at the meeting . " Mr . Mazza
queried , " The same final bottom line - - recommendation of negative
determination ? " Ms . Beeners replied , " Yes . Conditional upon the
submission of a site plan for approval by the Planning Board granting
specific development of tax parcel 1 . 127 , the undeveloped land - - also
conditional upon the submission of a map by a licensed surveyor in a
form acceptable . " Town Attorney Barney offered , " I think Mr .
Kerrigan ' s problem with your condition on 1 . 127 by saying that title
is in a different party from this group on tax parcel 1 . 122 . Quite
frankly , I do not know , without doing some digging , whether there has
been an abandonment under the terms of our ordinance of any subsequent
development since nothing has been done in a number of years on it .
If there is :separate ownership , clearly , there has to be a new
subdivision site plan presented anyway . But if it is the same owner ,
I do not know . "
Chairman May stated , " Alright , then . You want to deal with the
is
SEQR form tonight and preliminary approval ? We have had a negative
determination by the Town Planner . Do we have a motion ? " Mr . Mazza
asked , " If we are going to use the draft resolution , we have to
Planning Board'. - 9 - November 18 , 1986
• ultimately reflect the two parcels rather than the one parcel - -
whatever you want to describe those . " Chairman May suggested , " 25
feet by 100 feet as a side yard to 32 ; and 8 feet - - as far as I am
concerned , that has got to be a hundred and fifty there , at least , so
we do not havE! that thing coming up as a jag . I do not see how - - do
you accept that ? " Mr . Kerrigan replied , " I will present it to the
owners of the land and hope they will agree to that . " Mr . Mazza
noted , " If we do that , we will end up with 3 , 700 square feet rather
than the 4 , 000 . So , it is approximately the same . " Mr . Kerrigan
responded , " Yes , I agree . " Mr . Mazza suggested , " If you describe that
- - 8 feet by 150 - - . " Chairman May responded , " Right . " Ms . Beeners
suggested , " Arid add - - submission of a map by a licensed surveyor
suitable for filing for final subdivision . " Town Attorney Barney
added , " Showing the precise dimensions of the subdivided lot or the
lot to be subdivided . " Mr . Mazza noted , " So , we are leaving what was
' b ' in and adding to it . " Town Attorney Barney stated , " What was
formerly ' b ' , becomes ' a ' , and that should read , ' Submission of site
plan for approval by the Planning Board from specific development tax
parcel 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 127 if owned by persons different than own tax parcel
1 . 122 . " Mrs . Langhans asked , " Do you not want to put in there , by a
licensed surveyor ? " Chairman May replied , " Yes . Do you want to make
that motion ? " Mr . Mazza responded , " Yes , I am going to move the draft
resolution , as amended , and I will read the ' Resolved ' portion . "
MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the subdivision of two parcels , one measuring 25
feet by 100 feet , and one measuring 8 feet by 150 feet , from a
6 . 4 acre parcel , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 127 , for
the purpose of conveyance of said two parcels to Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcels No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 122 and - 1 . 126 , 1026 Ellis Hollow Road ,
owned by Summerhill Townhouse Apartments , Summerhill Lane ,
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency , and for which a
Short Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and
reviewed at a Public Hearing on November 18 , 1986 .
3 . A recommE! ndation of a negative declaration of environmental
significance has been made by the Town Planner , conditional upon
the following :
a . The :submission of a site plan for approval by the Planning
Board for any specific development of Tax Parcel No .
6 - 62 -- 2 - 1 . 127 , if owned by parties different from the owners
of Tax Parcels No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 122 and - 1 . 126 ;
b . The submission of a map prepared by a licensed surveyor , in
a form suitable for recording in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s
Office , showing the precise dimensions of the lots to be
subdivided , for consideration of Final Subdivision Approval .
Planning Board. - 10 - November 18 , 1986
• THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
i . That the Planning Board act and hereby does act as the Lead
Agency for the environmental review of this action .
2 . That this project is determined to have no significant impact on
the environment and a negative declaration of environmental
significance be and hereby is made , conditional upon the
following :
a . The submission of a site plan for approval by the Planning
Board for any specific development of Tax Parcel No .
6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 127 , if owned by parties different from the owner
of Tax Parcels No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 122 and - 1 . 126 ;
b . The submission of a map prepared by a licensed surveyor , in
a form suitable for recording in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s
Office , showing the precise dimensions of the lots to be
subdivided , for consideration of Final Subdivision Approval .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Mazza , Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman .May stated , " That covers the environmental requirements .
Now , I want to look at a preliminary subdivision approval based on the
addition of - - next to lot 32 - - of a parcel 25 by 100 and next to old
Building 1 , a strip of 8 by 150 feet . " Ms . Beeners noted , " This one
would be basically the same . " Chairman May noted , " Except we need to
specify those lots . " Ms . Beeners agreed .
MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the subdivision of two parcels , one measuring 25
feet by 100 feet , and one measuring 8 feet by 150 feet , from a
6 . 4 acre parcel , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 127 , for
the purpose of conveyance of said two parcels to Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcels No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 122 and - 1 . 126 , 1026 Ellis Hollow Road ,
owned by Summerhill Townhouse Apartments , Summerhill Lane .
2 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on November 18 , 1986 ,
reviewed a map entitled " Map of Lands of Clivark Development
Corp . , Showing Elec . , Tele . , TV Easements , Drives , and Parking
Areas , Ellis Hollow Road " , dated September 22 , 1980 , by Clarence
W . Brashear Jr . , L . L . S . , on which map was based the application
for subdivision .
® 3 . The Planning Board , on November 18 , 1986 , reviewed the Short
Environmental Assessment Form for this proposed subdivision and
Planning Board - 11 - November 18 , 1986
• made a determination of negative environmental significance ,
conditional upon the following :
a . The submission of a site plan for approval by the Planning
Board for any specific development of Tax Parcel No .
6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 127 , 4if owned by parties different from the owners
of Tax Parcels No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 122 and - 1 . 126 ;
b . The submission of a map prepared by a licensed surveyor , in
a form suitable for recording in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s
Office , showing the precise dimensions of the lots to be
subdivided , for consideration of Final Subdivision Approval .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Approval , having
determined from the materials presented that such waiver will
result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board ,
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval to this subdivision , as presented on the
materials described above , conditional upon the following :
a . The submission of a site plan for approval by the Planning
Board for any specific development of Tax Parcel No .
6 - 621- 2 - 1 . 127 , if owned by parties different from the owners
of Tax Parcels No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 122 and - 1 . 126 ;
b . The submission of a map prepared by a licensed surveyor , in
a foam suitable for recording in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s
Office , showing the precise dimensions of the lots to be
subdivided , for consideration of Final Subdivision Approval .
By way of discussion , Ms . Beeners queried , " For final subdivision
approval , are you talking about that it should just go to - - is it
your intention - - ? " Mr . Mazza replied , " For approval by the Planning
Board , yes . " Chairman May asked , " You do not want to specify the size
of those two parcels ? " Mrs . Langhans replied , " I think that is in the
' Whereas ' . " Chairman May responded , " Excuse me , that ' s fine . "
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Mazza , Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval with respect to the Summerhill Townhouse Apartments
subdivision request duly closed . Chairman May informed Mr . Kerrigan
that he could now go to his meeting at the City . Mr . Kerrigan thanked
s
Planning Board - 12 - November 18 , 1986
• the Chair and the Board members for their time and consideration .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 1 . 03 ± ACRE LOT FROM A
9 -ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF IRADELL ROAD AND SHEFFIELD ROAD
( 199 IRADELL R.OAD ) , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 24 - 1 - 1 . JAMES AND
NANCY BOODLEY , OWNERS ; NANCY BOODLEY , APPLICANT .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice • of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above . Mrs . Boodley was present .
Mrs . Boodley introduced herself to the Board and stated that she
has a 9 - acre parcel of land in which should would like to build her
daughter a house , and the only only way she could do this is to get a
subdivision of her land , so , that is exactly what it amounts to . Mrs .
Boodley stated that she came down to get a building permit and was
told she had to have a subdivision permit , so , she picked out a small
piece of land which was 150 feet by 300 feet , and Ms . Beeners called
and said that she might have to make it slightly larger , and so , this
is the reason she made it a hundred and seventy - five . Mrs . Boodley
stated that it is still her land , adding that nothing has changed at
all except she does want to build a small house that her daughter will
be a tenant in . Mrs . Boodley stated that that is about all it
entails .
Chairman May noted that , basically , the change to 175 feet was to
allow more side lot line . Mrs . Boodley stated that Ms . Beeners had
made the suggestion that the one acre was exclusive of roadway , adding
that you have to get a roadway in order to get a house on there and
the 1 . 03 , or whatever she had on the beginning one , was pretty close ,
and so , she said , " Okay , we ' ll make it 175 feet . " Mrs . Boodley noted
that it is still part of the 1 , 200 feet of frontage .
Chairman :May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were anyone who wished to speak to this issue . No one spoke and
Chairman May repeated the question , adding - - " You other folks , would
you like to see a drawing ? " An unidentified voice stated , " I think
it ' s a marvelous idea . " Mrs . Boodley thanked the unidentified
speaker .
Chairman May asked , " Do you have any comments you want to make or
questions you wish to ask ? No one has any questions or comments ? Let
us close the Public Hearing and come back to the Board . Does anybody
have any questions or comments on it at all ? "
Mrs . Langhans queried , " Susan , will she have to go and work it
out with the Department of Environmental Conservation to get approval ?
What happens there ? " Ms . Beeners responded , " Well , the DEC has been
notified about this project . Mrs . Boodley , as I understand it , would
have to contact the DEC if it appeared along the way , such as in
® getting any Health Department approvals for septic - - with the wells
that she might have to apply to DEC for a permit if she were going
to be developing within , I think it is 100 feet , of the wetland . It
Planning Board. - 13 - November 18 , 1986
• appears from the actual site and also from the DEC official wetlands
map , which I gave you a copy of , that where she wants to build will
not be in the wetland . "
Mrs . Booclley stated , " One comment that I might make and that is ,
as far as the wetland is concerned , this does not even - - my house is
on the left -- - enter into it . There is a farm across the street ,
which is in t: he Town of Ulysses , and there has been a lot of farm
drainage which has been done . The wetlands are gone . I mean , for all
practical purposes , they are gone . It is still slightly wet - - where
I live it is still slightly wet - - but this particular spot where I
have my house is very dry . "
Mrs . Gricrorov wondered how long ago the drainage occurred . Mrs .
