Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1987-01-20 of, �. FILED TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Date Clerk JANUARY 20 , 1987 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , January 20 , 1987 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , Edward Mazza , David Klein , Robert Kenerson , Robert R . Flumerfelt ( Town Engineer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Andrew Frost ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) , Richard Ruswick , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) , Mary S . Bryant ( Recording Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Anne McLaughlin , Richard Schwartz , Barbara Helmer , Jeanette Hanford , Paul Hartman , J . Gormly Miller , Christine M . Stratakos , Alexander Feldman , Eleanor May , William Schickel , Norbert H . Schickel Jr . , Anton Egner , David C . Auble , Adolph J . Collettir David N . Ryan , Michael A . Tomlan , John T . Fecitt , Harrison Rue , William J . Schickel , Pamela Clermont , Nell Mondy , Nancy Ostman , Sharon Haas , Slade Kennedy Jr . , Shirley K . Egan , Shu - Shu Foo ( Channel 7 News ) , Christopher Costa ( Channel 7 News ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 35 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on January 13 , 1987 and January 15 , 1987 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion , as appropriate , 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 Superintendent of Public Works , and upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , on January 14 , 1987 . PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR EASTWOOD COMMONS PHASE III , 66 UNITS AND PAVILION , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED NEAR HONNESS LANE ON HARWICK ROAD AND SUNNYSLOPE LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 42 , MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . EASTWOOD COMMONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION , OWNER/ DEVELOPER ; NORBERT H . SCHICKEL JR . , PRESIDENT . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Schickel was present . Mr . Schickel addressed the Board with a brief summary of Eastwood Commons Subdivision . Applicant stated that the original approval for 176 dwelling units on 18 . 9 acres was approved in February 1973 . There were to be 108 dwelling units in Phases I and II which includes • f Planning Board - 2 - January 20 , 1987 • buildings 26 and 33 , with 68 dwelling units in Phase III . Overall density as approved - - 9 . 3 dwelling units per acre . The as -built numbers for Phases I and II are 76 dwelling units on 10 . 87 acres , including buildings 26 and 33 , with the overall as -built density for Phases I and II being 7 dwelling units per acre . There are now 66 dwelling units proposed for Phase III to be built on 8 . 03 acres . The overall density for Phase III as proposed is 8 . 2 dwelling units per acre and includes the land which is proposed as the pavilion site . Mr . Schickel came before the Board in the Fall of 1986 for preliminary approval on the project . Mr . Schickel appended several drawings to the bulletin board for review by the Board and the public . Mr . Schickel pointed out that the plans were adjusted so that there will be 30 feet between buildings . Applicant is checking into the required 15 - foot right of way . Site plan was revised to eliminate parking in the right of way . Name of the street has been changed from Sunnyslope Lane to Sunnyhill Lane in accordance with the requirements of the U . S . Postal Service , Chairman May said the name change should also be checked with the Fire Department , Mr . Schickel said he would do so . Mr . Schickel ' s brother , William Schickel , Loveland , Ohio , came before the Board . He stated that they were trying to accomplish three things . ( 1 ) Create something that is compatible with the environment . • ( 2 ) Try to keep with the kind of community that Ithaca is , and keep in mind the needs of the people living in Ithaca . ( 3 ) Create something artistically meaningful . Chairman Play noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak . Christine Stratakos , 124 Honness Lane , felt there will be a traffic problem with the amount of traffic during construction on Harwick Road . J . Gormly Miller , 7 -1) Wildflower Drive , was concerned with traffic . Anne McLaughlin , 1342 Slaterville Road , was concerned with increased runoff on Slaterville Road . In the Spring the ground is very soggy . Mrs . McLaughlin wanted to know if something will be done to eliminate a large amount of runoff down the hill . Mr . Schickel noted that this will be taken care of by pipes from above . Eleanor May , 1360 Slaterville Road , was concerned with runoff . Mrs . May stated that a creek runs between her property and her neighbor , Edward W . King . The creek is always full . Mrs . May was concerned whether there will be more water than there is now . Mr . Schickel stated that there should not be any more water . • Chairman May asked if any calculations were going to be made as to impervious surfaces . Mr . Schickel read the following : Planning Board - 3 - January 20 , 1987 " 176 units on 18 . 9 acres - - 9 . 3 units per acre in original plan . Phase I - - 40 units . Phase II - - 36 units . 76 units total - - 7 units per acre . Phase III - - 8 . 2 units per acre . Overall Density - - 7 . 5 units per acre . Total Project Area is 823 , 284 square feet , as approved in 1973 . Building Coverage - - 134 , 288 square feet , or 16 . 38 % of site . Parking Coverage - - 99 , 777 square feet , or 12 . 1 % of site . Roads Coverage -- 103 , 740 square feet , or 12 . 6 % of site . Phases I and II - - 79 , 727 square feet , or 16 . 8 % of site . Roads - - 64 , 540 square feet , or 13 . 6 % of site . Total Coverage is 44 . 0 % of the site . Phase III - - 349 , 786 square feet . Building Coverage - - 60 , 976 square feet , or 17 . 4 % of site . Parking - - 60 , 688 square feet , or 17 . 3 % of site . Roads - - 39 , 200 + square feet , or 11 . 2 % of site . Total coverage is 45 . 9 % . Overall Building Coverage - - 140 , 703 square feet , or 17 . 1 % of site . Overall Parking - - 124 , 858 square feet , or 15 . 2 % of site . Overall Roads - - 103 , 740 square feet , or 12 . 6 % of site . Total Overall Coverage - - 44 . 9 % of site . " Pamela Clermont , Eastwood Avenue Extension , was concerned with • drainage , and also wanted to know the distance between buildings , and also was concerned with looking at the back of a mass of buildings from her home . Nell Mondy , 126 Honness Lane , was concerned with the view which would be created and the noise factor and asked if the construction traffic can use Harwick Road . Mr . Schickel cannot guarantee that a certain route will be taken ; someone will be affected . Sharon Haas , 1336 Slaterville Road , was concerned with runoff . Town Planner Beeners stated that the proposal before the Board in November showed 70 units rather than the 66 that are currently proposed . That proposal for 70 units was submitted for the November Planning Board meetings and was given a preliminary approval by the Town Engineer in October . Additionally , in the original 1973 Resolution which established the Eastwood Commons development , there is a condition that if there are drainage problems which arise at any time after the project has been installed , the Town can require Mr . Schickel to make the improvements . Additionally , there are some specific drainage improvements that have been requested over the last six months , and: there will be further approval that will have to be considered for a revised drainage plan for whatever the revised site plan is . Eleanor May , 1360 Slaterville Road , requested that our new Town • Engineer come out to take a look at the site . Mr . Flumerfelt said that he would . • f Planning Board - 4 - January 20 , 1987 A voice asked if it were correct in its understanding that all the construction traffic would come through Harwick Road . Mr . Schickel responded , yes , adding that it was his understanding that that was a Town. Board requirement . Chairman May asked if there were any other questions by anyone . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 20 p . m . , and asked for questions or comments from the Board . A brief discussion ensued between Chairman May and Mrs . Grigorov about one building permit being permitted to be issued . Town Planner Beeners addressed the Board as to the Draft Resolution prepared for this meeting of the Planning Board ( January 20 , 1987 ) , and noted a further revision , referring to Appendix " A " , which is the revised proposed resolution for the Town Board where the Town Board would delegate site plan review and approval powers to the Planning Board ; the Town Board would approve covenants for the project , and also , in Appendix " A " is the evolving revised draft local law amending the requirements for the 1973 establishment of the zone . Ms . Beeners stated that since the Board last saw the draft local law and made recommendations to the Town Board , the draft local law has been further amended . Ms . Beeners noted that Paragraph " F " , " Section 6 . ( b ) " of the draft local law includes that " Such units shall • be built in clusters not exceeding four units in each cluster , provided , however , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in its discretion may authorize up to six units in each cluster in Phase III of such development if it finds such cluster or clusters are compatible with the overall design , density , and character of the earlier phases of the Eastwood Commons development . " Ms . Beeners noted that on the last page of the draft local law , paragraph " G " , " Section 6 . ( c ) " has a further amendment such that " Unless waived by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board or unless a variance is granted by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , no building in this zone shall exceed two stories in height above ground level . " A further amendment to the draft local law , not shown in Appendix " A " , but is shown on the second page of the Draft Resolution , is that a new sub -paragraph -• - ( 5 ) - - is recommended to be added to the draft local law . " A letter of credit , in a form acceptable to the Town Engineer , the Town Attorney , and the Town Supervisor shall be issued for the completion of Harwick Road and the road identified as Sunnyslope Lane [ to be Sunnyhill Lane ] from Honness Lane to Buildings 30 and 31 , and for the utilities , landscaping , and other site work required for the completion of Buildings 30 and 31 and for the Pavilion , prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase III of Eastwood Commons . No certificate of occupancy and no more than the buildings permits necessary for the construction of Buildings 30 and 31 and the Pavilion shall be issued for any structures in Phase III of Eastwood Commons unitl Harwick Road is constructed to Town specificatins from Harwick Road and the road identified as Sunnyslope Lane [ Sunnyhill Lane ] from • Honness Lane to Buildings 30 and 31 . " Additionally , Ms . Beeners stated that she would recommend that Planning Board - 5 - January 20 , 1987 . all construction traffic be required to use the Harwick Road entrance and not to use the Wildflower Drive entrance to the project . Ms . Beeners stated that she thought that summarizes the major changes since the Board last saw it , adding that if there were any other questions , or comments on the conditions , she would be happy to answer them . Chairman May stated that the appropriate action would be to adjourn the matter until after the Town Board meets on February 9th . Chairman May stated that he did have one question with respect to SEQR and the attachments signed by Mr . Fabbroni . Ms . Beeners responded that the signature refers to a certificate from the N . Y . S . Health Department , Ms . Beeners stated that staff has reviewed the project in the office - - Mr . Flumerfelt has compared the drainage as originally approved , as built , and as is now proposed . Ms . Beeners stated that she has looked at the different SEQR factors as far as any potential impact on land , or water , character of the community , and could further elaborate at this time if the Chairman felt it was appropriate . Chairman Play wondered if this should not be adjourned at this time also so we have the whole package at one time - - as far as changes that were made on the EAF . Chairman May stated that , without going through one by one and checking , he was not sure exactly what changes were made , and he thought those should be noted somewhere . Mr . Klein wondered if the changes were on the EAF . Ms . Beeners stated that the changes on the EAF are basically those that refer to the number of units and gross building sizes , and , as far as impervious surfaces are concerned , the data Mr . Schickel read off tonight as far as the extent of impervious surfaces , this is the first time that that was supplied by Mr . Schickel , however , Mr . Flumerfelt has been doing his own evaluation of it . Chairman May asked what the pleasure of the Board was . Mr . Klein commented that we cannot , really , act until the Town Board authorizes it . Mrs . Grigorov wondered if the Board was supposed to review it , noting that it says for Planning Board review . Chairman May stated that they are not asking for any comments . Mr . Klein agreed and Chairman May added that it was informational . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Schickel how the surface of Harwick Road will be treated , noting that during the summer there could be lots of trucks going through there , and further asking what the surface will be like in a situation where there could be lots of dust . Mr . Schickel stated that the base and crusher run is to be put in , and the oil , and the road brought to that level before any units were conveyed . Mr . Mazza wondered about how it would be during the construction phase . Mr . Schickel offered that it would depend a little bit on when they get approval and get started , adding that • their intention would be to do that road , commenting that there is a lot of work to get that in , put the base in immediately and then , as the curbs and utilities and those things go in , there is the question of getting it done at the right time . Mr . Mazza asked , in relation to Planning Board - 6 - January 20 , 1987 • when the construction of the units and the preparation of the site where the units are going to be built , when the base is going to be put down on the road . Mr . Schickel stated that it would be at the beginning . Mr .. Mazza asked if it would be simultaneously with the buildings , or , how in relation to when the building is starting to be erected , or prior to the preparation of the site for the dwellings . Mr . Schickel stated that it would be done simultaneously . Mr . Schickel stated that there will be a gravel base because they need that , adding that there is sort of a natural sequence of events - - as they prepare the site they will , no doubt , excavate that road and put the gravel base! in right up front . Chairman May asked if anyone cared to make a motion . Discussion followed with respect to the next Planning Board meeting after February 9th - - February 17th . Mrs . FullE! r asked the Chair for permission to speak , and having been granted same , asked Chairman May if it were not important for the Town Board to be aware of the Planning Board ' s thoughts with respect to the information contained in the Draft Resolution . Is that document not relevant to the Town Board ' s considerations on the 9th ? Mrs . Fuller ' s concern was that the Town Board will say , " What did the Planning Board say ? " , with the response being that the Planning Board adjourned the matter . Ms . Beeners stated that the basic intent of the Draft Resolution was , considering the timing of having the Town Board enact modifications to the local law , for the Planning Board to remake the recommendation on the modifications - - these later modifications to that draft local law - - and also to , if it were appropriate , grant preliminary site plan approval to the project conditional upon the various decisions that the Town Board would have to make as far as adopting the local law , and having the Planning Board be the site plan review board for this and having the Planning Board be the lead agency . Referring to the Draft Resolution , Chairman May stated that with some of this he would certainly agree , however , paragraph III is one he would think the Planning Board has to review very carefully . As for # IV , he was not sure he was prepared to say he agreed with that at this time - - certainly not paragraph 2 in # IV . Mrs . Grigorov noted that paragraph 1 in # IV is not needed any more since the distance between buildings is now 30 feet . Chairman May offered that there were some other items . Mrs . Grigorov stated again that with respect to those two , she thought the design has been changed so that that would not be needed , that is , the 30 - foot distance . Chairman May stated that in # III , we are talking about six buildings which he was not prepared to say at this point that he found acceptable , adding that was just one person ' s opinion . He had considerable concern about the 30 - foot distance . He thought we are • looking at a wall here , in spite of everything that has been stated , we are looking at a wall - - we are looking at the face of all these garages . He was not prepared to say preliminary site plan approval at Planning Board - 7 - January 20 , 1987 this time , and again , he was not speaking for other people . He could not accept this without severe modifications . Mrs . Grigorov noted that they have made great modifications . Chairman May offered that they have reduced the density . Chairman May asked Mr . Schickel what the distance is between buildings , with Mr . Schickel responding , a minimum of thirty feet . Chairman May noted that , so , we do have 30 feet between , but we do have all of the garages on the front at this point still . Mr . Schickel stated that he did have a little model of one of the structures if the Board