Boodley stated that he started about two years ago and they were
working on it last summer . Mrs . Boodley stated that she fussed about
it to no good . Chairman May noted that either way , since it is on the
Town wetlands map , they may have to be notified . Mrs . Boodley stated
that Ms . Beeners had mentioned to her that she should contact them and
she definitely will .
Chairman May stated that he was closing the Public Hearing and
would bring it back for consideration of the environmental form ,
adding that there is a proposed draft resolution .
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
• WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the subdivision of a 1 . 18 acre lot from a 9 acre
parcel , located on the east side of Sheffield Road near its
intersection with Iradell Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 24 - 1 - 1 .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency , and for which a
Short Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and
reviewed at a Public Hearing on November 18 , 1986 . The New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation is a potentially
involved agency which has been notified of this action .
3 . A recommendation of a negative declaration of environmental
significance has been made by the Town Planner , conditional upon
the granting of any necessary approvals by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board act and hereby does act as the Lead
Agency for the environmental review of this action .
• 2 . That this project is determined to have no significant impact on
the environment and that a negative declaration of environmental
significance be and hereby is made , conditional upon the granting
Planning Board - 14 - November 18 , 1986
• of any necessary approvals by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Mazza , Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman .May asked the Board if they wished to turn to the matter
of the subdivision action . Chairman May asked if anyone wished to
make a motion .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert
Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the subdivision of a 1 . 18 acre lot from a 9 acre
parcel , located on the east side of Sheffield Road near its
intersection with Iradell Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 24 - 1 - 1 .
2 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on November 18 , 1986 ,
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form for this
proposed subdivision and made a determination of negative
environmental significance , conditional upon the granting of any
necessary approvals by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on November 18 , 1986 ,
reviewed a map showing the proposed subdivision entitled ,
" Proposed Sub - Division of Nancy K . Boodley Property , 199 Iradell
Road " .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval ,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board .
2 . That the :Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
and Final Subdivision Approval to this subdivision , as presented
on the material described above , subject to the following
condition;
a . the submission of a certified survey map by a licensed
surveyor , suitable for filing in the Office of the Tompkins
is County Clerk , for approval by the Town Attorney .
Planning Board - 15 - November 18 , 1986
• be the granting of any necessary approvals by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation ,
C * the consideration of the provision of access to adjacent
lands if the parent parcel is further subdivided .
By way of discussion , Town Attorney Barney asked Mrs . Boodley if
she were actually going to have a deed conveying this piece out to
herself . Mrs . Boodley replied , " I guess I have to . I will do
anything they tell me to do - - if I have to , I have to . Town Attorney
Barney wonderE! d if that should not be a condition then . Mr . Kenerson
wondered who it was going to . Mrs . Langhans wondered if it were
necessary . Mrs . Boodley stated that if it is not necessary , she will
not do it , but , if it is necessary , she will . Town Attorney Barney
wondered if it were going to be the same owner , with Mrs . Boodley
responding , " This is correct . " Mr . Mazza offered that in a final
subdivision he was not sure why that was necessary . Town Attorney
Barney mused , " You are not subdividing anything if you just file a
map . " Mr . Mazza noted , " Whenever we do a subdivision for a hundred
lots , you do not have to have a deed for 100 lots . " Town Attorney
Barney responded that that was what he was asking the question for .
Mrs . Langhans offered that it was not necessary . Mrs . Boodley
reiterated , " If it is not necessary , I am not going to do it . If it
is necessary , I will do it . " Town Attorney Barney noted that we have
it clear that the certified survey map is by a licensed surveyor and
• it probably should be subject to his approval , adding that it has got
to be signed off by the Planning Board Chairman . Chairman May agreed
that he had to sign it for filing . Ms . Beeners wondered if it should
go by the Town Engineer , to which Town Attorney Barney responded that
he saw no particular reason for that .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Mazza , Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Mrs . Booldley stated that all she needed to do was go to a
surveyor - - a registered surveyor - - and bring a map to the Chairman .
Chairman May stated that the map should go to the Town Attorney . Mrs .
Langhans suggested that Mrs . Boodley take the map to the Town office ,
noting that approval of the DEC was needed . Mrs . Boodley responded ,
" Yes , I am aware of that ,
Chairman May declared the matter of the Boodley Subdivision duly
closed .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A FORTHCOMING APPEAL TO SAID BOARD FROM A
DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR / ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DENYING
• A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENCE ON A PROPOSED
LOT WITH LESS THAN 150 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG A TOWN ROAD AND WITH A
FRONT YARD NOT ON A TOWN ROAD , AT 124 COMPTON ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
Planning Board - 16 - November 18 , 1986
• PARCEL NO . 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 , 7 . 95 ACRES ON SAID COMPTON ROAD , ROBERT G . &
THERESA L . BEF:GGREN , OWNERS / APPLICANTS
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Berggren was present .
Mr . Berggren appeared before the Board and stated , " I have a
buyer for the back piece here as one parcel . So , I would like to
propose to the Town , I would like to have permission to sell it as one
lot , this piece included in the lot . I know , before , some questions
were raised as to the Town ' s rights to this if this was ever developed
as a road . If that were to happen , if the new owner at some time in
the future decided he would want to divide that , he would still have
to come in for subdivision approval before the Town for this piece .
At that time , the Town could ask if this piece would be as a highway
before he would receive that subdivision . At this time , I would like
to sell it as one lot , one building lot . This would be the driveway
access to their lot . "
Chairman May stated , " We do have one problem and that is , he
might build a house right in the middle of this . " Mr . Berggren
offered , " Well , it might be a condition . Actually , there is going to
be a 20 - foot easement in here anyway . So , he could not build right
there . And there is probably some regulation as to how close to the
easement anyway . But that would definitely be a stipulation so it
could not be in that 60 - foot right of way . "
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were anybody who wished to speak to this issue .
Mr . Louis Michael , 116 Compton Road , spoke from the floor and
asked , " Is thE! re going to be a house put on that - - another septic
tank ? " Mr . Berggren replied , " On that back piece , yes . " Mr . Michael
stated , " I tell you , you got two of them up there right now and you
got streams going through both of them . The wells are going to be
polluted . I wish somebody would look at something before you allow
any more of them . You got - - right next door to me , the second house
up - - you got ,a stream coming right through that septic system coming
right down our way and so is the second one . You got that ditch there
and that ditch is not doing a bit of good . My backyard is still
sogged up . You got to have a little consideration somehow because
none of us is doing to have any water up there first thing you know . "
Mr . Berggren noted , " We did have a preliminary subdivision
approval for these four parcels , and I think it is to all of the
neighbors ' benefits to have just one house on that . " Mr . Michael
stated , " If there wasn ' t three inches of snow up there , you would have
a whole bunch -of neigbors down here . I came in from Freeville which
is why I ' m here . That ' s why nobody wanted to come down . I probably
would not have made it if I did not come down from up there . "
Town Attorney Barney stated , " Mr . Michael , if this is not
granted , as I understand it , there is already a subdivision in place
Planning Board - 17 - November 18 , 1986
• that would allow two lots up there - - four lots , I am sorry . Would
you prefer for the record to stand as it is now so four houses can be
built or have it consolidated so only one house is built ? " Mr .
Michael responded , " Somebody better come up and look at it or there is
going to be some sewers up there and I do not know if the people can
afford the sewers . That water is running right on the top of the
ground up there . You people do not realize it . You people have not
looked at it . " Ms . Beeners pointed out that the Town Engineers have
looked at it several times . Mr . Michael stated , " Yes , they were going
to fill that ditch up out there and they know they haven ' t got it
right . This here digging and stuff was done before . The first stage
of this has not been done properly . If this had been done properly - -
I mean , it ' no joke . " Mr . Berggren responded , " Might I say , I have
done everything the Board has asked . I provided a topo map , which I
felt was not necessary , but I did do it . We have done - - numerous
times we have had some ditch work done to try to solve any problems
that they thought there might be . We really have tried . " Mr . Michael
stated , " Mark is the one that done the last digging up there . He done
that after thin. State man was up there and after the inspector was
there to try to correct things , and that didn ' t do any good . Even
went back up and cut off of that second house up there next to him - -
back land - - and up there where Matychak let you come down through
there isn ' t even deep enough at the top to catch it all . "
Mr . Berggren stated , " Well , it is catching it all . " Chairman May
® noted , " It does say that the drainage improvements were conditions of
Stage One and :have been met satisfactory to the Town Engineer , is that
correct ? " Ms „ Beeners added , " And the Assistant Town Engineer . "
Chairman May stated , " Okay . Are there any other comments from anyone ?
Let us close the Public Hearing . I think any way you look at it , the
impact on this has got to be less than what it was . Ms . Beeners
agreed . Chairman May continued , " So , under any circumstances , it
should be an improvement to the neighborhood . " Mr . Mazza noted , " The
only difference , you would have to have the Town road . " Chairman May
agreed . Mrs . Langhans wondered , " What is to stop the new owner from
coming with a subdivision ? " Mr . Berggren offered , " Nothing . "
Chairman May noted , " But he could not do anything until he came in . "
Mr . Berggren stated , " I might say that it is Mr . Lawrence Iacovelli
and his wife who are interested in the lot . They have a purchase
offer on it . They want to put their private residence in there . To
my knowledge , they have no intentions of ever developing any part .
They want to make it their home . I think it would be a real nice
large lot for them . "
Town Attorney Barney wondered if Mr . Berggren knew where they
were going to put their house . Mr . Berggren responded , " That I do not
know . I have riot talked to them personally . I do not know whether it
would be on the lower or the upper side . I am assuming the lower .
There is a nice view . I would prefer it on the lower side anyway . "
Chairman May stated , " Alright . " Town Attorney Barney queried , " There
has been construction started ? " Mr . Berggren responded , " No , I did
® move some top soil around . "
Chairman Nlay asked if there were any other questions or comments .
Planning Board - 18 - November 18 , 1986
• There appearing to be none , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared
to make a motion . Mr . Klein queried , " Susan , you did say that the
Town Engineer was satisfied ? " Ms . Bee ners replied , " Yes , both the
Town Engineer and the Assistant Town Engineer . "
Mrs . Grigorov stated that she would MOVE the Draft Resolution and
read the " Resolved " portion aloud . Mr . Baker stated that he would
SECOND the Motion ,
Chairman May asked if the Town Attorney had any comments . Town
Attorney Barney responded , " Yes , a couple of things . One , the 20 - foot
right of way - - I do not think it needs to be limited to pedestrians . "
Chairman May offered , " So , take the word pedestrian out ? " Town
Attorney Barney responded , " Yes . Secondly , it seems to me the
condition ought to be the dedication of the property before a building
permit is issued rather than a certificate of compliance . Then , the
third - - I think it is implicit in here that if the variance is
granted that the front yard requirement will be measured from the
boundary line between Stage One and the south line of the large
parcel , so , I think , that it might be wise to impose that as a
condition . " Mrs . Grigorov indicated that she did not understand that .
Town Attorney Barney continued , " Well , your normal front yard
requirement in R- 30 is normally 30 feet back from the road . If you
have 60 feet back from the road - - obviously , you are going to make
the front yard requirement - - you are going to be in the middle of the
driveway , so I am suggesting you ought to have a 60 - foot building line
back from this line here . " Mrs . Grigorov responded , " I see . "
Chairman May asked , " At least 60 feet back from the lot line ? " Town
Attorney Barney replied , " Yes . The line , if it has any construction
on the lot , it: will be located at least 60 feet from the south line
adjoining the north line of Stage One as shown on the said map . "
Chairman May asked both Mrs . Grigorov and Mr . Baker if they accepted
that amendment . Both Mrs . Grigorov and Mr . Baker replied that they
did .
Chairman :May called for a vote . At this juncture , Ms . Beeners
inquired , " There is no need to specify that it be a certain distance
from the right: of way - - the 20 - foot right of way ? " Mr . Berggren
suggested , " I would think 60 feet from the center line , which would
give you a 30 - foot yard , if a 30 - foot yard from a 60 - foot right of way
- - it would be 30 feet this way from the proposed right of way - - or
60 feet from the center line , would be an easier way to say it . " Town
Attorney Barney stated , " Right . That is what I am saying . Not less
than 30 , you are right . If you go 30 feet from the edge of the right
of way - - . " Mr . Berggren offered , " Yes , in both directions . " Town
Attorney Barney stated , " 20 feet ? What did you say ? 60 feet from the
center line in the right of way would give you a 30 - foot front yard ? "
Mr . Berggren responded , " Right . My only other question I am going to
ask - - Is there a reason that open space needs to be deeded over to
the Town at this time ? We are using it for a pasture for a horse . We
are more than willing to deed it over at the time the Town would want
to put a park there . But until then , we ' d just as soon keep that
piece . I do not know of a way that we could assure the Town that we
would give it over with no problem . I do not know if there is a way
Planning Board - 19 - November 18 , 1986
• to do that - - in a deed or how ? " Chairman May responded , " I think the
only way to do it is to just deed it . " Mrs . Grigorov offered , " I do
not know of a need for a park there . " Mr . Berggren stated , " Ususally
in a subdivision that size , it is usually requested to leave it open
space . It is already designated as open space . No matter what - -
whether the Town gets it or we keep it - - it cannot have a structure
or anything on. it . All it can be used for is a garden or pasture . We
would prefer to keep it for a pasture . " Mrs . Langhans noted , " You are
losing control of the whole subdivision now . You are selling that and
Stage One is effectively all sold ? " Mr . Berggren replied , " Right . "
Continuing , Mrs . Langhans stated , " So , it should be deeded over at
that time , I would think . " Town Attorney Barney suggested , " I think
you might talk: to the Town Board . They might not want to put a park
there or you can have some kind of an arrangement as a pasture . The
problem is that if this Board feels it should be open space once you
have sold off that piece if there has not been a dedication we will
lose track of it too . You are still - - subdividing two , three , four
times - - . " Mr . Berggren offered , " I think there is a differentiation
between open space and dedicating it to the Town . Open space is still
- - . " Town Attorney Barney interjected , " Open space - - when it is
dedicated - - is usually dedicated to the Town or some kind of
homeowners ' association , if you want to create a homeowners '
association . Mr . Berggren responded , " I know - - that is what Peter
[ Lovi ] brought: up . That ' s the reason I brought it up a number of
times . " Chairman May offered , " I think it would have to be deeded .
• Certainly , you could talk to the Town Board . " Mrs . Langhans queried ,
" You got the subdivision with the understanding that that piece would
be deeded over ? " Mr . Berggren replied , " Open space - - up until the
last meeting . I do not think it was ever mentioned that it would be
deeded over . Regardless , we figured that some time it might be . We
did not talk about that for some reason . " Mr . Klein wondered , " How
important is that to the subdivision ? " Chairman May replied , " We do
not need it right now , but , you know , I hate to lose it just because
we do not need it . " Ms . Beeners suggested , " It might be important
later on as a portion of a larger park if the land just to the north
of that is developed . Mrs . Grigorov offered , " It could be lost track
of . " Mr . Berggren stated , " Not since it is on the subdivision map as
open space . It is already filed . " Chairman May stated , " I think we
agree to the deeding of that . So . I would just as soon keep to that . "
Discussion followed with respect to the question of deeding being
in the resolution . Chairman May stated , " I would want it to say that ,
personally . " All changes to the Motion on the floor were accepted by
both Mrs . Grigorov and Mr . Baker .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None .
Abstain - MaZZaL .
® The MOTION was declared to be carried .
The RESOLUTION , as adopted , follows :
w
Planning Board - 20 - November 18 , 1986
• " WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a forthcoming appeal to
said Board from a decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning
Enforcement Officer denying a building permit for the
construction of a residence on a proposed 7 . 95 - acre lot with less
than 150 feet of frontage along a Town road and with a front yard
not on a Town road ( pursuant to Article V , Sections 21 and 23 of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ) , located at 124 Compton
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 .
2 . The Planning Board reviewed a SEQR Short Environmental Assessment
Form for Stages I and II of the subdivision , which includes the
subject parcel , at a Public Hearing on October 29 , 1985 , and made
a negative determination of environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval for
this subd'. ivision at a Public Hearing on October 29 , 1985 .
4 . The Planning Board granted Final Subdivision Approval for Stage I
of this subdivision at a Public Hearing on May 22 , 1986 ( as
adjourned[ from May 20 , 1986 ) , subject to the following condition .
That: drainage improvements be developed in accordance
• with those improvements shown on " Drainage Plan -
Robert G . and Theresa L . Berggren - Developer - Compton
Road[ , Military Lot 86 , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ,
New York " , dated May 22 , 1986 , by T . G . Miller
Associates , P . C .. , Engineers and Surveyors , and to the
satisfaction of the Town Engineer ,
5 . Those drainage improvements which were conditions of Final
Subdivision Approval of Stage I of this subdivision have been met
to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer ,
6 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on November 18 , 1986 , has
reviewed the following map entitled , " Subdivision Map ,
Schembri - Hollister Estates , Compton Road , Military Lot 86 , Town
of IthacEL , Tompkins County , New York " , dated September 16 , 1982 ,
amended March 27 , 1985 , July 29 , 1985 , and August 21 , 1986 , by
T . G . Miller Assoicates , P . C . , with such map marked in red to show
the proposed sale of " Stage II " , as a single parcel , which is a
7 . 95 - acre: parcel and which includes a 60 - foot right of way to
Compton Road , and a proposed 20 - foot right of way for access to
the adjoining open space parcel .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that variance of the aforementioned
sections of the Zoning Ordinance be granted for the construction of
one dwelling on the subject parcel , subject to the following
conditions :
Planning Board - 21 - November 18 , 1986
• 1 . Dedication to the Town of Ithaca of the adjoining open space
parcel , and execution of the easement for the 20 - foot right of
way to the open space parcel , prior to issuance of a building
permit for such dwelling .
2 . If the subject parcel is further subdivided , the Planning Board
shall give due consideration to the provision of access to
adjacent lands , and shall require that a road to such subdivision
be constrcted and deeded to the Town of Ithaca .
3 . Any construction on the lot shall be located at least 60 feet
from the south property line , which is the north property line of
Stage I as shown on the aforementioned map .
4 . Any construction on the lot shall be located at least 60 feet
from the centerline of the 20 - foot easement . "
Chairman May declared the Robert and Theresa Berggren matter duly
closed .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR LOT N0 . 33 , EASTWOOD COMMONS , PROPOSED TO BE
LOCATED NEAR HONNESS LANE AND WILDFLOWER DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 42 . EASTWOOD COMMONS DEVELOPMENT CO . , OWNER ;
NORBERT H . SCHICKEL JR . , APPLICANT .
® Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Schickel was present .
Mr . Schickel appeared before the Board and stated that they had
spoken to the Board about the approval of Lot 33 last time , and they
did not have proper details , so , now the Board has that little map
along with that proposed resolution . Mr . Schickel stated that he
better put a map up so the Board members could see it . Mr . Schickel
stated that this is not a consideration of Phase III - - it is simply
one building on a lot in an area " right here " , which is the second
building of the cluster that would have been made up by Buildings 1
and 2 . Mr . Schickel noted that it has a common driveway with Building
1 ; has common utilities , and the road is all in place . Mr . Schickel
stated that one of the units is sold and they are simply seeking
approval .
Mrs . Langhans queried , " This road is in place ? It says future
road . " Chairman May replied , " This road is not . " Mr . Schickel noted ,
" The future road is the part to be built . " Mr . Kenerson asked , " Past
the driveway or past the whole house ? " Mr . Schickel responded , " Yes .
You can see where it is marked there . It comes past the paved parking
lot and past the common driveway . " Chairman May stated , " Okay . And
your proposal is to build this not as the design of the original homes
were ? " Mr . SChickel replied , " That ' s right . This is somewhat related
® to the way Phage III would be . "
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
Planning Board - 22 - November 18 , 1986
there were anybody who wished to speak to this item . Chairman May
asked if anyone wished to speak to please state their name for the
record .