wanted to see . Mr . William Schickel displayed the wooden model to the Board and the public . Chairman May commented that we are still basically looking at a solid wall of buildings even though they have been opened up somewhat . Chairman May asked what the minimum distance was before - - was it 15 feet before ? Mr . Klein offered that that is what he remembered . Mr . Schickel stated that he thought it was 20 feet , but he was not sure . Mr . Schickel pointed out that what he was displaying was the six - unit building - - Building 31 . Chairman May asked how long these units would be , with .Mr . Klein responding 96 feet . Mr . Paul Hartman , 132 Pine Tree Road , asked from the floor where that building is on the plan . Mr . Schickel indicated its location on the plan on the bulletin board . • Town Attorney Ruswick stated that , after review , he did not think there is anything in the Draft Resolution that has to go to the Town Board for it to pass on , adding that that was the question asked by Mrs . Fuller . Chairman May offered that , so we can adjourn without doing anything further and not in any way cause a problem for the Town Board , Mrs . Fuller commented that that was the import of her question , with Chairman May adding that that was his understanding . Mr . Mazza stated that with this building we can see that with three of the units the second from the top floor comes right out on the ground and with " these " three , they come out on a balcony and there is a level below it . Mr . Schickel noted that most of these have balconies on them . Mr . Mazza noted that in looking from " this view here " it is going to appear three stories high . Indicating on the map , Mr . Schickel stated that " these " all are like " these " . Mr . Mazza pointed out that from the west side you see three stories . Mr . Schickel stated that he was concerned about the time . They have been here since Septmeber . He was very anxious ; there is a lot to a development like this . They need to move it forward ; they need to get approval ; they have done everything they can for this . Chairman May offered that there is nothing the Board can do until after the February 9th meeting of the Town Board - - nothing the Planning Board can do until the after the Town Board acts . Mr . Mazza apologized for referring to this matter again and asked if , from the ground to the peak of the roof looking at it from the west side , was lie correct in assuming that that is going to be in the neighborhood of 34 feet from the ground level to the peak of the roof . Planning Board - 8 - January 20 , 1987 • Mr . Schickel stated that from the ground level to the roof is less than 30 feet in. every instance , but , from the ground level to the peak of the roof - - which is uphill - - from " here to here " - - is going to be 25 feet 10 inches . From " here " to the peak of the roof would be about 26 feet eight inches . So , at any point where the ground is sloping away it is less than 30 feet from the ground to the roof at that point . This is something related to the hill . Ms . Beeners offered that the way it is defined in the Subdivision Regulations , a .s far as height goes , it is measured from the lowest point on the ground to the highest point on the roof . Mr . Schickel stated that the dimension for that , just so we have it clear , would be 34 feet . Ms . Beeners commented that that would be four feet over . Chairman May asked if anyone wished to make a resolution of adjournment to the February 17th meeting . MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the matter of consideration of site plan approval and preliminary subdivision approval for Eastwood Commons , Phase III , be and hereby is adjourned to 8 : 15 p . m . on Tuesday , February 17 , 1987 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . • Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of Eastwood Commons Phase III duly adjourned at 8 : 45 p . m . Chairman May announced to the public present the day , date , and time of the continuation of the Planning Board discussion , noting that the Public Hearing had been closed , however , the meeting was public , and any and all were welcome who have interest . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR THE FORMER MAJESTIC HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT ( BILL J . MANOS ) , GRANTED FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON JANUARY 18 , 1983 ; 119 DWELLING UNITS PLUS ONE PRIVATE RESIDENCE APPROVED , 119 DWELLING UNITS PLUS ONE PRIVATE RESIDENCE REQUESTED ; 17 BUILDINGS APPROVED , 15 BUILDINGS REQUESTED ; 200 PARKING SPACES APPROVED , 210 REQUESTED ; REVISIONS TO FLOOR PLAN , LOCATION OF PARKING AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS , AND PROVISION OF COURTYARD , REQUESTED . EAST KING ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX :PARCEL NO . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 , MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . DAVID C . AUBLE , DEVELOPER ; ADOLPH J . COLLETTI , CONSULTANT . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted • matter duly opened at 8 : 50 p . m . , and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Messrs . Auble and Collet: ti were present . Planning Board - 9 - January 20 , 1987 • Mr . Auble addressed the Board on the revised site plan . Four large plans were put on the bulletin board . Mr . Auble stated that since the January 6 , 1987 Sketch Plan Review , they have met several times with the Town Planner and the Town Engineer and have worked on fine - tuning the various aspects of the entry roads , emergency access points , and reviewed impervious surfaces and location of sewer lines - - all the various items of that type . Mr . Auble stated that he had met with Nancy Ostman of Cornell Plantations and with Shirley Egan , Cornell University Counsel , and discussed their concerns for the South Hill Swamp and protecting that , and maintaining the previous agreement that Bill Manos had arranged with Cornell University , Mr . Auble indicated that he saw no problem in maintaining that . Mr . Auble stated that they were here to answer any questions the Board might have and hoped that they could go forth with approval . Mr . Auble stated that Mr . Colletti of Colletti Engineering was here to answer any technical questions for the Board . Mr . Adolph Colletti , Colletti Engineering , addressed the Board and stated that the last time they were here they presented a preliminary version of the site plan which now has incorporated that discussion as to utilities , site drainage , non -pervious surfaces , landscaping and emergency access . Mr . Colletti stated that according to the borings and previous construction on site , once one digs down about two feet or so there is a rock situation of shale or fractured • rock . They decided that since there were utilities in the ground , their goal , more than save the existing utilities which have been abandoned for years and would require testing , etc . to make sure they are in good shape , was to save the trenches , as the most important asset up there . The existing sewers " in this area here " are approximately in the range of six , seven , eight , nine feet down in the ground which puts them seven to eight feet into the rock . What they have attempted to do is utilize most of those trenches , not necessarily to the same depth . The project sewer came up " here " and went through what is where they have located these buildings " here " , and continued to the west of the existing retention pond . Their goal was two - fold here - - one was to connect into the existing sewer , and yet , move " this sewer line here " , yet maintain an easement for future development . They believe that , given the nature of this area , it can be expected that there will be development in the area and they did not want to landlock other developers . There is sewer coming up King Road in this direction and there is sewer here on Ridgecrest , but should it be deemed necessary by a future developer , they did want to give him the capability of getting to " this sewer here " . Mr . Colletti noted that they took out four - inch water lines and put in six- inch water lines . Also , they have installed hydrants throughout the project - - there were hydrants before , but now there are six - - with the average distance between any building and a hydrant being 1 !: 0 feet . The reason they put in so many hydrants was that they had the opportunity to . In certain cases , where they are . bringing out an eight - inch water line and then deadending it just to service a building , at the end of that line they would either have to put in a blow- off or a hydrant . Given the cost difference , they Planning Board - 10 - January 20 , 1987 • decided hydrant: rather than blow - off . Mr . Collet: ti pointed out that in certain situations , sewers are running underneath buildings and indicated a schematic showing how they are doing that and how they are being extra - cautious and using over - sized pipes made of ductile iron rather than cast iron , ductile iron being much stronger , and