Mrs . Christine M . Stratakos , 124 Honness Lane , spoke from the
floor and stated that she was just wondering about the construction of
the road from the other direction - - when that would take place . Mr .
Schickel responded , " That is projected to be Phase III and , since
Phase III would start at the end , it would not be a continuation of
the other road . It would come in on the lower road . That would be
the beginning of Phase III . "
An unidentified gentleman spoke from the floor and asked if this
were a part of Phase III . Mr . Schickel replied , " No , it is a part of
Phase I . Phase I included Building 1 and a two - building cluster with
a common driveway . Building 1 was built , but the other building was
not built at that time . And this arbitrariness of phasing - - I never
envisioned this would be an issue - - but this goes with Phase I . " The
unidentified gentleman stated , " In other words , this is the incomplete
part of Phase I , however , you want to make a change - - you want to
subdivide a lot . " Mr . Schickel stated , " No - - the same organization
as the original building . It is a somewhat different building than
the one opposite . Similar in interior and exterior and so forth , but
different design . " The unidentified speaker asked , " Do you have a
design of what you propose ? " Mr . Schickel stated , " I have got a model
of a Phase III building that is related to this , so you can get an
idea of the building . The model is of the six - unit building and this
is a three - unit building . I can show you that model and that will
give you an idea . I will show you where it is , too . The building
that we are talking about is right in here . The road comes in here
and the driveway , right here [ indicating ] . "
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Schickel to stand farther back .
Mr . Schickel continued , " I am sorry . This is Wildflower Drive and you
come into here , this driveway , which is a common driveway with
Building 1 . '.Phis is Building 1 and this is the building we are
talking about . Phase III will come in here and this building is the
one . If you want , I can show you a model of it . And you will notice
it is similar to this one except it is a three - unit building , but it
will give you an idea of what it looks like . Incidentally , my
brother , Bill , the designer of Eastwood Commons , is here . He happened
to be in town today . I will pass it around , but you can see the way
this works . These are the garages . Then there is a patio - - in some
cases , a patio , in some cases just a little walkway in front . And
then on the back side , on this particular building , it will be like
this . It will have a balcony and a terrace on the lower level . Some
of them will be like this - - that will not have it , just have a
terrace . "
Chairman May asked , " Could you hold the edges down so you can
look straight into it ? Your intent for this ' three ' garage would be
® what ? What style of garage ? " Mr . Schickel said , " This would be just
a roof . It is only three units . " Chairman May questioned , " It would
be this design „ just this dimension would be shorter ? " Mr . Schickel
Planning Board - 23 - November 18 , 1986
responded , " Well , it would be a three phase part . " Chairman May
stated , " Right , but the two hip roofs - Mr . Schickel responded ,
" That ' s right ., Now , as compared to the building that was originally
there , there is - - it is backing up to another building - - the garages
- - it will bE� facing those garages . And , as they would be if the
buildings werE! built , the way it was originally laid out , they would
be facing a two - story element 30 feet away . Here it is a little bit
farther away and then , also , it is a one - story element . Then a
15 - foot planting area before you come to the building . So , it opens
that up somewhat more than it would have otherwise . "
Chairman May stated , " Anyone who wishes to look at this , please
feel free to do so . "
An unidentified speaker stated , " My concern is , as it has been in
the past , is with the truck traffic . Will there be any increasing
traffic other than what has been happening there lately ? Anything
different - - for this particular building ? " Mr . Schickel responded ,
" With this one particular building - - no - - there is one building
being built , with the road in Phase III . "
Mr . MazzEL asked , " When do you plan to start this one ? " Mr .
Schickel replied , " Immediately . One unit is already sold and I had
hoped it would have been started by now . Just as soon as we have
approval . " Mr . Mazza asked , " This is a situation where this number of
® units has already been approved in this location , is that right ? " Mr .
Schickel stated , " There was a four -unit building approved in this
location . Let me take that back . The whole thing has 176 units . 176
were approved for the development . When I say ' approved ' , it is
subject to final site plan approval , of course , phase by phase . This
is just the way we more or less arbitrarily lumped out Phase I and
Phase II and this was on the plan , but it was not approved as part of
Phase I . Now , that is what I am asking for now , that it be approved
as part of Phase I . " Mr . Mazza queried , " This plot of land and this
building , specifically , have never been approved other than - - . " Mr .
Schickel interjected , " In total development , it was approved . In
other words , it is part of a development that is approved for 176
units . " Mr . Mazza asked , " How many were in Phase I7 " Mr . Schickel
responded , "More than what we built . I believe we actually built
somewhat less than that , but we are going to end up with about 144
units or something like that . Incidentally , I might say , just in
response to your comments at the last meeting , we have made
modifications in this site plan . We got off the right of way . We had
parking on the right of way , and we have taken the parking off the
right of way . And we have opened this up so that you have 30 feet
that we allow for the buildings . And we attempted to address all the
questions that were raised . I am not presenting this now , but I just
thought you would want to know that we are listening . "
Mr . Kenerson stated , " A question I have is lot line distances . I
assume what is shown on here meets the requirements for distance from
® lot lines ? " Mr . Schickel replied , " It is 20 feet from the property
line right here [ indicating ] . Mr . Kenerson continued , " I can see that
- - it was just one of the questions we had . The question is - - does
Planning Board - 24 - November 18 , 1986
it meet the requirements ? " Ms . Beeners wondered , " The one that is
being submitted for Lot 33 ? " Mr . Kenerson said , " Yes . " Ms . Beeners
stated , " It does not in respect to the 30 - foot buffer yard and also
the 30 - foot requirement between buildings . What I am recommending is
that , one , the distance between the building , for example , the
dwelling unit and the garage , that the 30 - foot requirement for that be
waived by you as you have the power to do . And that any deficiencies
in the buffer area around the whole development - - the 30 - foot buffer
- - be made up here for this lot by the conveyance , at such time as the
vacant land , just south of this , is developed , that there is a strip
conveyed to Lot 33 at that time that would make up that buffer . Right
there , I guess , I have a question for Mr . Schickel and that is that
here we have that same situation of your showing a dimension of 20
feet to the main part of the building , but you have this thing on the
back of the building - - a balcony - - which means that that is a
projection , so , if that is about - - maybe it eliminates , or cuts down
what you are providing as a buffer , down to 16 feet , or something like
that . " Mr . Schickel offered , " We could add a little more . It is an
R- 15 and it is 50 by 114 . So we could convey 14 feet without changing
that any . "
Chairman May asked , " What is the width of that boundary ? " Mr :
Schickel inquired , " Of this other lot ? " Chairman May replied , " No
the width of the balcony . Is it four feet - - eight feet ?." Mr .
Schickel stated , " That does not mean - - because it is on an angle - -
it is not going to extend over eight foot . " Chairman May replied ,
" No , but it iS going to extend over a better part of it , so I would
think that - - . " Mr . Schickel offered , " The building could be moved a
little more toward the road . " Mr . Klein suggested , " You could
reserve , since you own that land right to the south , and take whatever
room you want to make - - . " Mr . Mazza interjected , " No , not exactly ,
because he wants to make sure that that is a legal lot there , so he
said - - . " Mr . Schickel stated , " We could go to 14 feet . " Chairman
May queried , " 'You could move the line 14 feet ? " Mr . Schickel stated ,
" We will meet the requirement if we have to cut the deck off . " Mrs .
Langhans offered , " I do not think we are asking that . " Ms . Beeners
suggested , " You could bevel it . " Mr . Schickel stated , " I do not mean
to cut if off . We could design it so - - . "
Chairman May stated , " Other comments ? Anybody else have any
comments ; anything you want to say on this . Okay . We are closing the
Public Hearing ., We are coming back to the Board . From what you have
said , you have no problem with the completion of Harwick Road being a
condition prior- to approval for anything in Phase III ? " Mr . Schickel
stated , " Not prior to , but as a part of Phase III . In other words
- - . " Chairman May stated , " I will buy that . " Mr . Schickel continued ,
" The point I am making is this - - the only way we can do it is as part
of Phase III because , I mean , you cannot just go out and build a road .
We are talking about a lot of money that is conditional upon building
something of value there . We want to get this started this spring . "
Chairman May stated , " Where I am , personally , if I approve 33 , I want
is
to see Harwick Road built before anything in Phase III . " Mr . Schickel
responded , " It can ' t be done . It just can ' t be done . " Mr . Mazza
inquired , " What do you mean ' before ' ? Before a certificate of
Planning Board - 25 - November 18 , 1986
• occupancy is granted ? " Mr . Schickel stated , " That we could do . We
could make Harwick Road - - at least the entering part of it - - at
least up - - you know - - . "
Chairman May asked , " Susan , did you do some research on the
Planning Board ' s requirements on this ? " Ms . Beeners responded , " I was
unable to find anything specifying the completion of Harwick Road
prior to the development of any specific phase , but it was implied in
there that Harwick Road would be constructed as part of Phase III . "
Mr . Mazza inquired , " Is it your concern , during construction , that the
construction vehicles enter through that way ? " Chairman May
responded , " No . My concern , and I think the concern for some time ,
has been the need for the second access for the whole development . We
have been 13 years at this point , and - - . " Mr . Mazza wondered , " If it
were a condition that he build before he could receive a certificate
of compliance with any of the buildings in Phase III , would that meet
your concerns ? " Chairman May replied , " For the first person moved in
in Phase III - - ? " Mr . Mazza suggested , " That would allow him - - . "
Mr . Schickel interrupted , " There is no problem with that as long as we
specify what we are talking about is not the whole of - - in other
words , we are talking about building from Honness Lane , let ' s say , up
to where the :pavement ends . " Chairman May responded , " Well , see , I
think you really should do that for Lot 33 . " Mr . Schickel stated , " An
integral part of Phase III would be bringing in the second road from
Honness Lane and connecting it to the present road . But I just want
to be clear that I am not talking about building the road all the way
up to the property and closing the loop at the other end . "
Mr . Kenerson noted , " The building that is sold will always have a
road in front of it . " Mr . Schickel replied , " The road in front of it ,
but we also will bring the road - - there is about 300 feet or so that
we have to come in - - but we would build that as an integral part of
Phase III and before the first unit was sold . That would be - - when I
say completed , you know , it all kind of takes some doing to be fully
complete - - but the road would be put in place before the first unit
is conveyed . " Mr . Kenerson said , " Up to the first unit - - you are not
going to build the whole route ? " Mr . Schickel responded , " No , but
because we use the word ' complete ' - - I just do not want to have any
misunderstanding on that . What we are talking is - - this part right
here , going in here , and up to this , and then this way to whatever
buildings are built . Let us say that the first unit is conveyed - -
before that unit is conveyed - - this would be completed , and that
[ indicating ] . " Chairman May noted , " What that basically means , then ,
you brought in a deadend spur up to that building ? " Mr . Schickel
responded , " Yes , that is correct . And it comes in here . There is no
way that we could build that whole road . That is totally impractical .
And also , it is not even a good idea because , unless we are going to
build all the utilities , you would be cutting it all up again . "
Mr . Klein stated , " If you sold your number 23 before 32 , which
end would you plan on starting with ? " Mr . Schickel replied , " This end
® because we cannot build here until we build here because the
utilities , the sewer , has to run this way . That is what is limiting
- - this is the last building that we can build and that is what is
Planning Board. - 26 - November 18 , 1986
. dictating the phases . Okay . That is the end of that , and then , we
have to come d.own here and start working this way . "
Chairman May stated , " Okay . Any other comments anyone has ?
Anything ? " Mr . Klein stated , " My only comment , at the last meeting , I
expressed dissatisfaction with changing the basic concept on the site
plan . I guess , obviously , we cannot argue how much that is being
changed . In that sense alone , you would build this one here , as that
gives us a full - scale model to assess , you know , whether that change
is something that is going to be satisfactory . " Mr . Schickel
responded , " The only thing I would say to that , I hope you are not
going to wait to have that building finished before you approve Phase
III , because we want to get started in the spring . We certainly want
to come back to you at the earliest opportunity and , right now ,
though , we just want to get that one building going . "
Chairman May asked , " What do you have to present to us in the way
of drainage plans for Lot 33 ? " Mr . Schickel stated , " The drainage
plans remain -. - we have a complete drainage plan - - I believe you have
got it for Phase III . It is my understanding we are not addressing
Phase III tonight . " Chairman May responded , " No . Lot 33 . " Mr .
Schickel stated , " Lot 33 , it is really - - everything required for it
is already in place . " Chairman May queried , " Where is the drainage
plan for it though ? " Mr . Schickel responded , " Let me say this - - that
you got a little - - I will describe it to you . " Chairman May noted ,
• " We specifically , by the Resolution of the Town Board , are to review
the site plan , drainage plan , water and sewer plan , for Lot 33 . So , I
guess - - . " Mr . Schickel stated , " Well , the water and sewer plan has
already been approved by the Health Department . I mean , there is no
change . All I am doing is hooking up to the connection that is
already there ., So , the only thing that we are talking about is the
site drainage and the driveway is already there . And so , what we are
really only talking about is this little triangle here . And that is
just a knoll , that is what it is . " Chairman May asked , " What are you
doing with the water off the buildings ? " Mr . Schickel replied , " That
will be going - - that would be going into this - - would be a footer
drain - - and that will be going right into the storm sewer . " Chairman
May inquired , " Susan , is there any good reason that we do not have a
drainage plan ? " Ms . Beeners responded , " Well , I could run upstairs
and see to what extent this lot keeps appearing on the earlier
drawings that were approved in here . There is also that . As far as
the utilities ,, the plan received necessary approvals and it included
the road stub , and it looks like there was some kind of implied
approval of this lot in earlier phases just because of where it is .
If you want me! to go up and see if I can bring those things down - - . "
Chairman May noted , " We do not even know the dimensions of the paved
area here , do we ? " Mr . Schickel stated , " It is 40 feet . It is
somewhat wider . " Chairman May reiterated , " Forty feet ? " Mr . Schickel
agreed . Chairman May questioned , " There is no indication of where it
is in front of these garages , right ? " Mr . Schickel stated , " Well , the
exact - - in other words , it is going to be here and there are going to
• be some parking places right in here and there is already built a
little parking area right in here [ indicating ] . " Chairman May
continued , " There is parking right now in front of the garages over
Planning Board. - 27 - November 18 , 1986
• here [ indicating ] ? " Mr . Schickel stated , " No . There is no parking in
front of the garages . There is parking at the end , beyond the
garages . "
Chairman May asked , " How do the rest of you feel about the look
of this without the rest of the information ? " Mr . Klein responded ,
" Perhaps it could be subject to approval of the drainage plan . "
Chairman May asked , " Do you want to go to the SEQR form and motion on
it ? " Ms . Beeners noted , " On the SEQR form itself , it should be the
Lead Agency is the Planning Board and not the Town Board . " Chairman
May wondered , " They are going to take it back and look at the SEQR on
it for Lot 3 .3 ? " Ms . Beeners pointed out , " For Lot 33 , they have
delegated everything to you . " Chairman May noted , " So , we are the
Lead Agency for Lot 33 ? " Ms . Beeners agreed . Mrs . Langhans offered ,
" They delegatE! d us with the authority to review . Does that mean also
- - ? " Chairman May interjected , " Yes . Site plan , drainage plan , and
water and sewer plans . What did you just say a minute ago that the
Town Board was the Lead Agency ? " Ms . Beeners replied , " No . The Town
Board is not the Lead Agency . I was just noting a change that should
be recognized on the back of the Short Form . Since the Town Board has
delegated this to you , you are legislatively determined through our
environmental review regulations to be the Lead Agency . " Chairman May
stated , " I believe that was their intent . "
Town Attorney Barney queried , "Mechanically , Norbert , when would
it be possible: to convey the strip here ? " Mr . Schickel responded , " It
would be , when it would be subdivided or developed . " Mr . Mazza asked ,
" Is there any difficulty doing that now before it gets lost in the
shuffle ? " Mr . Schickel replied , " I am agreeable . " Town Attorney
Barney asked , " As it was in the past , everything except the specific
units are goring to be conveyed to the residents ' association as
maintenance and that sort of thing anyway when you sell the first
unit ? " Mr . Schickel responded , " Right . " Town Attorney Barney
suggested , " It would seem to be cleaner and neater if that included
this conveyance here and then it is done from that point forward . "
Mr . Schickel stated , " We will convey this before the first lot is
finished - - conveyed to the association . " Town Attorney Barney asked ,
" Concurrently with the sale of the first lot ? " Mr . Schickel replied ,
" With the conveyance to the association , yes . " Town Attorney Barney
stated , " The conveyance of the common land would be done concurrently
with the sale of the first lot . " Mr . Schickel responded , " Right . "
Chairman May asked , " Do you want to make the modification then to
the SEQR ? " Town Attorney Barney offered , " Well , it is a modification
that should apply probably to both the SEQR - - to all of them . That
would be to add in the Whereas section , and also in the Resolution
section , a subparagraph ' d ' - - change that to read ' conveyance of a
14 - foot by 100 - foot buffer strip along the south side of Lot 33 , such
conveyance to be concurrent - - . " Mr . Mazza asked , " Do you want to
enjoin that with something ? I do not know that 14 feet is going to be
the right number . " Mr . Schickel countered , " But 14 feet is the amount
• we could convE!y . " Mr . Mazza replied , " Right , but what I am saying is
that may not be enough . The building may have to be shifted slightly
beneath that requirement . However , couple that condition with that - -
Planning Board - 28 - November 18 , 1986
• that the location of the building - - I do not want it to be implied
that we are approving that building in that location if it does not
meet the buffer . " Town Attorney Barney suggested , " Why do you not add
another condition that the building - - after that conveyance - - the
building should be at least 30 feet from the boundary line . Would
that not accomplish what you are - - ? " Mr . Mazza replied , " That ' s
right . "
Chairman May noted , " On ' d ' you want to put in there - - such
conveyance to occur prior to or at the same time of the sale of the
first parcel ? " Town Attorney Barney continued , " What I was going to
do was suggest. that such conveyance be concurrent with the conveyance
of the other common areas and Lot 33 to the Eastwood Commons
Residents ' Association . Then add an additional condition , ' e ' , ' that
the conveyance of all the common areas be made to the Eastwood Commons
Residents ' Association concurrently with the first transfer of any of
the units on Lot 33 . ' Then add Eddie ' s statement that - - as a new
subparagraph ' f ' - - it would be ' f ' - - ' that upon completion of all
conveyances , the building will be located at least 30 feet from the
side line - - or , I guess , it would be the south line of Lot 33 . "'
Chairman May asked if anybody would like to make a motion . Mrs .
Langhans asked. , " On the SEQR ? " Chairman May responded , " Yes , this is
the SEQR form . "
Mrs . Langhans stated , " I will make the MOTION and will read the
Resolved . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board make
and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental
significance :for this action , conditional upon the following : a .
Submission of a subdivision plan suitable for filing when the building
on Lot 33 is constructed , prior to issuance of any certificates of
occupancy for units within such building . b . Waiver of the 30 - foot
distance - - . " Town Attorney Barney interjected , " No . That would come
out . I am sorry . No , it would not . Mrs . Langhans continued ,
" 30 - foot distance between the building as required in Article V ,
Section 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , to require
instead a minimum distance of 15 feet . " Town Attorney Barney
suggested , " I would add - - between the units and the garage , or
garages . That: is the only place I assume that the waiver is being
made . " Mrs . Langhans continued , " Right . C . Modification of any
pertinent yard requirements in regard to the location of the building
in relation to the road right of way . d . Conveyance of a 14 - foot by
150 - foot buffer strip along the south side of Lot 33 from Tax Parcel
6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 2 to Lot 33 , if parcel 25 . 2 is ever subdivided or - - . " Town
Attorney Barney interjected , " No . That is where is would come out . "
Mrs . Langhans wondered , " What , that last line ? " Town Attorney Barney
answered , " Yes . To Lot 33 concurrently with the conveyance of the
common areas - - the rest of the common areas - - on Lot 33 to the
Eastwood Commons Residents ' Association . " Mrs . Langhans noted , " So ,
that was ' d ' and ' e ' ? I did not write it all down . " Town Attorney
Barney responded , " d . Conveyance of all of the common areas on Lot 33
• to the Eastwood Commons Residents ' Association to occur concurrently
with the first: transfer of any of the units on Lot 33 . And f . Upon
completion of all conveyances , the building is to be located at least
Planning Board - 29 - November 18 , 1986
30 feet from the new south line of Lot 33 . "
Mr . Mazza said , " I just wish I understood what you meant by ' c '
- -
' Modification of any pertinent yard requirements in regard to the
location of the building in relation to the road right of way . "' Town
Attorney Barney responded , " The building does not quite meet the right
of way requirements under the setback requirements . It is too close
to the road . Mrs . Langhans queried , " The 27 feet or the 16 feet ? "
Town Attorney Barney replied , " 16 feet . " Mr . Mazza stated , " My
question becomes - - if they have to move the location of the building ,
for the 30 - foot yard buffer , just by putting ' c ' in , it is just going
to cause them to move the building that much farther that way . And ,
if so , is that acceptable ? " Chairman May queried , " And move it that
way or move it up closer to the other - - ? " Town Attorney Barney
responded , " I think they have a problem here . They are encroaching
onto the Residents ' Association lands . Mr . Mazza offered , " If this is
drawn to any kind of accuracy , they could move it up some which may be
all that is necessary . " Town Attorney Barney suggested , " Or you could
get consent , I suppose , from the Residents ' Association . " Mr .
Schickel replied , " We have to convey this property to the owner . We
have to convey property that we own - - unless they convey to us - - we
convey to them. . I mean , that is conceivable , but complicated because
you have got a lot of owners . " Chairman May stated , " I would not
think we would want that closer than 16 feet . " Mrs . Langhans
questioned , " What about on Lot 2 , there , Building A looks very close
to the road , also . " Mr . Schickel noted , " We have got a lot of
buildings on the place that are close . Particularly if you include
the patios . We have got lots of them that are 6 feet from the right
of way . " Chairman May commented , " None of which are built this way . "
Mr . Schickel a ;Dked Chairman May to repeat what he had just said , which
Chairman May did , and Mr . Schickel asked - - which way ? Chairman May
noted , " The way this building is going to be built . " Mr . Schickel
said , " This one is more or less - - . " Chairman May interjected , " Quite
different . " Mr . Schickel continued , " - - the same as - - in other
words , if you look at Building 15 - - the building itself is shown
there - - then beyond that 10 feet is the patio , but the building
itself is back about 16 feet and then the patio extends out another 10
feet . " Town Attorney Barney asked , " You want to limit it to 16 feet ?
That makes it an engineering challenge to Norbert to fit it in within
those parameters . " Chairman May asked , " Do you want to put 16 feet in
or leave it out ? " Mr . Mazza responded , " Well , it is up to Virginia . "
Mrs . Langhans mused , " I would leave it out - - . " Mr . Mazza stated that
he did not hear what Mrs . Langhans had said . Mrs . Langhans stated ,
" Well , if you can make it no less than 16 feet - - . " Mr . Schickel
offered , " We think that is the right distance to be , so we are
inclined - - . " Mrs . Langhans interjected , " But there is a possibility
of making it 17 feet . So let us just say no less than 16 feet . " Town
Attorney Barney suggested , " c . Modification of any pertinent yard
requirements in regard to the location of the building in relation to
the road right of way to allow construction to a point no closer than
16 feet from the road right of way . "
® Chairman May asked if there were a SECOND to the MOTION . Mrs .
Grigorov SECONDED the MOTION .
Planning Board. - 300= November 18 , 1986
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Mazza , Grigorov , Ken erson , Baker , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
The Resolution , as adopted , follows :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is a consideration of Final Site Plan Approval and
Subdivision Approval for Lot 33 of Eastwood Commons ( formerly
known as Lot 39 ) , proposed to be located near Honness Lane on
Sunny Slope Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 42 , and
proposed to be an amendment to Phase I of Eastwood Commons .
2 . This action has been reviewed by the Planning Board at a Public
Hearing on November 18 , 1986 .
3 . The Town Board , by Resolution on November 6 , 1986 , delegated to
the Planning Board the authority to review the site plans ,
drainage plans , and water and sewer plans for Lot 33 of the
Eastwood Commons development .
4 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review , and for which the Town Planner has recommended a negative
declaration of environmental significance , conditional upon the
following :
a . Submission of a subdivision plan , suitable for filing , when
the :building on Lot 33 is constructed , prior to issuance of
any certificates of occupancy for units within such
building .
b . Waiver of the 30 - foot distance between buildings , as
required in Article V , Section 6 , of the Town of Ithaca
Subdivision Regulations , to require instead a minimum
distance of 15 feet .
c . Modification of any pertinent yard requirements in regard to
the location of the building in relation to the road right
of way .
d . Conveyance of a 10 - foot by 150 - foot buffer strip along the
south side of Lot 33 from Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 2 to Lot
33 , if parcel - 25 . 2 is ever subdivided or developed .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
® That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action ,
conditional upon the following .
Planning Board - 31 - November 18 , 1986
• 1 . Submission of a subdivision plan , suitable for filing , when the
building on Lot 33 is constructed , prior to issuance of any
certificates of occupancy for units within such building .
2 . Waiver of the 30 - foot distance between buildings , as required in
Article V . Section 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision
Regulations , to require instead a minimum distance of 15 feet
between the dwelling units and the garages .
3 . Modification of any pertinent yard requirements in regard to the
location of the building in relation to the road right of way , to
allow construction of the building to a point no closer than 16
feet from the road right of way .
4 . Conveyance of all of the common areas on Lot 33 to the Eastwood
Commons Residents ' Association , to occur concurrently with the
first transfer of any of the units on Lot 33 ,
5 . Conveyance of a 14 - foot by 150 - foot buffer strip along the south
side of Lot 33 from Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 2 to Lot 33 , such
conveyance to be concurrent with the conveyance of the rest of
the common areas in Lot 33 to the Eastwood Commons Residents '
Association .
6 . Upon completion of all of the foregoing conveyances , the building
• shall be located at least 30 feet from the new south property
line of Lot 33 .
Chairman May asked if anybody wanted to make a motion or if there
were any discussion . Mr . Mazza asked , " Do you want to discuss the
road , Monty ? You want to add something ? " Chairman May replied ,
" Well , the road - - I still feel very strongly there is a need for that
road to be done prior to the Phase III . " Mrs . Langhans asked , " The
whole road , or - - ? " Chairman May stated , " Well , if you do not do it
- - you see - - what you are doing is just bringing that down into a
deadend there for any one of those houses at the time it is built .
And I feel very strongly , from listening to the Planning Board years
and years and years ago that it was their feeling that that road
should have been completed long before now . No one envisioned this
long a period of time with no - - . " Mr . Schickel asked , " When you say
completed , what are you talking about ? " Chairman May responded , " That
we have a loop here . " Mr . Schickel asked , " You mean this with this ? "
Chairman May indicated , " That . " Mr . Schickel responded , " This is
absolutely implossible . It can ' t be done . This brings the development
to a grinding halt . There is no way we could do that . We built the
whole upper section and now we have completed that loop . Now we have
loops towards the back . As we complete that - - it is a natural
sequence of events there . We are not multi -millionaires , you know . "
Mrs . Grigorov noted , " You are not talking about this lot ? "
Chairman May responded , " No . " Mrs . Grigorov offered , " It does not
• really apply to this Motion here . " Mr . Schickel stated , " You are
talking about a lot of money to put that road in because you have to
put in the utilities and curbs . " Chairman May responded , " Yes . Well ,
Planning Board - 32 - November 18 , 1986
• I think we appreciate that . " Mr . Schickel stated , " You cannot do that
independent of the need for it . " Chairman May replied , "Well , you
know - - another builder - - just recently , we required him to put the
road through , you know . I mean , that is - - . " Mr . Schickel stated ,
" Well , there are different situations . " Mrs . Langhans offered , " But
that pertains more to Phase III . " Chairman May stated , "At this
point , we are saying it is Phase III . " Mrs . Langhans queried , " Would
all the same modifications to the SEQR apply ? Does that need to be
read again ? " Town Attorney Barney indicated , " Yes , and , no . "
Mrs . Langhans stated , " I will make the MOTION , and read the
Resolved . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board
waive and hereby does waive certain requirements for Preliminary and
Final Site Plan and Subdivision Approval , having determined from the
materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a
significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the
policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board , 2 . That the
Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary and Final Site
Plan and Subdivision Approval to this subdivision , as presented in the
material reviewed at a Public Hearing on November 18 , 1986 , subject to
the following conditions : - - which are 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , and 6 , as
presented in the SEQR . "
Chairman May asked if there were a SECOND . Mr . Baker SECONDED
the MOTION . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Mazza , Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - May .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
The RESOLUTION , as adopted , follows .
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is a consideration of Final Site Plan Approval and
Subdivision Approval for Lot 33 of Eastwood Commons ( formerly
known as Lot 39 ) , proposed to be located near Honness Lane on
Sunny Slope Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 42 , and
proposed to be an amendment to Phase I of Eastwood Commons .
2 . This action has been reviewed by the Planning Board at a Public
Hearing on November 18 , 1986 .
3 . The Town Board , by Resolution on November 6 , 1986 , delegated to
the Planning Board the authority to review the site plans ,
drainage plans , and water and sewer plans for Lot 33 of the
Eastwood Commons development .
4 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board has been
® legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review , and for which the Planning Board has made a negative
declaration of environmental significance , conditional upon the
Planning Board'. - 33 - November 18 , 1986
• following .
a . Submission of a subdivision plan , suitable for filing , when
the building on Lot 33 is constructed , prior to issuance of
any certificates of occupancy for units within such
building .
b . Waiver of the 30 - foot distance between buildings , as
required in Article V . Section 6 , of the Town of Ithaca
Subdivision Regulations , to require instead a minimum
distance of 15 feet between the dwelling units and the
garages .
c . Modification of any pertinent yard requirements in regard to
the location of the building in relation to the road right
of way , to allow construction of the building to a point no
closer than 16 feet from the road right of way .
d . Conveyance of all of the common areas on Lot 33 to the
Eastwood Commons Residents ' Association , to occur
concurrently with the first transfer of any of the units on
Lot 33 .
e . Conveyance of a 14 - foot by 150 - foot buffer strip along the
south side of Lot 33 from Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 2 to Lot
33 , such conveyance to be concurrent with the conveyance of
the rest of the common areas in Lot 33 to the Eastwood
Commons Residents ' Association ,
f . Upon completion of all of the foregoing conveyances , the
building shall be located at least 30 feet from the new
south property line of Lot 33 .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan and Subdivision
Approval , having determined from the materials presented that
such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of
the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or
implied by the Town Board .
2 . That the :Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
and Final Site Plan and Subdivision Approval to this subdivision ,
as presented in the material reviewed at a Public Hearing on
November 1. 8 , 1986 , subject to the following conditions .
a . Submission of a subdivision plan , suitable for filing , when
the building on Lot 33 is constructed , prior to issuance of
any certificates of occupancy for units within such
building .
b . Waiver of the 30 - foot distance between buildings , as
required in Article V , Section 6 , of the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board. - 34 - November 18 , 1986
• Subdivision Regulations , to require instead a minimum
distance of 15 feet between the dwelling units and the
garages .
c . Modification of any pertinent yard requirements in regard to
the location of the building in relation to the road right
of way , to allow construction of the building to a point no
closer than 16 feet from the road right of way .
d . Conveyance of all of the common areas on Lot 33 to the
Eastwood Commons Residents ' Association , to occur
concurrently with the first transfer of any of the units on
Lot 33 .
e . Conveyance of a 14 - foot by 150 - foot buffer strip along the
south side of Lot 33 from Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 2 to Lot
33 , such conveyance to be concurrent with the conveyance of
the rest of the common areas in Lot 33 to the Eastwood
Commons Residents ' Association .
f . Upon completion of all of the foregoing conveyances , the
building shall be located at least 30 feet from the new
south property line of Lot 33 .
Mr . Schickel thanked the Board members very much for their time
and consideration .
Chairman May declared the matter of Lot 33 of Eastwood Commons
duly closed . Chairman May stated , "We are going into our last Public
Hearing , and I caution everybody that the Board is going to adjourn at
10 : 00 . The weather is bad . "
PUBLIC HEARING ;; CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND CONSIDERATION
OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA WITH
RESPECT TO A PROPOSAL FOR THE REZONING OF A 10 . 2 -ACRE PORTION OF TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX :PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 3 - 3 . 2 , SAID REZONING PROPOSAL INCLUDING
THE FORMER GRAND LODGE AND FORMER INFIRMARY OF THE INDEPENDENT ORDER
OF ODD FELLOWS ( I . O . O . F . ) , LOCATED AT 1251 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , FROM
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 TO SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT ( LIMITED MIXED
USE ) TO INCLUDE EXPANSION OF THE MAYER SCHOOL , PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ,
AND ONE TO TWO APARTMENTS . CORNELL UNIVERSITY , OWNER ; JOSEPH CIASCHI
AND JAMES MAYER , APPLICANTS .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Mayer was present .
Mr . Mayer appeared before the Board , introduced himself , and
stated , " What we are requesting is a continuation of our discussion
from June - - that is first . We had proposed three phases back then .
The first , you granted , which was to allow The Mayer School to operate
® in the first and second floors - - that would be the ground floor and
first floor . Now , what we are requesting is that we can implement
Phase II , which is to move onto the second floor and , Phase III , to
Planning Board - 35 - November 18 , 1986
• provide for a caretaker . We also are requesting , that is Joe Ciaschi
and I . that WE! be able to use the Infirmary for professional offices ,
medical offices , and , perhaps , an art gallery . Basically , we are
talking about the two buildings outlined here - - the Grand Lodge and
the Infirmary - - that is shown on the third page - - here - - the Grand
Lodge and the Infirmary is shown . On the next page , we have shown the
subdivision between the two buildings , which we discussed at length .
I would like to say , in the Infirmary , we basically plan , at this
time , no extensive renovations . We just need your approval so that we
can look for some professional people to operate it . And , in the
Grand Lodge , basically , we are looking for occupancy on the second
floor so we can provide for classrooms there by removing some interior
walls . On the third floor , begin - - to start - - to provide for a
caretaker , or an apartment for a caretaker , on that third floor
because the building is terribly exposed . And now , with the School in
operation , aside from the teachers who are there at night working away
- - teachers are in there until about 10 : 00 at night and there are
computers and libraries and what have you - - we would very much like
to be able to consider somehow having occupancy . As shown on the last
page , the certificate of occupancy , second to last page , from the Town
of Ithaca , and , on the last page , something stating that The Mayer
School has been given a permanent Charter or absolute Charter by the
Regents of the University of the State of New York . So , the School is
going like gangbusters - - holy smokes - - excitement . And there are
already people who would like to get their children in next year . We
just cannot take them . We need more class space . Mr . Ciaschi and I ,
following his procedure - - as he did in the Boardman House and the
Clinton Hall - - in trying to maintain some of the Ithaca buildings .
He is very interested in participating . His grandchild is also in the
School . That always adds a small difference . "
Chairman May asked , "Where are you proposing the art gallery ? "
Mr . Mayer replied , " In the new Infirmary , That is where all the
professional offices will be . There was some mention that it would be
in the bottom floor , which is marked 1525 . It is facing toward the
apple trees toward the other ' lot . " Chairman May wondered , " That was
the old physical therapy room . " Mr . Mayer stated , " I do not know what
it was . " Town Attorney Barney asked , " What is the ' Kindergarden ' - - a
garden for children ? " Mr . Mayer responded , " Kindergarten . That is
the German word for children ' s garden . Did I misspell it ? My wife
should be here . She takes delight in pointing out my errors . "
Chairman May commented , " So , we are making a recommendation to the
Town Board as far as Special Land Use District . "
Town Attorney Barney asked , " Are you going to purchase this
building , or is Cornell going to contine to be the owner ? " Mr . Mayer
replied , " We intend to purchase the building , hopefully , yes , sir . "
Mrs . Langhans asked , " Both lots ? " Mr . Mayer responded , " Yes , ma ' am ,
all ten acres . " Town Attorney Barney noted , " The subdivision line
runs through - - . " Mr . Mayer interjected , " Yes . So we do not have to
worry about that any more . We were threatened by Cornell saying they
® were going to ,sell both lots . We originally , as you remember - - The
Mayer School was going by this - - and Cornell said they were going to
sell the whole schmeer - - you guys get off the table , and you ' ve got
Planning Board - 36 - November 18 , 1986
two days to do it . Anyway , Ciaschi and I got together and said , we
will buy the whole schmeer and use this as our School for one grand
lodge . We will just try and sell the parents , who are many doctors ,
and they have inquired about renting space there since it is on the
way to the Hospital . I cannot imagine why someone would like to work
in the same building where their kid is going to school , but far be it
from me . "
Chairman May stated , " I assume we have no comments from the
public here . " Mr . Mayer stated , " I have an advocate here - - the
person who is in the nearby building .
Mr . Peter R . Hoover , Director of the Paleontoligical Research
Institution , Spoke from the floor and stated , " Just saying , we hope
you approve . " Chairman May stated , " We will close the Public Hearing
and come back to the Board . Does the Board have any comments or
questions , or does somebody want to make a motion ? " Chairman May
noted , " The Town Board is the Lead Agency . If there is anything that
you have questions on or any areas that you disagree with , we should
go through them . " Mr . Kenerson asked , " This right of way through here
is going to be given by Cornell ? " Mr . Mayer responded , " The right of
way was - - . " Mr . Kenerson interjected , " We are noticing it cuts off
the highway . " Mr . Mayer stated , " In the subdivision , the story was
that we are stuck with the snow removal . Basically , there , we will
still provide access , at some later time , for Reeses and Holgate
throughout this bottom acre so you somehow could have access . They
would actually like to swap the access route to the other side . I
think that must come later . The decision , in fact , the statement by
Cornell , they said we would have access either through the present
road or the new road to the School . " Mr . Kenerson offered , " Just
concerned that sometimes these things get lost . " Chairman May noted ,
" We had the original approval . It required that access be given to
both sides , the Infirmary , the Lodge , and the Cottage - - all off that
main road . So , they were very specifically covered , as well as this
right of way . Again , at such time as it was developed , they will
grant easements to everybody on the road . "
Town Attorney Barney stated , " Mr . Chairman , I would like the
record to note that our firm has represented , and I think still does
represent , Mr . Mayer and The Mayer School . Mr . Buyoucos , I think ,
worked for them . Chairman May stated , " Let the record show it .
Thank you . "
Mr . Kener .son stated , " The environmental thing - - I am not reading
it correct - - # 12 on parking in existence , ' 250 ' , proposed , 50 ,
traffic generated , 100 . " Mr . Mayer explained , " Approximately . That
was my mistake to say approximately 50 . That ' wiggle ' is
' approximately ' - - not 200 . " Mr . Kenerson asked , " You are not adding
- - ? " Mr . Mayer replied , " No , sir , we are not . That item 12 ,
existing , that is a wiggle meaning approximately 50 , not 250 . It
means there is about 50 . " Chairman May noted , " It is not a 121 , it is
' approximately ' . " Mr . Mayer quipped , " It is sloppy handwriting . "
Chairman May stated , " It is approximately 50 . " Ms . Beeners noted ,
" The number 11 above that , though , should be the number of proposed
Planning Board - 37 - November 18 , 1986
• dwelling units , to be consistent with the other information on here . "
Chairman May responded , " Yes . Do you accept that change ? " Mr . Mayer
replied , " Yes . We have talked about that . We are suggesting that - -
if I understand it correctly - - that means two apartments . " Chairman
May stated , " Yes . And residence for one to two families . "
Chairman May asked , " Any other questions - - any other comments
any other changes ? " Mr . Kenerson commented , " I read the signs as
being eliminated . "
Chairman May asked , " Somebody like to make a motion ? You have
copies of this ? " Mr . Mayer responded , " No , sir . " Ms . Beeners
reiterated , " Fie does not . " Chairman May offered , " I would suggest
that maybe we furnish you with a copy . Is there anyone who has any
questions on it - - the motion as it is ? " Ms . Beeners responded , " Yes .
That should be changed . Well , there are two things . Number three of
the Whereas , on the first page , what I am assuming is that the Board
is comfortable with the site plan that was in the application and that
it is my opinion that this plan could constitute a final site plan
approval , and that , if everything else looks pretty good to you , this
would not havE! to return to you unless the Town Board saw some need
for it to . Mrs . Langhans asked , " That is the one with the two
buildings ? " Chairman May responded , " Yes . " Ms . Beeners noted , " So ,
the changes that I would propose making in this draft resolution refer
to that in a couple of places . I mean , I do not know if you want me
to mention them at this point , or just make sure there is a consistent
record to that . " Mrs . Langhans noted , " That could be one of the
things that we review . " Ms . Beeners responded , " Yes . "
Chairman May asked , " You are comfortable with that ? " Mr . Klein
responded , " I will be here all night reading it . I will MOVE it . "
Chairman May stated , " We need a second . " Mr . Kenerson stated ,
" SECOND . "
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Langhans , Klein .
Nay - None „
Abstain - Mazza .
Mr . Mazza stated , " I abstained because our firm does represent
Mr . Ciaschi on. a regular basis . Whether we will on this I do not
know , but it iS my father that does , so I will just abstain . "
Chairman Play stated , " Alright . Thank you . "
Chairman May declared the matter of The Mayer School duly closed
and stated to Mr . Mayer , " You ' re on to the Town Board . "
The Resolution , as adopted , follows .
® WHEREAS :
1 . This action is a request for Site Plan Approval and for the
Planning Board - 38 - November 18 , 1986
• proposed rezoning of a 10 . 2 - acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 3 - 3 . 2 , such portion including the former Grand
Lodge and former Infirmary of the Independent Order of Odd
Fellows , located at 1251 Trumansburg Road , from Residence
District R30 to Special Land Use District ( Limited Mixed Use ) , to
include expansion of The Mayer School , professional offices , and
one to two apartments .
2 . This project is a Type I action for which the Town Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review . The Tompkins County Planning Department is a potentially
involved agency which has been notified of this action and this
Lead Agency designation pursuant to New York State General
Municipal Law , Section 239 - m . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals has also been notified of the Lead Agency designation .
3 . The Planning Board has reviewed the following material at a
Public Hearing on November 18 , 1986 :
SEQR Long Environmental Assessment form , dated November 6 ,
1986 ;
Application to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and Board
of Appeals , dated November 6 , 1986 , which includes a
site plan for the area proposed to be rezoned .
• 4 . The Zoning Board of Appeals , on June 25 , 1986 , granted Special
Approval to The Mayer School for its Phase I operation in the
former Grand Lodge on said land .
5 . The Planning Board , on September 2 , 1986 , granted Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed subdivision of this
land from the remainder of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 24 - 3 - 3 . 2 , subject to the following conditions :
a . The execution of appropriate cross - easements relating to the
use of the passageways and exits between the former Grand
Lodge and the former Infirmary ,
b . Conformance of the buildings located on the subject land and
of the respective uses of these buildings with pertinent
requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention
and Building Code , and all other applicable regulations ,
c . Approval by the Town Engineer and the Town Attorney of sewer
and access easements for the benefit of the subject land .
6 . The Town :Planner , on November 18 , 1986 , has recommended that a
negative declaration of environmental significance be made for
this action , subject to the following conditions :
a . The concurrence of the Tompkins County Planning Department
® as to Lead Agency designation pursuant to New York State
General Municipal Law , Section 239 -m ;
Planning Board - 39 - November 18 , 1986
• b . Conformance of the buildings located on the subject land and
of -the respective uses of these buildings with pertinent
requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention
and Building Code , and all other applicable regulations ;
c . Approval by the Town Engineer and the Town Attorney of sewer
and access easements for the benefit of the subject land .
d . The adoption and implementation of certain provisions and
conditions as herein recommended .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Town Board that a negative declaration of environmental
significance be made for this action , subject to the following
conditions :
a . The concurrence of the Tompkins County Planning Department
as to Lead Agency designation pursuant to New York State
General Municipal Law Section 239 -m ;
b . Conformance of the buildings located on the subject land and
of the respective uses of these buildings with pertinent
requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention
and Building Code , and all other applicable regulations ;
c . Approval by the Town Engineer and the Town Attorney of sewer
and access easements for the benefit of the subject land .
d . The adoption and implementation of certain provisions and
cond + tions as herein recommended .
2 . That the Planning Board find and hereby does find the following :
a . TherE! is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location in order to adaptively reuse the buildings on said
land for the expansion of The Mayer School and for limited
office and residential uses as are proposed . Such uses are
considered compatible in concept with adjacent land uses .
b . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood will not be adversely affected . The use as
proposed involves minor site and building changes . The
buildings were formerly used for institutional facilities .
The scale and type of use proposed is considered to be in
character with the neighborhood .
c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development of the Town , as provided for in Local
Law No . 2 - 1984 , which permits the establishment of Special
® Land Use Districts , and as such Special Land Use Districts
have been heretofore reasonably established by the Town .
The proposal also represents an ongoing community commitment
•
Planning Board - 40 - November 18 , 1986
• to the mixed reuse of former institutional space , and the
conservation of a potentially historic building group .
3 . That the Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the site
plan for the proposed action , as shown on the site plan reviewed
by the Planning Board on November 18 , 1986 , and recommends to the
Town Board that such plan be considered the final site plan ,
subject to the following conditions :
a . The determination by the Town Board of a negative
declaration of environmental significance for the proposed
action , contingent upon the adoption and implementation of
certain provisions and conditions as herein recommended ,
b . The concurrence of the Tompkins County Planning Department
as to Lead Agency designation pursuant to New York State
General Municipal Law Section 239 -m ;
c . Conformance of the buildings located on the subject land and
of the respective uses of these buildings with pertinent
requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention
and .Building Code , and all other applicable regulations ;
d . Approval by the Town Engineer and the Town Attorney of sewer
and access easements for the benefit of the subject land .
FURTHER , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Town Board the following .
1 . That the Town Board resolve to amend Article II , Section 2 , of
the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca , by adding to the list
of permissible Districts itemized in said Section a Special Land
Use District ( Limited Mixed Use ) , such District consisting of a
10 . 2 - acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 3 - 3 . 21
with such portion including the former Grand Lodge and former
Infirmary of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows , located at
1251 Trumansburg Road , and with such District to include
expansion of The Mayer School , professional offices , and one to
two apartments , as described in the project submittals reviewed
by the Planning Board on November 18 , 1986 .
2 . That the uses permitted in this Special Land Use District be :
a . any use permitted in an R9 , R15 , R30 , or Multiple Residence
District .
be any use permitted in an Agricultural District .
co professional offices , such as medical offices , laboratories
( subject to the further provisions stated herein ) , and an
art gallery , as such uses are specifically set forth in the
project submission reviewed by the Planning Board on
Planning Board - 41 - November 18 , 1986
November 18 , 1986 , and as such uses may be subsequently
amended with the approval of the Planning Board .
3 . That , notwithstanding the foregoing , no uses otherwise permitted
shall be allowed in such district if the uses produce offensive
noise , odors , smoke , fumes , vibration , glare , electronic
interference , radiation , or if the use involves substances or
devices that may cause harm due to their hazardous nature . That
no uses shall be permitted if not pursuant to and consistent with
a unified plan for the entire Special Land Use District as the
same may be initially approved by the Planning Board and
subsequently amended with the approval of the Planning Board .
4 . That any use in this district shall be governed by all of the
requirements , including sideyards , setbacks , building coverage ,
accessory uses , and similar requirements , of the most restrictive
district ( other than this Special Land Use District ( Limited
Mixed Use ) ) in which such use is permitted by other terms of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , except that the number of
parking places required shall be the number presently provided
unless the Planning Board , in its discretion , determines parking
is inadequate , in which event the number of parking places shall
be increased to the number designated by the Planning Board up to
the maximum that would otherwise be required by the most
restrictive districts for which each use would be governed but
for the existence of this Special Land Use District ,
5 . That , in addition to the requirements and restrictions imposed by
any other district , there shall be no new construction in this
Special Land Use District unless and until all of the
requirements of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance have been
complied with and , in addition , the following requirements to the
extent not: required by other provisions of this ordinance :
a . The exterior design , specifications , and plans for the
buildings and other improvements to be constructed on the
premises and the development of the grounds and construction
of all outside facilities including lighting and signs shall
have been shown on any final site plan approved by the
Planning Board , and any construction thereafter shall be in
accordance with said site plan as finally approved . In
determining whether or not to approve the site plan , the
Planning Board may employ the same considerations it would
employ in approving a site plan pursuant to Sections 46 and
78 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance .
b . Permits shall be required for any construction , including
construction of signs and outdoor lighting facilities . Such
permits shall not be issued until the Planning Board has
approved the design and specifications therefor .
c . No new construction and no additional occupancy of the
existing buildings in this Special Land Use District shall
be permitted if the Planning Board , in its discretion ,
Planning Board - 42 - November 18 , 1986
• determines that present arrangements for on - site parking are
inadequate until sufficient on - site parking spaces are
provided in an amount required by the Planning Board up to
the amount required by the most restrictive districts for
which each use would be governed but for the existence of
this: Special Land Use District .
d . Any construction for which a permit is granted shall comply
with. all applicable laws , codes , ordinances , rules , and
regulations .
PLANNING BOARD VACANCY
Chairman May stated , " I will contact our three applicants for the
South Hill position and let them know - - . " Mr . Mazza stated ,
" Actually , I have heard of a fourth person who would be interested . "
Chairman May stated , " If you want to have them get a letter to me , we
are proposing that we will interview them starting at 7 : 00 at our
first meeting in December . "
DISCUSSION
Chairman May stated , " Susan , I assume . that with the Jagat Sharma
proposal you had written up and sent in the packets , what you wanted
us to do was to be aware . " Ms . Beeners responded , " I wanted you to be
aware of it , yes . " Chairman May stated , " Everybody will go up and
® look at it . " Ms . Beeners continued , You will be receiving
materials . You probably have been receiving calls about it . "
Chairman May stated , " I may have a problem because I am working with
Jagat on a number of other projects . "
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the November 18 , 1986 , meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9 : 57 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
Susan C . Beeners , Recorder .
Lori Walker , Tape Transcriber .