putting a clean -out at either end of the buildings with full - sized manholes , with just a clean - out being normal . Mr . Colletti commented that with , really , millions of dollars being invested up here , to do it right , they decided to put in manholes . Mr . Colletti spoke of a service lateral for Building 11 . Mr . Colletti st. ated that they want to minimize blasting and any major construction for many reasons - - cost , environmental , local neighbors , etc . Mr . Collet. ti pointed out that the entrance has been moved over approximately 100 feet to accommodate what they anticipate the development on the other side of the road might be . Given the lot lines " over here " , they are trying to second -guess what a developer might do on the other side , and given the minimum lot sizes , etc . , they thought this might very well be the best place . This will give him , or her , a very opportune location for exit without making the lots in this area less attractive . Mr . Colletti noted some of the other things done , stating that • they have added some very important items such as lighting on all the landscaped courtyards site lighting and they have added dumpsters , contained in a wood fence . Mr . Colletti pointed out for the Board that it can be seen how the dumpsters and the turnarounds will work . Mr . Colletti stated that , very importantly , they have added fire access lanes to each of the buildings . They feel that good unencumbered access to those buildings is very important . They anticipate a twelve - foot wide paved access way " through here " which would double as a walkway , etc . Mr . Colletti stated that other items added are storm drainage which basically follows very closely the original drainage plan - - catch basins in the courtyards depositing water from the downhill side and then allowing it to flow into " this swale here " with the same percentage coming " this way " , overland , getting a certain amount of sheet drainage into this stream catch basin " over here " and basically maintaining that: balance of sheet drainage / catch basin drainage . Mr . Collett: i recalled that it was suggested at the last meeting that they put in a bus stop and that they have done " here " at the access road with a shelter and a site light . Mr . Collett: i pointed out on the drawing where they have shown a line of blue spruce trees as a windbreak in the back which they also thought was aesthetically very nice , but , it has come to their attention that blue spruce may not be indigenous to the area , so , they • may ask to change that at a later date to something more native . With regard to the question of drainage , Mr . Colletti stated that Planning Board - 11 - January 20 , 1987 • the original approved project had a total of buildings , roads , and parking site coverage of approximately 11 % which is relatively very low . Mr . Colletti stated that they have increased the size of the buildings and the parking areas - - the paved areas - - because of the islands and because they are not double - loading the roads , which may not be as efficient , but they feel the courtyards are important enough to do that . As a result , they end up with a 4 % increase in " nps " [ non -pervious surfaces ] . Given Mr . Erdman ' s engineering report earlier which had many over - design features which are utilized in the neighborhood of 225 % - - and that does not account for another foot of freeboard at the retention pond " here " , their interpretation was , also given the size of the drainage area with respect to which Cornell University recommended , they believed , five acres for every million gallons , they are here with about 25 acres - - so , they felt that left them with a lot of room - - no borderline situations here . Mr . Colletti stated that there were a couple of items that when they started developing this plan and through some of their meetings with Ms . Beeners and Mr . Flumerfelt , one of which was that they do not know yet if " this easement " on the existing sewer line has been located . On their records , they did not have anything , however , they showed the sewer . If there is not an easement , they should get one ; if there is it will be put on the plan . Mr . Colletti stated that that , essentially , is the work they have • done , as well as the basic spot elevations , finished floor elevations of the buildings , etc . Mr . Colletti stated that he would be happy to answer any questions . Chairman May thanked Mr . Auble and Mr . Colletti and , noting that this was a Public Hearing , asked if there were anyone who wished to speak . Attorney Shirley K . Egan , Associate Cornell University Counsel , spoke from the floor and described Cornell ' s long - standing - - about twenty - five years ' worth - - interest in the South Hill Swamp , adding that even back before that , indeed , the South Hill Swamp was identified as a unique natural area early in the 19th century . Attorney Egan stated that they must commend Mr . Auble for expressing his interest in cooperating with them , and also , how they are pleased with the attention and ear of the Board in listening to them . Attorney Egan described the unique aspects of the Swamp , particularly it :D geology which permits it to be what it is . Attorney Egan expressed Cornell ' s concern with any blasting and requested that it be included in any notification of residents within 500 feet as to blasting , commenting that it may well be that Cornell would not be construed as a resident , but it is a neighbor . Attorney Egan was interested in not only notification but also , if it would be possible , with getting from those who would be in charge of any blasting some " working with it " , to make sure that the direction and size of the • blasting that iS going to be used is best designed so that the geology is not wrecked so that suddenly the South Hill Swamp is no longer doing what it has been doing for the millenium . Attorney Egan stated Planning Board - 12 - January 20 , 1987 • that that was one concern she had , adding that there is a lot of rock up there and she did not know , and perhaps , nobody up at Plantations has any way of knowing , what blasting would mean . Attorney Egan stated that she did not know if there may be anybody who does , but they would like to have a crack at it - - no pun intended . Attorney Egan reiterated that due to the geology , the Swamp is unique , and Cornell is concerned whether blasting could have an upsetting effect on the unique geology which enables the water to come in and be retained and be released very slowly . Next , referring to the plan , Attorney Egan asked if this plan , as it is , shows the westernmost access road as it was on the Manos plan , adding that they had an agreement with Manos . Attorney Egan indicated the " half - hairpin road " that is shown . Mr . Colletti located where Attorney Egan was referring to and responded that it was exactly the same . Attorney Egan stated that they had an agreement with him and she was not sure if that was read into the record . Attorney Egan commented that many elements of the agreement agreed to in advance of the hearing were , almost all , taken up verbatim and they were very happy about that . Attorney Egan stated that what they had agreed and signed with Mr . Manos was that that road would be moved farther to the east . Again , it struck them , when they met with Mr . Auble last week , that that road was sort of nicely situated so that if somebody wanted to view the sunset over the Lake , and maybe , it would make a nice little scenic spot , to stop and tromp off and go picnicking , for • someone not going into the residences . Attorney Egan wondered why it was so far to the west and , therefore , inviting , she would not say , directing , but inviting someone to aim more to the west , seemingly removed from thin. project , to where the particularly fragile area is . Chairman May asked Attorney Egan how much farther to the west the Cornell property line is . Attorney Egan , noting that Cornell does not come out to the road , indicated , using the drawing on the bulletin board , where the Cornell property is located , commenting that she did not know the exact distance . Attorney Egan stated that that was in a prior agreement with Mr . Manos , adding that she was not sure whether it had been made a part of the approval previously , but Manos had agreed to it . Ms . Nancy Ostman , Cornell Plantations , spoke from the floor and stated that their concern when they talked with Mr . Manos was that the road , being where it is , there is a section of the road that could lead into the Swamp , and that is additional salt , gasoline , or chemical drainage that would be directed toward the Swamp , whereas , if it were moved over , not too many feet , the drainage would be going downhill away from the Swamp which would be a considerable improvement for Cornell . Ms . Beeners stated that she has found no indication in any of the resolutions dealing with this project of any condition that the road be moved from the location that it is shown in here in the plan . • Chairman May noted that the Cornell property goes out to this " border " that is shown " here " . Attorney Egan showed this on the map Planning Board - 13 - January 20 , 1987 • and stated that: " this " is not the whole Swamp , indicating a very large area . Chairman May stated that his recollection was that the agreement that was made here was that that road was pulled back , adding that he had no recollection of exactly how far , however , it would appear that it certainly has been pulled back significantly from the western boundary . Mr . Mazza asked if there were any reason why it is in that place . Mr . Colletti re= sponded that it gives lots of room for this turning " here " . Mr . Colletti stated that he believed some of the concerns raised here in terms of runoff , etc . from the road heading toward the swamp , that with some surface drainage , some of the runoff could be picked up and re - directed back " here " , adding that that would not be too difficult . Mr . Colletti stated that , in terms of the point about it being a scenic point - - thank you - - that is the object . Mr . Colletti stated that he was not: really sure how they are going to contend with that , but he will certainly work with the drainage " here " . Mr . Colletti stated that he would like to say , for the record , that when he first heard about the South Hill Swamp , he pictured a swamp , but , once he read all the correspondence , etc . , he became very aware of how fragile and how important the Swamp is . Mr . Colletti stated that he looked • forward to working with Cornell University in trying to do everything they can do about that . Mr . Colletti stated that the concerns about the Swamp are very well - founded and he will work in this area in terms of site drainage , etc . to try to keep the original drainage into the Swamp as original as possible . Mr . Colletti commented that , unfortunately , the Swamp is located in the Town of Ithaca in a very desirable , highly developable area , and they are but one neighbor . Mr . Colletti stated that they want to be a good neighbor and they will do what they can about surface drainage , salts , etc . Mr . Colletti mused that also vegetation can be used to help buffer runoff of foreign matter . Chairman May asked if there were not some of the old foundations to the west of " that " entrance , with Mr . Colletti responding , yes . Chairman May remembered that that was one of the things agreed - - one or two of those foundations would be abandoned and the road would be to the east of that . Attorney Egan quoted from an agreement signed by Mr . Manos with Cornell , stating that it was agreed , " The westernmost end of the interior roadway on his property will not extend beyond approximately the westernmost building of the development . " Attorney Egan offered , so , what it was talking about was that the driveway would end up like " this " [ indicating ] ; it really was not in reference to the western boundary line , it was in reference to the westernmost building . Chairman May added , yes , the westernmost building of the original development . Attorney Egan responded , no , stating , " as shown on the December 15 , 1982 plans . " Planning Board - 14 - January 20 , 1987 • Mr . Auble stated , referring to the service road and discussion of salt and runoff , that this is going to happen with other developments there , for one thing , and secondly , you have normal road surfaces there - - highways - - which are going to be treated a lot more heavily with any salts and those types of things than their driveway / service road would be . Mr . Auble stated that he thought you were going to have , whatever the problem you might have for that service road , that problem is going to be the same with the highway there . Mr . Auble stated that , as far as he was concerned , he had no problem , based on some engineering assistance , with modifying the road location , but , he thought , from -the Town ' s standpoint , they are going to want to have some say about that road location , or that entry , based on what might happen across the road . Mr . Klein wondered if that is why it is located so far away . Mr . Auble stated that it is only located there , basically , because that was the original site plan approval and all they are going in with is for minor modifications to the original site plan . Mr . Auble pointed out that that would just be one more change which , if it is requested by the Board , he saw no problem . Mr . Klein stated that he thought they had just heard that the road was not past the western boundary . Mr . Mazza noted that that was the agreement . Attorney Egan stated that Manos had agreed that he would move it so that it would be not beyond the westernmost building . Ms . Beeners pointed out that that was not a part of anything that came before the Town . Attorney Egan • responded , apparently not . Chairman May stated that the Board may remember that , originally , Mr . Manos was going to use the original foundations and he agreed to abandon those on the westerly edge and his road was going to be east of that edge . Chairman May stated that that would seer to be it and that is why he was questioning this . Attorney Egan responded to the Chair that he may be right , adding that she just did not know , and further adding that she thought it was still of a concern because it is still part of the drainage area . Attorney Egan . stated that she agreed that all of King Road might be creating a hazard , but it did not seem to her to be a reason to throw up our hands and say that the whole thing is a bloody disaster and we should not do ZLnything . Attorney Egan stated that every little bit helps - - every little bit that can be minimized - - and , if there is not some other reason , let us see if we can create a " win / win " situation for everyone . Mr . Mazza offered , regardless of what happened before ,. Attorney Egan responded , yes , adding that they are requesting it now . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Auble if there were any compelling reason why he has it where it is located . Mr . Colletti responded , not really , adding that the compelling reason was to maintain the original site plan as originally approved , but , as Mr . Auble has stated , it may not be a problem . Mr . Klein commented that it would be less expensive to move it . Mr . Colletti agreed that it could be moved over a little which would be less expensive . Chairman May stated that that would be fine - - as long as adequate distance for emergency vehicles is • maintained . Attorney Egan stated that , not to jump too far ahead , the only remaining thing she had , commenting that Ms . Ostman might have more , Planning Board - 15 - January 20 , 1987 • was that she was looking over the draft resolution and she saw a recommendation to the Town Board to incorporate the conditions about herbicides and cats and other things that have to do with plantings , but , in the final approval of the Planning Board , the Planning Board does not seem to incorporate all those conditions . Commenting , at the rish of using both suspenders and a belt , Attorney Egan stated that she would request that those conditions be tacked on so that the Planning Board ' s people have those also , since they were good enough to do that once before for them . Ms . Beeners stated that , as she reviewed the draft resolution with Town Attorney Barney , the language on page 5 , paragraph 1 , being that " The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements set forth in Local Law No . 3 - 1983 , and associated resolution , as the same may be amended from time to time ; " , she believed that would cover the concerns Attorney Egan expressed . Attorney Egan asked if those conditions were part of the Local Law , with Ms . Beeners responding , yes . Ms . Beeners stated that the conditions that got tied into the Local Law for this project were rather mind -boggling because they were not only the conditions set up in the Local Law , but also the conditions in the Town Board Resolution , the Planning Board conditions based on Site :Plan Approval , and also , the conditions set forth in Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form dealing with certain mitigating measures . Attorney Egan stated that she would rely on Ms . Beeners in that case . Ms . Ostman stated that she had a question about one of the modifications , noting that the requirement about the project moving in phases from east to west was dropped . Ms . Ostman asked if there were an explanation for this , adding that she just wanted to be assured that the westernmost parcel would remain undeveloped . Ms . Beeners stated that , as a practical matter , it would not seem that anything would be gained by having that requirement . Attorney Egan offered that Manos proposed going in phases anyway . Ms . Beeners continued , stating that , as an ecological matter , it would be just as beneficial to have a western cluster developed and stabilized . Ms . Beeners stated that having that development stabilized on the western end would be just as important to Cornell as having any kind of a " process of building " . Attorney Egan stated that , as she recalled , construction trucks would access from the east driveway rather than the west driveway . Attorney Egan suggested that , perhaps , it could be informally agreed upon that trucks would come in on the eastern side . Chairman May offered that it could be agreed upon but , realistically , the truck drivers will do it the way they want . Ms . Ostman, stated that the explanation was fine with the prohibitions by plantings against access or some such attractive barrier . Chairman May asked if there were anyone else from the public who wished to speak to this matter . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 25 p . m . Mr . Mazza asked about the timeframe for the project - - start ? - - finish ? Mr . Colletti stated that construction will begin in the Planning Board - 16 - January 20 , 1987 • Spring , the object being to build as soon as possible . Mr . Mazza wondered if they were anticipating building the entire project this year . Mr . Auble stated that they have discussed those matters which are basically construction management and financing package situations , and they would like to get through at least one construction season with at least one - third to one - half of the units completed as well as preparation for the second season , and then go straight throucfh , so that by the end of the second construction season the entire development will be completed . Mr . Mazza asked who the owners of this land and developers of this project were . Mr . Auble stated that he was the owner and the developer . Mr ., Mazza wondered who Henry Cesari was whose name keeps appearing on correspondece the Board receives copies of . Mr . Auble stated that Mr . Cesari may or may not be involved as a partner . Mr . Klein asked if these were to be rental units , with Mr . Auble responding , ye : . Mr . Klein noted that it was not to be , then , condos or a cooperative , with Mr . Auble responding , no . Commenting that the units are quite big and spacious , Mr . Klein asked how big they were to be . Mr . Auble stated that they are basically 1 , 000 square feet units with two bedrooms and two bathrooms . Mr . Klein stated that the landscaping plan was very ambitious and that is good , but he thought he would like to see something a little more • organized - - or something . Mr . Klein , commenting that it looks like somebody took a tree stamp and saturated the site with trees , stated that he appreciated the intent - - there is a lot of planting here but it could be a little better arranged . Chairman May asked Mr . Frost if he had talked with the Fire Chief , Mr . Frost stated that he and Mr . Flumerfelt had talked with Mr . Olmstead but , unfortunately , with the fire contract that is still going on with the Town there are some fire code requirements that are more stringent than building code . Mr . Frost stated that the Building Code speaks about providing access for emergency vehicles , however , it seems that what the fire department wants for access may be more restrictive than the code . Mr . Frost stated that all he could say at the moment is that they are working on it . Chairman May stated that his concern was that the equipment is getting bigger . Mr . Frost stated that the largest truck with the pads opened up is 18 feet wide and Mr . Auble is providing 20 - foot access . Chairman May stated that he was a little bit concerned about the islands in the middle and the trucks being able to turn around and leave . Mr . Frost reminded the developer that there may be matters which have to be considered at the time of building permit issuance . Town Engineer Flumerfelt stated that this plan has far better access than the previous plan as far as being able to get emergency vehicles in . Mr . Flumerfelt offered that , if the largest piece of equipment that the fire department has has to make every turn , there may need to be some minor changes as to radii for the road or parking lot , but they would be minor now . Chairman May stated that the access to the buildings is excellent . Planning Board - 17 - January 20 , 1987 . Chairman May asked Ms . Beeners to proceed with what needed to be done tonight . Ms . Beeners stated that what she was proposing that the Board do , as in this draft resolution which Town Attorney Barney and she hashed over with Mrs . Fuller ' s great assistance , is to propose certain modifications -to the Local Law in place . Ms . Beeners stated that , first , she and other staff in doing the review of the Auble project , feel that it does not represent a significant change in the size or scope of the original project . They have compared the Long EAFs for both projects and looked carefully .at the environmental review done on the original proposal . Ms . Beeners stated that she was recommending a reaffirmation of the negative declaration subject to the conditions in the resolution which indicate that it can be the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this project . Commenting that she guessed you sort of have to read it to capture the whole spirit or intent of this draft resolution , Ms .. Beeners pointed out that , on page 3 of the draft resolution , she is recommending that the Planning board recommend approval of this revised plan to the Town Board because , at this time , the Town Board is the approving agency for this project . Ms . Beeners stated that she is further recommending , as it goes on on page 3 , that certain modifications be made to Local Law No . 3 - 1983 to delegate those responsibilities , as far as any change in construction development and use of the parcel , to the Planning Board and delete the Town Board in that part of the Law , or , in the case of minor • changes to the site , as we probably can anticipate as part of the just routine changes or reviews that staff will be doing all the way down the line to granting a building permit - - this has been done in similar large - scale projects - - that , if there is a minor change which does not represent a significant one , if we get the Planning Board Chairman ' s concurrence on the significance of such change , and it can be decided at that point whether it is brought back to the Planning Board for review as a change in the site plan . Ms . Beeners stated that also proposed is an extension of the time period for implementation of the project to April 1990 . Ms . Beeners stated that there is a recommendation to delete paragraph 1 . E . of the Resolution annexed to the Local Law as it refers to " remaining " undeveloped land . Ms . Beeners noted another recommendation having to do with just language changers in the Local Law to properly reference the section . Moving on to the next recommendation , Ms . Beeners stated that confirmation would be needed with respect to whether the requirement that the project proceed in phases from east to west by removed , as recommended , at this time or whether the Board might see some reason for having that . Ms . Beeners noted the recommendation with respect to blasting which was in Part III of the 1983 SEQR proceedings , which places a 500 - foot distance on people who have to be notified in advance of blasting . Ms . Beeners stated that , perhaps , after tonight ' s discussion , some language could be added to that , such as , that Cornell be notified as to blasting procedures . Chairman May suggested that it just state Cornell Plantations . • Ms . Beeners stated that , further , on page 5 , she was proposing that the Board grant approval to the plan it has seen tonight with conditions - - ( 1 ) complying with the conditions and requirements in Planning Board - 18 - January 20 , 1987 Local Law No . 3 - 1983 and all the preceeding resolutions that may have occurred in thepast ; ( 2 ) providing a 20 - foot permanent easement and additional temporary easements for the construction of a sewer main in the future from the west end of where their sewer would end to King Road , with the final location determined by the Town Engineer . Ms . Beeners stated that at this time there should not be any significant impact in locating that in relation to the Cornell land . Chairman Play wondered if there should not be a reference in the conditions of the Planning Board granting final approval about the Town Board approving the changes in the Local Law , Town Attorney Ruswick suggested that , at least , the Planning Board should make any resolution subject to the Town Board modifying the four - year requirement . Chairman May asked if it should be noted that extending the right to the Planning Board should be added to # 1 on page 5 . Ms . Beeners said that the Town Attorney had carefully worded the paragraph and , perhaps , it would be best to leave it to read the way it is - - " and associated, resolution , as the same may be amended from time to time , " - - and , as subject to the approval by the Town Board of the extension of the time that would be required to complete the project . Town Attorney Ruswick stated that , perhaps , it would be best to have a new first paragraph - - a new paragraph numbered 1 - - stating , subject to the Town Board amending Local Law No . 3 - 1983 to extend the 48 -month time period in which construction is to be completed . Ms . Beeners agreed . Chairman Play wondered about the notification of blasting . A notification period of 48 hours was discussed . Attorney Egan reminded the Board that it was not so much notification that was important , what was important was the planning . Chairman May commented that , as to planning , Cornell is aware of planning now . Mr . Colletti stated that 48 - hour notification was reasonable . Mr . Auble stated that there is , really , a very good chance that there will be no blasting at all . Mr . Mazza stated that 48 -hours was reasonable , and with the cooperation indicated by the developer , it would seem that he would talk to Cornell as soon as he possibly could . There appearing to be no further discussion forthcoming on the draft resolution , Chairman May stated that , first thing , the Board should look at the SEQR form and noted that a long form has been completed and signed by Mr . Auble , dated December 23 , 1986 , revised January 9 , 1987 , with a recommendation by the Town Planner for a reaffirmation of` a negative declaration subject to certain conditions . Chairman May stated that , certainly , there have been minimal changes . Chairman May noted that one of the boxes has to do with blasting and asked if blasting were listed . Ms . Beeners stated that it was , referring to # 6 on page 1 . Chairman May asked if there were any questions or comments on any of the answers . There appearing to be none , Ms . Beeners stated that most , in fact , the only page on which there were any changes from the Manos ' • project , and they were changes which she did not think were significant , were in items # 9 through # 12 , on page 2 , dealing mostly with the areas covered by impervious surfaces , gross building size , Planning Board - 19 - January 20 , 1987 • the number of units - - that sort of information - - a few changes - - reduction in parking . Ms . Beeners stated that in evaluating the original Manos ' Majestic Heights EAF in this section and the current proposal there was not that great an increase in impervious surfaces , as Mr . Colletti stated , only a 4 % increase in nps . Ms . Beeners noted that there war.; an increase in gross building size , which was not correctly listed on the Manos ' Form - - you have to do some calculations there - - of approximately 40 , 000 square feet , but it was an improvement which is not significant as far as impervious surfaces go , and is also an improvement as far as marketability of the units and represents a change from one to two bedrooms which is an attractive advantage and not of significant impact . Chairman Play asked if anyone wished to make a resolution on the EAF . MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . David Klein : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board both approve and adopt and hereby does both approve and adopt the following SEQR Report as presented at Public Hearing , January 20 , 1987 , by Susan C . Beeners , Town of Ithaca Planner . SEQR Report with respect to the Revised Plan for the former " Majestic Heights " development , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 . David C . Auble , Owner / Developer . Presented : Planning Board , January 20 , 1987 . Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner . The :Former Majestic Heights development was determined to have no significant adverse impact on the environment and was granted Final Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board on January 18 , 1983 and by the Town Board on February 71r 1983 . Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 3 - 1983 , effective March 28 , 1983 , changed the zoning classification of the subject parcel to Multiple Residence District from Residence District R15 . The present applicant , David C . Auble , proposes to comply with all pertinent requirements , conditions , and regulations that were established at the time of the referenced 1983 Majestic Heights approval which were intended to mitigate any potential adverse environmental impacts . Having compared the documents and plans that have been submitted for the current proposal with the submissions for the previous Majestic Heights proposal , the reviewer finds that the -two projects are substantially similar , with the • following improvements noted in the current proposal : Improved alignment of eastern site entrance . Planning Board - 20 - January 20 , 1987 • Provision of bus stop . Improved access from parking areas to buildings . Provision of rental management office . Fewer buildings , with an improved architectural design . The plan revisions currently proposed are not considered to significantly alter the scale or scope of the project as it was originally proposed . Subject to compliance with all pertinent requirements , conditions , and regulations that were either established at the time of the original 1983 approval or that are recommended to be modified at this time or that are part of routine project approval by various agencies , the approval of the Revised Plan for the former Majestic Heights development , with the modifications that are recommended to be made to Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 3 - 1983 , will have no significant adverse environmental impact , and a negative declaration of environmental significance is recommended . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May asked the Board to look now at the draft resolution for the revised plan with the noted modifications which the Board has already talked about . Chairman May asked if there were any additions or comments on that . There being no comments forthcoming , Chairman May asked if somebody wanted to make a resolution . MOTION BY Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of approval of the Revised Plan for the former Majestic Heights development , located in a Multiple Residence District on East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 , and the consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board that certain modifications be made to Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 3 -, 1983 . 2 . The former Majestic Heights development was granted Final Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board on January 18 , 1983 and by the Town Board on February 7 , 1983 . Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 3 - 1983 , effective March 28 , 1983 , changed the zoning classification of the subject parcel from Residence District R- 15 to Multiple Residence District . • 3 . The Planning Board , on January 6 , 1987 , conducted a Sketch Plan Review of the proposed revisions , and , on January 20 , 1987 , at Public Hearing , reviewed the Revised Plan , a Long Environmental Planning Board - 21 - January 20 , 1987 Assessment Form dated December 23 , 1986 , revised January 9 , 1987 , and a report from the applicant ' s Engineer . 4 . The Planning Board , on January 6 and January 20 , 1987 , also reviewed documents relating to the original site plan and rezoning approvals . The Planning Board in 1983 acted as Lead Agency for the Type I coordinated environmental review of the site plan and rezoning request presented at that time and is in like manner acting as Lead Agency for the Type I coordinated environmental review of the aforementioned currently proposed Revised Plan . Involved agencies are being notified as to this determination and this proposal as required . 5 . The Town Planner has recommended that the revisions to the project do not represent a significant change from the size or scope of the project as it was originally approved , and that a negative declaration of environmental significance for the project be reaffirmed , subject to certain conditions and requirements . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : THAT the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of this Type I action , find and hereby does find that the revisions to the project as presented on January 20 , 1987 do not represent a significant change from the size or scope of the project as it was originally approved in 1983 . • THAT the Planning Board reaffirm and hereby does reaffirm the negative declaration of environmental significance for the aforementioned Revised Plan as presented on January 20 , 1987 , subject to certain conditions and requirements . THAT the Planning Board finds due cause for continuance of the development of the partially developed subject 30 - acre parcel as a Multiple Residence project and recommends that the Town Board approve the aforementioned Revised Plan as presented to and approved by the Planning Board at Public Hearing on January 20 , 1987 . THAT the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that Section 3 , paragraph C , of Local Law No . 3 - 1983 be modified to read : " No buildings and residential units in excess of those approved by the Town Planning Board on January 18 , 1983 shall be permitted and that the construction , development and use must comply in all respects with the site plans and conditions of approval and rezoning adopted by the Town Planning Board on January 18 , 1983 and by the Town Board on February 7 , 1983 and with the Revised Plan as approved by the Planning Board on January 20 , 1987 , and that no variance in the construction , development , and use of the parcel shall be permitted except as may be permitted by the Town Planning Board , or , by such person or agent of the Town as the Planning Board may designate in the case of such minor changes which do not increase the size or scope of the project or vary the intended use of the site . " • THAT the Planning Board finds that the present applicant would reasonably require a period of approximately thirty - six ( 36 ) months Planning Board - 22 - January 20 , 1987 from the date of enactment of any local law amending Local Law No . 3 - 1983 to commence and complete the construction of improvements on the project , . and recommends to the Town Board that Section 4 , paragraphs B and C of Local Law No . 3 - 1983 be amended to extend the time therein set forth to April 1 , 1990 in lieu of 48 months after original enactment of such Local Law . THAT the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that paragraph l . E . of the Resolution annexed to Local Law No . 3 - 1983 be deleted . THAT the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that the references in Section 3 , paragraph A , of said Local Law No . 3 - 1983 , to " paragraphs ' A ' , ' B ' , and ' C " of said Resolution be amended to be references to Section 1 , paragraphs " A " , " B " , and " C " of said Resolution . THAT the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board the removal of the requirement that the project proceed in phases from east to west across the site , as set forth in Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form filed in the SEQR proceedings conducted by the Planning Board on January 18 , 1983 . THAT the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that the notification requirement , as set forth in Part III of the • Environmental Assessment Form filed in the SEQR proceedings conducted by the Planning Board on January 18 , 1983 , be modified to read : " The developer shall notify , in writing , residents in the area within a 500 - foot distance of the project who might be affected by any blasting for utility , foundation , or other construction , reasonably in advance of the date when such blasting will occur , giving the date and hour . The developer shall specifically notify Cornell Plantations , in writing , a minimum of 48 hours prior to any such blasting , and is requested to contact Cornell Plantations , for purposes of preliminary planning , as soon as it is known that any blasting may be going to occur . " THAT the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Approval to the aforementioned Revised Plan as presented at Public Hearing on January 20 , 1987 , SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS : 1 . The amendment of Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 3 - 1983 by the Town Board extending the 48 -month time period in which construction is to be completed to April 1 , 1990 ; and 2 . The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements set forth in Local Law No . 3 - 1983 , and associated Resolution , as the same may be amended from time to time ; and 3 . The developer shall , at his expense , provide the Town with a • 20 - foot permanent easement , and additional temporary easements as may be necessary , for the construction and maintenance of a future public sanitary sewer main from the westerly end of the Planning Board - 23 - January 20 , 1987 • proposed public sanitary sewer main , as shown on the aforementioned Revised Plan , to East King Road in a location within the westerly 600 feet of the southerly property line of the subject property , the final location thereof to be determined by the Town Engineer , and 4 . Prior to the issuance of any building permits , the developer shall obtain approval of the Town Engineer for the final site development construction drawings including landscape plan and schedule as approved by the Town Planner . By way of discussion , Attorney Egan asked if there were to be nothing official on the road ' s movement over . Mr . Auble stated that they are happy to cooperate in any way as long as the Town Engineer agrees with the location . Chairman May stated that he thought that was fine . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the Auble development duly • closed at 9 : 50 p . m . Mr . Auble thanked the Board for its time and consideration . Chairman May thanked those present also . Attorney Egan stated that she thought they were in good shape . Chairman May stated that he thought there was a very cooperative developer here . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF FOUR BUILDING LOTS FROM A 16 . 74 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED BACKLOT OF 104 RIDGECREST ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 45 - 1 - 2 . 6 . GRACE CASCIOLI , OWNER ; VINCENT FRANCIAMONE , AGENT . AND FURTHER , IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO SAID PROPOSED CASCIOLI SUBDIVISION , CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF ONE BUILDING LOT AND ONE PARCEL FROM A 1. 7 . 6 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON EAST KING ROAD , WEST OF RIDGECREST ROAD ,, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 44 - 2 - 9 . PAUL B . ERDMAN , OWNER ; VINCENT FRANCIAMONE , AGENT . Mr . Franciamone was not present . Ms . Beeners referred the Board members to her letter , dated January 14 , 1987 , to Mr . Vincent Franciamone with attachments - - a drawing , and a Short EAF , Ms . Beeners stated that Mr . Franciamone came into the office with a plan early last week - - January 12th . Ms . Beeners stated that he has been advised that it did not meet the requirements . Chairman May stated that Mr . Franciamone is off the Agenda at this point . Chairman May stated that the Board does not need to take r 1 Planning Board - 24 - January 20 , 1987 1 any action at this point , however , we do have a public hearing published . Ms . Beeners stated that more information has been requested on this project , so , perhaps , the Board could open the Public Hearing and request more information . Mr . Mazza stated that he did not feel comfortable adjourning it to a specific date . Chairman May stated that we have to open the Public Hearing , it is a published Notice . Chairman May stated that he thought the Board needs to state that it will not publish it again until all material is in - - in and satisfactory . Ms . Beeners noted that the Board was acknowledging that additional information was needed . Chairman :May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 9 : 54 p . m . and stated that there was no public present to make comment , either for or against this project , and further , it is determined that there is a letter from Town Planner Beeners to Mr . Franciamone indicating that the information presented was not complete , was not appropriate , or was not filed . In view of this , Chairman May stated that he would MOVE : THAT the Public Hearing be closed and that a new public hearing will not be rescheduled for this until such time as all material is in and has been accepted by the Town staff as being complete . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May stated to Ms . Beeeners that Mr . Franciamone is off the Agenda until she has everything in her hands and has reviewed it for completeness . Chairman May declared the matter of the Cascioli / Franciamone , Erdman / Franciamone subdivision duly closed at 9 : 58 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 1 , 1986 MOTION BY Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . David Klein : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board that the Minutes of the April 1 , 1986 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby are approved as submitted . There beincr no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . • Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . r. Planning Board - 25 - January 20 , 1987 i The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 21 , 1986 Mrs . Fuller presented four corrections to the October 21 , 1986 Planning Board. Minutes , as follows : Page 7 - 1 , 000 should be 1 , 000 , 000 , Page 13 - parameter should be perimeter ; Page 14 - six foot driveway should be sixty foot driveway , Page 27 an, fueling footer pump station should be full - fledged pump station . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . David Klein : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board that the Minutes of the October 21 , 1986 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby are approved with four corrections as noted . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye we May , Grigorov , Mazza , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the January 20 , 1987 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 13 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .