HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1987-06-02 FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date-----
P
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk
JUNE 2 , 1987
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , June 2 , 1987 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca ,
New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia
Langhans , David Klein , Robert Kenerson , John C . Barney , Esq .
( Town Attorney ) , Robert R . Flumerfelt , P . E . ( Town Engineer ) ,
Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Andrew S . Frost ( Town
Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) ,
ALSO PRESENT : John Littlefield , Valerie Littlefield , John Perialas ,
Richard D . Kinner , Scott Brim , Herbert Deinert , Lucia
Armstrong , Douglas Armstrong , Barbara J . Bredbenner ,
Marie Cario , Edward A . Mazza , Esq . , Elliott Lauderdale ,
Peter E . Hillman , Richard Berggren , Beth Cario , Nancy
Ostman , Attorney Shirley K . Egan , Robert Cook , David C .
Auble , Peter Trowbridge , Kathy Wolf , Deborah Munch
( WHCU News ) .
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 May 26 , 1987 , and May 28 , 1987 , respectively ,
together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice
upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion ,
as appropriate , upon the Regional Manager of Finger Lakes State Parks ,
Recreation , and Historic Preservation , 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 the applicants and / or Agent , as appropriate , on May 28 , 1987 .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 17 , 1987
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert
Kenerson :
RESOLVED ,, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of March 17 , 1987 , be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
• ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( FROM MAY 5 AND MAY 19 , 1987 ) : CONSIDERATION
OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL OF A SCHOOL USE , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV ,
i
Planning Board - 2 - June 2 , 1987
SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 41 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A NURSERY SCHOOL BUILDING ON A PORTION OF
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 60 - 1 - 16 , LOCATED IN A RESIDENCE
DISTRICT R- 15 ,, AT 142 HONNESS LANE , FOR THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF AN
EXISTING MONTESSORI NURSERY SCHOOL ( LITTLE FEET ) CURRENTLY IN
OPERATION AT 139 HONNESS LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 ,
6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 6 . JOHN AND DORIS PERIALAS , PROPERTY OWNERS ; JOHN AND
VALERIE LITTLE:FIELD , APPLICANTS .
Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 10 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Perialas was present , as were his daughter and son- in - law , Valerie
and John Littlefield .
Chairman May invited Mr . Perialas to address the Board as to the
changes in the proposal . Mr . Perialas stated that they have retained
an Architect who has drawn plans for a circular drive in the back .
' Chairman May , noting that this was an Adjourned Public Hearing ,
asked if anyone wished to speak to this matter .
Mr . Douglas Armstrong , 121 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and
presented a letter addressed to the Town Board , for the record , signed
by both Gerry Kramer and Howard Kramer , dated June 2 , 1987 . Mr .
• Armstrong stated that this letter was given to him by Town
Councilwoman Raffensperger , in whose mailbox it had been placed , to
present to the Planning Board . Chairman May read the letter aloud as
follows :
" . . . Being a nursery school teacher I realize the need for daycare in
Ithaca . However , the very dangerous traffic situation that presently
exists at the corner of Pine Tree Rd . and Honness Lane prompts this
letter . Adding another 100 - 120 cars twice a day with the proposed
expansion of " Little Feet " seems ill advised . This is especially true
considering the current growth of Eastwood Commons, the Commonland ,
and the Grandview development .
Currently traa° fic on Pine Tree consistently speeds 40 - 55 _mph . This
practice does not give Honness Lane traffic a chance to advance onto
Pine Tree because of poor visibility and the speed of approaching
vehicles . Pine Tree drivers apparently could care less if Honness
Lane traffic advances . Drivers freely use their horns and turn to
evasive action when the need arises . On a daily basis we see 8 - 10
near misses at. this intersection . The fender- benders with cars in our
front yard and in the ditch across the street are becoming all to
frequent occurances [ sic . ] .
The board may even wish to contact the local school district to get
reports of Pine Tree traffic illegally passing stopped school busses .
• People familiar with the intersection often speak of the increased
danger index in the past year .
C
Planning Board - 3 - June 2 , 1987
• Although the school maintains that delivery and pick up of students
will be spread out over the day the reality of the situation is that
working parents need care from 8 : 00 a . m . - 5 : 00 p . m . and the majority
of the school : traffic will occur during peak traffic hours .
Therefore we request that the town planning board vote to deny the
schools expansion on Honness Lane . "
Mr . Armstrong also presented , for the record , a Petition signed
by 32 residents of Pine Tree Road and Honness Lane , Mr . Armstrong
stated that only two persons were hesitant about signing the petition
to deny the request for a school the size that is contemplated . Mr .
Armstrong staged that he will continue to circulate the Petition until
the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on June 10th . Mr . Armstrong read
the Petition aloud , as follows :
" We , the undersigned , residents of Honness Lane and Pine Tree Road ,
hereby request that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals DENY the proposal for Special Approval
of a School 'Use and the proposed construction of a nursery school
building in a Residence District R15 at 142 Honness Lane . We oppose
this proposal on the following grounds .
1 . The requested size of 6950 square feet is too large for an R15
district , and inappropriate to the size of the lot .
• 2 . The scale of operation ( i . e . , 120 children ) is inappropriate for
an R15 district , and is not consistent with the character of the
district in which it is located .
3 . The size of the outdoor space is inappropriate for the proposed
number of children .
4 . The access of a 14 ' driveway is not sufficient for the number of
cars which will be coming to the proposed facility , nor is it
sufficient for entrance and egress of emergency vehicles , such as fire
engines .
5 . The loading area for discharging and picking up children is not
sufficient for the number of vehicles needed to transport 120
children .
6 . In spite of the applicants ' claim that there will be varied hours
of parents arrival , the majority of working parents will be arriving
and departing at peak hours , and driving on Honness Lane will be
heaviest when residents are leaving for or returning from work .
7 . A multiple dwelling presently exists on the proposed building lot .
This multiple dwelling in a residential area is already a
non- conforming use in an R15 - zone . There should not be an additional
non - conforming use on the same property .
• 8 . Article IV , Section 11 part 4 speaks to the ' public ' aspect of
contemplated :buildings and / or land use ( i . e . public library , public
Planning Board - 4 - June 2 , 1987
• museum , public schools , etc . ) The Littlefield School proposal bears
no relationship to the ' public ' use repeated in the Article mentioned .
It is a strictly commercial endeavor proposed for a residential zone . "
Mrs . Lucia Armstrong , 121 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and
voiced two concerns , one being that , ' as the Petition was circulated ,
there were a number of persons who did not know anything about this
proposal , and the second being , that she wondered , as the Board
considers this proposal , if the Board had reviewed what happened as to
the variance which was granted in 1981 . Mrs . Armstrong stated that ,
at that time , there were nine conditions that were placed upon the
proposal , adding that she wondered if the most important one had been
observed , that: is , the duration of this permit was for 24 months with
the possibility of extension upon review . Mrs . Armstrong stated that
the question of traffic was mentioned in the review - - letting
children off .in the street - - parking no more than three vehicles in
the driveway - - clearly marked entrance and exits . Mrs . Armstrong
stated that she hoped these conditions were met , and are continuing to
be met , before the Board considers expansion of this facility .
Mr . Perialas stated that all those conditions were met , adding
that children have never been let off in the street .
Chairman May asked if there were any other comments or questions
from the public . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public
• Hearing at 7 : 51 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for
discussion .
Chairman May stated that , obviously , there is a great deal of
concern with traffic regarding this situation , adding that Honness
Lane does not handle traffic as well as some other roads . Chairman
May asked Mr . Flumerfelt if there were anything that could be done to
mitigate some of the problems . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that it is a
tough one to :mitigate the traffic when you consider a certain number
of children helve to arrive and leave daily . Mr . Flumerfelt suggested
carpooling .
Mrs . Littlefield stated that there are some children who arrive
together and , also , brothers and sisters who arrive in the same car .
Mrs . Littlefield stated that , as far as arrival and departure are
concerned , there has been a drop - off and a pick - up schedule worked out
for 120 children in 15 minute intervals . Mrs . Littlefield stated that
there is 240 feet from the road back to the parking area , which , if
for some reason there were a jam up of cars , would allow for 15 more
cars off the road . Mrs . Littlefield stated that there is room for
about four cars in the turn- around for drop - offs without interfering
with the traffic . Mr . Perialas stated that he felt the concern is
with Honness Lane itself , not so much the driveway , adding that the 30
students registered at the present time are also coming in from Pine
Tree Road and Slaterville Road .
• Chairman May stated that , personally , one of the things that
absolutely has to be avoided is the stacking up of cars on Honness
Lane , Mr . Perialas responded that , with the 30 children there now ,
Planning Board - 5 - June 2 , 1987
• the cars com:Lng in the morning now , and with the parking spaces
available right now , they do not have a problem . Mrs . Littlefield
stated that , if she has had to close the school because of bad
weather , she has asked parents by telephone to each come at a specific
time . Mrs . Littlefield stated that she could assure the Board that
there would not be 120 cars arriving at one time .
Chairman May , commenting that he did not think 120 cars would
arrive at one time , stated , however , that 30 cars would be sufficient
to create a real problem . Chairman May , noting that he lives quite
close to the school , stated that he has found that the Littlefields
have been quite religious about informing parents of the parking
requirements , but sometimes , it happens , and parents do not obey .
Chairman May stated that he was not faulting the Littlefields for that
because he has talked to a number of people and everyone has been very
consistent with the rules of the school , however , by the same token ,
we have to have a concern with cars stacking upon on Honness Lane ,
Mr . Flumerfelt offered that the intersection of Honness Lane and Pine
Tree Road is not good visibility-wise , and stated that that is
something that will be looked into to see where the obstructions are .
Chairman May , commenting that the parking at the present time takes
care of cars in good weather , stated that he was concerned about bad
weather .
Chairman May asked if there were any further questions or
• comments from the Board .
Mr . Klein wondered about the drop- off schedule that is staggered
between 7 : 30 a . m . and 9 : 30 a . m . Mrs . Littlefield answered that the
children stay for an 8 - hour day , so times are staggered for arrival
and pick -up time .
Mrs . Grigorov stated that some of the neighbors were concerned
that this proposal would open up the neighborhood for commercial use .
Ms . Beeners pointed out that private schools were included in the
Ordinance , and noted that in that general area there are two churches ,
one of which operates a nursery school part - time . Ms . Beeners stated
that it was her opinion that the subject proposal is consistent with
the neighborhood with respect to there being a school there . Ms .
Beeners offered that when petitions are received substantially
referencing traffic , it should be remembered that there is an East
Ithaca Transportation Committee established to study the traffic
problems in that area and the Committee has recommended that the City ,
Town , and County participate in an overall origin / destination study
for traffic in this particular area . Ms . Beeners indicated that this
study should be completed by December 1988 .
There appearing to be no other questions or comments from the
Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to .make a motion .
• MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mrs . Virginia
Langhans :
Planning Board - 6 - June 2 , 1987
• WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special
Approval of a School Use , pursuant to Article IV , Section 11 ,
Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the
proposed construction of a nursery school building on a portion
of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 16 , located in a
ResidencE! District R- 15 at 142 Honness Lane , for the proposed
relocation of the existing Little Feet Montessori Center ,
currently in operation at 139 Honness Lane , Parcel No .
6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 6 .
2 . The proposed building construction is an Unlisted Action for
which the Zoning Board of Appeals has been legislatively
designatE! d to act as Lead Agency , and for which a recommendation
of a negative determination of environmental significance has
been madE! by the Town Planner , subject to certain conditions .
3 . The proposal has been reviewed by the Planning Board at a Public
Hearing on May 19 , 1987 , and as adjourned to June 2 , 1987 .
4 . On June 2 , 1987 , the Planning Board reviewed a revised plan for
the school entitled " Little Feet Day Care , Honness Lane , Town of
Ithaca " , by R . A . Boehlecke , Jr . , Architect .
• THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of
environmental significance be made , subject to certain conditions
described. in this report .
2 . That the Planning Board determine and hereby does determine that :
a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location .
b . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood will not be adversely affected .
c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development of the Town .
3 . That the Planning Board further recommend and hereby does further
recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that Special Approval be
granted for the proposal as presented , subject to the following
conditions :
a . That the Special Approval be granted for the relocation and
expansion of the school for up to 80 enrollees , with further
• expansion of the school to up to 120 enrollees subject to
Special Approval review in June , 1988 .
Planning Board - 7 - June 2 , 1987
• b . That. the final drainage and driveway improvement plan and
installation be subject to approval by the Town Engineer .
c . That: the final planting plan , schedule , and installation be
subject to approval by the Town Planner , with additional
plantings to be located between the parking and drop - off
areas and the existing building on the lot and also between
the parking area and adjacent property to the east .
d . That all parking and standing be on the site , with access
for emergency vehicles maintained at all times .
e . That the parking , delivery , and loading rules and scheduling
be implemented and enforced by the applicant .
f . That all playground areas be completely fenced .
g . That the Special Approval be subject to all conditions and
regulations required by the New York State Education
Department and the Tompkins County Health Department .
h . That the spruce tree at the southeast corner of the property
be limbed up to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and
the Town Planner to permit adequate sight distance at the
driveway entrance .
• 4 . That the :Planning Board further recommend and hereby does further
recommend .
a . The granting of a rear yard variance for reduction of the
required rear yard .
b . The repainting of the four - unit building to enhance the
proposed school .
c . That the Town reserve the right to impose additional
conditions at any time .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , GricTorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of the Little Feet Montessori
nursery school duly closed at 8 : 24 p . m .
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( FROM MAY 19 , 1987 ) : CONSIDERATION OF
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 7 . 75 ACRE
PARCEL , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 39 - 1 - 25 , KNOWN AS 371 STONE
• QUARRY ROAD , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R91 CONTIGUOUS TO THE WEST OF LANDS OF
CAYUGA VISTA , :INTO TWO PARCELS OF 5 . 87 ± ACRES AND 1 . 88 ± ACRES , AND
FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS FOR BUILDING 8 OF
Planning Board - 8 - June 2 , 1987
• CYAUGA VISTA , LOCATED AT 1018 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
N0 . 6 - 39 - 1 - 51 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 . MAURICE E . SNYDER , OWNER OF
PARCEL NO . 6 - 39 - 1 - 25 ; DELL L . GOVER , OWNER OF PARCEL NO . 6 - 39 - 1 - 5 ;
EDWARD A . MAZZA , ESQ . , AGENT .
Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 25 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Attorney Mazza was present .
Attorney Mazza addressed the Board , stating that , since the
Public _ _Hearing had been closed at the May 19th meeting , he would not
say anything other than alterations to Cayuga Vista parking have been
submitted to the Board .
Chairman May stated that the first item before the Board was the
subdivision of: the property , that being subdividing 7 . 75 acres into
two lots .
Ms . Beeners noted that a revised plan was submitted to the Board
for the adjacent Cayuga Vista property . Ms . Beeners also mentioned
that the Board is considering two actions at this meeting -- one is
the consideration of subdivision approval , and the second is the
consideration of approval of site plan modifications for four parking
spaces in Cayuga Vista that have been removed , as shown on the revised
• plan presented for consideration .
Chairman May noted that the SEQR requirements have been
completed .
Town Attorney Barney questioned the revised plan , entitled
" ' Cayuga Vista ' - Proposed Parking Revisions - Bldg . # 8 " , dated May
27 , 1987 , which , he noted , shows 60 feet " Reserve for Future Roadway &
Utilities " , asking how access was going to be obtained as the plan
does not show an actual construction of a road . Attorney Mazza stated
that plans have not been drafted for construction of that road . Town
Attorney Barney inquired about access to the back lot , with Attorney
Mazza responding that access to that property is being attained over
that reservation , and that an easement will be drawn to that property
as a 60 - foot road as shown on the map . Attorney Mazza stated that no
metes and bounds description of that roadway is shown on the map at
this time and that is because they do not know the exact dimensions of
that roadway . Attorney Mazza stated that it will be 60 feet wide in
" that " approximate location , adding that , in his opinion , it would not
be wise to deed it over until they know exactly what they are deeding
over .
Town Attorney Barney stated that his concern was that the map
that relates to the subdivision does not show access to " that lot " .
Town Attorney Barney stated that when the Planning Board grants
approval , the Board should be approving a specific access to get to
• " this " back lot . Town Attorney Barney stated that , if , for example ,
Cayuga Vista were not going to be the owner of " this " , he thought
there would be a very real concern as to allowing a subdivision which
Planning Board - 9 - June 2 , 1987
• does not shown on the map any mechanism of getting to the rear lot .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he would like to see , on " this map " ,
the road extending down , on the bottom " here " [ indicating on the map ]
to Vista Drive , Town Attorney Barney stated that , also , in his
opinion , the width of the road should be shown tentatively wider until
such time as there is a common road with Mrs . Rumsey , adding that
there is nothing to say that it cannot be changed next week , or next
month , or next year , when the parties have finally defined where the
road is going to go . Town Attorney Barney stated that the question is
- - how do these people get into this property from a public road ?
Attorney Mazza stated that what he was having difficulty with is
that this question is the same question that was before the Board when
Cayuga Vista was approved - - how to get to Mrs . Rumsey ' s property .
Attorney Mazza. stated that Mrs . Rumsey had no other real access to her
property and that is why that was put in in that width . Town Attorney
Barney asked if , until such time as there is a road running up along
the Rumsey land , it would be appropriate to suggest that there might
be a little wider mouth coming out of that proposed road to " this
parcel " , noting that , right now , there are 30 feet into that land .
Chairman May asked Attorney Mazza if he would have any objection
to making a " bell " in connection with the road as suggested by the
Town Attorney , Attorney Mazza responded , yes , adding that he would
have an objection because they are having their offering plan printed
• for submission to the Attorney General and that would mean an
alteration which would -have to be shown in the offering plan that is
going to go in on Cayuga Vista itself .
There appearing to be no further questions or comments from the
Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion .
MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans :
WHEREAS :
i . This action is the consideration of subdivision approval for the
proposed subdivision of a 7 . 75 acre parcel , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 39 - 1 - 25 , known as 371 Stone Quarry Road , contiguous
to the west of lands of Cayuga Vista , into two parcels of 5 . 87 ±
acres and 1 . 88 ± acres .
2 . The Planning Board on May 19 , 1987 , acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review , made a negative determination of
environmental significance for this Unlisted action .
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on May 19 , 1987 , reviewed
the following :
SEQR Short Environmental Assessment Form dated May 7 , 1987 .
" Property Survey - Dell L . Grover , William P . Grover , and
• Edward A . Mazza " , dated May 5 , 1987 , by Paul B . Koerts ,
Professional Land Surveyor .
Planning Board - 10 - June 2 , 1987
• 4 . The Planning Board , at an Adjourned Public Hearing on June 2 ,
1987 , reviewed a plan entitled " Cayuga Vista - Proposed Parking
Revisions - Bldg . # 81' , dated May 27 , 1987 , such plan showing a
removal of parking spaces from the 60 - foot future road right of
way from planned Vista Lane in Cayuga Vista , which right of way
would serve the subject 5 . 87 ± acre parcel .
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 waive and hereby does waive Preliminary
Subdivision Approval and grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as herein proposed ,
conditional upon the following :
a . The final subdivision map showing the location of the
60 - foot access way over Cayuga Vista lands for access to the
5 . 87 acre parcel .
b . A grant of variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals from the
• requirements of Town Law Section 280 - a and Article III ,
Sect :Lon 9 , Paragraph 3 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , prior to the issuance of any building permit for
development on the 5 . 87 acre parcel .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Gricrorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May asked that the Board now move on to consider the
site plan modifications for Building 8 of Cayuga Vista .
Chairman Play asked if there were any questions or comments with
respect to this matter .
Mr . Elliott Lauderdale , 381 Stone Quarry Road , spoke from the
floor and stated that this topic seems to be something new which the
public hearing was announced for , so , therefore , they should have some
opportunity to express their opinion . Mr . Lauderdale stated that
there was not any discussion of the alteration of the other site plan
in Cayuga Vista. , Mr . Lauderdale submitted a Petition which he stated
was not particularly pertinent to either this subject or the last
• subject . The Petition was signed by 35 persons with addresses on
Stone Quarry Road , Danby Road , and West King Road , and reads as
follows :
Planning Board. - 11 - June 2 , 1987
• " CONCERNED CITIZENS OF SOUTH HILL
PETITION
We , the undersigned , oppose the relocation of the non - conforming
three -unit building ( large blue building ) at 1018 Danby Road , to
another parcel. at 371 Stone Quarry Road . We oppose the relocation of
this dwelling to another parcel in our neighborhood ( Resident District
R9 ) because this dwelling exceeds the two - family limit ( Article III ,
Section 4 , paragraph 2 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ) and
because it exceeds the 30 foot height limit ( Article III , Section ' 4 ,
paragraph 17 ) . Relocating this building will substantially reduce the
quality and disrupt the character of the neighborhood of which R9
zoning code is designed to protect . Conventional practice dictates
that no stuct.ure [ sic . ] should either be placed on or built on a
parcel until prior approval of sewage , water , drainage , and other
pre - construction requirements have been granted . "
Mr . Lauderdale stated that he had a question about procedures .
Mr . Lauderdale stated that as far as he could ascertain , we are now
talking about a way to get to a road , a way to provide for a road , to
something we have already approved the subdivision for . Mr .
Lauderdale stated that , also , before we approved the subdivision ,
.there was an approval of a negative environmental impact on that piece
of property . Mr . Lauderdale stated that he was in doubt about this
particular road which is now being discussed for access to the
property that has already been approved . Mr . Lauderdale wondered what
this reorganization of Cayuga Vista will do to the environment in
• question and stated that the development in general could seriously
affect drainage in the whole area , including his adjoining property .
At this point , Chairman May , interjecting that he was confused by
what Mr . Lauderdale was saying , stated that at the meeting on this
matter prior to this meeting the Board approved the SEQR , but did not
approve the :subdivision at that point , and , basically , this is a
continuation of that meeting , where the Board has now approved the
subdivision . Chairman May , continuing , stated that the Ordinance
requires that they do not landlock any land and that there was an
access that was indicated in the original subdivision map of Cayuga
Vista to permit access to the backlands .
Mr . Lauderdale asked the Board when the environmental impact
study was considered , with Chairman May responding , at the time of
approval of Cayuga Vista . Mr . Lauderdale asked if any driveway that
would be constructed for that access would be subject to another site
plan approval by the Planning Board , with Chairman May responding ,
yes , if there were a change .
Mr . Lauderdale stated that it was his understanding that there
are no plans for development , but there might be a movement of a house
onto the property . Mr . Lauderdale stated that it was also his
understanding that , if you have a subdivided piece of property , and
you are the owner of the property , then you might be able to build a
• house on the property .
Town Attorney Barney stated that , once a subdivision is approved
Planning Board - 12 - June 2 , 1987
. and access is provided to the lot , you would not have to come before
the Planning Board again .
Mr . Lauderdale stated that when he was at the previous public
hearing he asked who would consider the environmental impact of
drainage , sewage , and the wetlands issue regarding this parcel , if
they move the blue house onto the parcel . Mr . Lauderdale stated that
at that time he was told that that would be subject to the Zoning
Board of Appeals , and a site plan would probably have to be approved .
Mr . Lauderdale stated that he mentioned this to the Board of Appeals
Chairman who responded that it was not their concern - - the lead
agency on drainage and septic - - in this particular case moving a
building onto a piece of property - - is the Planning Board . Mr .
Lauderdale stated that he was also told that the subdivision is only
the subdivision and it does not have anything to do with drainage of
buildings on that property - - that is a later concern and another
issue which was not going to be considered now . Mr . Lauderdale stated
that it was entirely possible under legal framework , if the moving of
a non - conforming building is granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals ,
that this blue house can be placed in the middle of " this swamp "
without any consideration of environmental impact , and the drainage ,
which is already a problem for them , is going to be more of a problem ,
and the condition of the soil in this location is such that it is
hardpan , and above the hardpan is very shallow topsoil . Mr .
Lauderdale asked what provisions were going to be made for an adequate
septic system . Mr . Lauderdale stated that in all the proposals
presented by Attorney Mazza and Mr . Grover there is a very vague
stipulation of what they intend to do to the property , adding that
they mentioned the initial location of the building . Mr . Lauderdale
stated that , as he saw it , the initial location of the blue house
could be placed wherever they want to put it .
Chairman May noted that septic systems and those concerns are the
responsibility of the Health Department ,
Town Attorney Barney stated that , beyond that , those concerns
were effectively addressed when Mr . Lauderdale addressed the question
to the Planning Board of the environmental concerns relating to the
subdivision at the last Planning Board meeting on May 19th .
Mr . Lauderdale asked the Board if they thought it was somewhat
backwards to approve environmental considerations even before they
know where the road was going to go . Town Attorney Barney stated that
the road has been shown . Town Attorney Barney stated that the issue
being dealt with now is that the road , as had been shown , over - ran
what had been previously shown as parking spaces for one building in
the Cayuga Vista project . Town Attorney Barney stated that one
concern at the May 19th meeting was that there should be some revision
of the Cayuga Vista plan to show where those cars are going to be
parked now , since there is going to be a road . Town Attorney Barney
reiterated that that is presently what is before the Board and there
• should be a public hearing on that issue and that issue alone . Town
Attorney Barney offered that he did not think the Planning Board
wanted to go back and re - address all the issues relating to swamps and
Planning Board - 13 - June 2 , 1987
• that sort of thing and stated that these issues were explicitly
considered and discussed when the environmental review was made at the
May 19th Planning Board meeting .
Chairman May asked if there were any further comments with
respect to parking for Building 8 of Cayuga Vista . No one spoke .
Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 00 p . m . and brought the
matter back to the Board for discussion . There appearing to be no
further discussion , Chairman May asked if anyone wished to make a
motion .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mrs . Virginia
Langhans :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of site plan modifications for
Building 8 of Cayuga Vista , located at 1018 Danby Road , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 39 - 1 - 5 , such modifications consisting of
the relocation of four parking spaces .
2 . This . is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board has been
legislatively designated to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review , and for which the Town Planner has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance .
• THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the
environmental review of this Unlisted Action , make and hereby does
make a negative determination of environmental significance .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert
Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of site plan modifications for
Building 8 of Cayuga Vista , located at 1018 Danby Road , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 39 - 1 - 5 , such modifications consisting of
the relocation of four parking spaces .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency for environmental review , has made a negative
• determination of environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on June 2 , 1987 , has
Planning Board: - 14 - June 2 , 1987
• reviewed a plan entitled " Cayuga Vista - Proposed Parking
Revisions, - Bldg . # 8 " , dated May 27 , 1987 , such plan showing a
removal of parking spaces from the 60 - foot future road right of
way from planned Vista Lane in Cayuga Vista .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , finding that the proposed modifications
do not substantially alter the scale or scope of the project , approve
and hereby doers approve the proposed modifications as presented .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Ken erson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimouslt .
Chairman May declared the matters of the Snyder subdivision and
the site plan modifications with respect to Building 8 of Cayuga Vista
duly closed at. 9 : 04 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL OF A SCHOOL
USE , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF
• ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE WALDORF
SCHOOL OF THE FINGER LAKES INTO A FORMER SCHOOL BUILDING AT 855 FIVE
MILE DRIVE , 'TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 31 - 2 - 15 , RESIDENCE
DISTRICT R30 . RICHARD BERGGREN , OWNER ; MATTHEW ENGELHART AND RICHARD
KINNER , AGENTS FOR THE WALDORF SCHOOL OF THE FINGER LAKES ,
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 9 : 05 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearin<Is as posted and published and as noted above . Mr .
Richard D . Kinner was present .
Mr . Kinner appeared before the Board and stated that he was
asking permission to renovate and refurbish an existing school
building for use as a school with a projected population of 65
students and 6 teachers . Mr . Kinner stated that the only significant
change regarding the parcel that has taken place over the last several
years is that the State Highway Lands have changed . Referring to the
site plan submitted , Mr . Kinner noted that he had indicated on the
drawing some of the basic aspects of the property and the adjacent
property , including the existing Five Mile Drive , Mr . Kinner stated
that the surrounding open land is all a green area which , they hope ,
can be a playground area . Mr . Kinner noted that there are parking
spaces provided for twelve cars and six classrooms are anticipated for
the School . Mr . Kinner stated that , hopefully , some additional
parking area can go one of two places - - " back up here " [ indicating on
the site plan ] in some of " this " State land which is adjacent to the
• entranceway , about which they will be contacting the State to see what
the School ' s rights would be with respect to using some of that land
- - and , " this " abandoned road that runs along the property
Planning Board. - 15 - June 2 , 1987
• [ indicating ] and which is the old Ithaca - Elmira Road , Mr . Kinner
pointed out that that road is paved , but is not in great shape , so
they may be able to use that for parking . Mr . Kinner pointed out the
location of the septic system as it is located at the present time ,
adding that the Health Department has been contacted , and they have
engaged an engineer to draw plans to assure that the septic system
will meet the needs of the School as it is proposed today . Mr . Kinner
also noted that fencing will be installed along the railroad bordering
a portion of the property . In conclusion , Mr . Kinner , commenting that
he has personally been scouting for a location for the School for a
year , stated that this particular site is a central location and
convenient to the School District for bussing purposes .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked for
any comments or questions from the public . No one spoke . Chairman
May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 11 p . m . and brought the matter back
to the Board for discussion . Chairman May , commenting that Mr . Kinner
should be commended , stated that the last time he was in that building
there was a lot of work to be done , and added that it is an attractive
building .
Town Attorney Barney inquired about the size of the building ,
with Mr . Kinner responding that it is approximately 3 , 000 square feet
in size with six classrooms . Mr . Kinner stated that there are two
rooms on the first floor with hardwood floors that will be divided
• into four separate classrooms , adding that the proposed classroom
sizes upstairs and the classrooms downstairs are commensurate with the
same sizes that are presently being used at the present Waldorf School
location in Danby . Mr . Kinner noted that it will be a kindergarten
through 7th grade school .
Town Attorney Barney pointed out that there are some access and
egress requirements for the second floor . Mr . Kinner stated that the
main entrance to the School is on the second floor and the slope of
the land allows for a whole separate entrance to the first floor . Mr .
Kinner stated that building plans are being drawn up by an engineer to
meet State Codes in all the doorways , windows , and light , fire exits ,
alarms , etc . Mr . Kinner also noted that there are two bathrooms
upstairs in thin. front two corners and one bathroom downstairs .
Mrs . Langhans asked if Mr . Kinner had been in touch with the
State Highway Department to find out the availability of access to
using their land for a playground , with Mr . Kinner responding , no ,
adding that they have not made contact yet .
Mr . Klein asked Mr . Kinner if he felt that the land that goes
with the School were adequate for a playground , with Mr . Kinner
responding , yeas .
Mrs . Lanc3hans wondered how far away the School is from the
railroad , with Mr . Kinner replying that it is 50 feet to 100 feet from
• the School building to the actual railroad .
Planning Board - 16 - June 2 , 1987
• Mr . Kene :rson wondered if school buses were going to use the
driveway , with Mr . Kinner responding , no , and adding that , in
anticipation of coming to this meeting , they spoke with Mr . Peter
Curry , Director of Transportation for the Ithaca City School District ,
and he had said that it would be alright to drop the children off at
the driveway entrance . Mr . Kinner offered that the School proposes to
build a shelter for the children to use in bad weather while they are
waiting to be picked up .
Mrs . Langhans asked about the distance from the bus stop to the
building , with. Mr . Kinner responding that it is approximately 200 feet
from the bus stop to the building .
There appearing to be no further questions or comments , Chairman
May asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert
Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special
Approval of a School Use , pursuant to Article V , Section 18 ,
Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the
proposed location of the Waldorf School of the Finger Lakes into
• a former school building at 855 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca
Tax . Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 2 - 15 , Residence District R- 30 ,
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of .Appeals has been legislatively determined to act as Lead
Agency for environmental review . The Tompkins County Planning
Department , the Tompkins County Health Department , and the New
York State Department of Transportation are potentially - involved
agencies which are being notified as to this action .
3 . The Planning Board has reviewed the proposal at a Public Hearing
on June 2 , 1987 .
4 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance , subject to certain conditions , which
are part of this report .
THEREFORE , IT :IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of
environmental significance be made for this action , conditional
upon the following :
a . Approval of the septic system and water supply system by the
• Tompkins County Health Department .
Planning Board - 17 - June 2 , 1987
• b . Compliance of building renovation with all pertinent codes
and regulations .
c . Installation of fencing and driveway improvements ,
substantially as shown on the plan presented , to the
satisfaction of the Town Building Inspector , with the
driveway to be widened to a 16 - foot roadway with 2 - foot
shoulders , with the fence in its proposed location to be
subject to the approval of the New York State Department of
Transportation , and with the proposed shelter also to be
subject to the approval of the New York State Department of
Transportation .
2 . That the Planning Board determine and hereby does determine that :
a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location .
b . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood will not be adversely affected .
c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development of the Town .
3 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals that Special
Approval as proposed be granted , subject to the following
conditions :
a . Approval of the septic system and water supply system by the
Tompkins County Health Department .
b . Compliance of building renovation with all pertinent codes
and regulations .
c . Installation of fencing and driveway improvements ,
substantially as shown on the plan presented , to the
satisfaction of the Town Building Inspector , with the
driveway to be widened to a 16 - foot roadway with 2 - foot
shoulders , with the fence in its proposed location to be
subject to the approval of the New York State Department of
Transportation , and with the proposed shelter also to be
subject to the approval of the New York State Department of
Transportation .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTIO14 was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman :May declared the matter of the Waldorf School of the
Finger Lakes duly closed at 9 : 23 p . m .
Planning Board - 18 - June 2 , 1987
• PUBLIC HEARING_ : CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR
" BUTTERFIELD " ( FORMER MAJESTIC HEIGHTS ) GRANTED SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY
THE PLANNING BOARD ON JANUARY 20 , 1987 . 119 DWELLING UNITS APPROVED ,
119 DWELLING UNITS REQUESTED . EAST KING ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 , MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . AND FURTHER ,
CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF
SAID TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 INTO TWO PARCELS OF
27 . 85 ± ACRES AND 2 . 71 ± ACRES , RESPECTIVELY . DAVID Co AUBLE ,
DEVELOPER , TROWBRIDGE — TROWBRIDGE , LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS , CONSULTANTS ,
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 9 : 24 p . m . , and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Auble
and Mr . Trowbridge were present .
Mr . Auble addressed the Board , commenting that this project was
last before the Town Board on February 9 , 1987 with respect to the
amendment of Local Law No . 3 - 1983 to include certain revised plans .
Mr . Auble stated that he was before the Planning Board this evening
for approval of a revised site plan , adding that he would dispense
with describing a lot of the basic information which the Board members
have before them . Mr . Auble stated that , after discussions with his
investors , it was concluded that everyone wanted to improve the
quality of the project in spite of some substantial additional costs .
Mr . Auble , commenting that the plan , as approved in February , had a
potential for the project becoming a college - rental - type situation ,
stated that they would like to appeal to a broader market which , they
feel , would be better for the area and for the Town because of the
higher assessments and taxes . With respect to the environment , Mr .
Auble noted that some of the large parking lots have been reduced by
building the garages into the units , which also reduces the potential
for contaminated runoff , and added that , along those lines , they have
had several meetings with the Cornell Plantations staff with respect
to the protection of the South Hill Swamp . Mr . Auble stated that
those discussions will be continuing and noted that in attendance
tonight also is Robert Cook , Director of the Plantations and Nancy
Ostman , Manager of the Plantations natural areas .
Mr . Auble introduced Mr . Peter J . Trowbridge , L . L . A . , of
Trowbridge - Trowbridge ASLA , Environmental Designers , Landscape
Planners , and Landscape Architects , who , in addition to his own
private practice , is the Program Coordinator for the Landscape
Architecture Program at Cornell University . Mr . Auble also introduced
Ms . Kathy Wolf , a Licensed Landscape Architect with
Trowbridge -Trowbridge ASLA .
Mr . Trowbridge stated that there are two actions which the
developer is asking the Board to consider tonight , one being a
subdivision action . Mr . Trowbridge stated that the developer is
asking for the subdivision of a 2 . 71 -acre parcel from the parcel at
• large , adding that that subdivision will be occupied by a
single - family dwelling . Mr . Trowbridge stated that , secondly , Mr .
Auble is asking the Board to look at a revised site plan and consider
Planning Board - 19 - June 2 , 1987
• site plan approval . Mr . Trowbridge presented two drawings , one
describing some of the technical information , one that is
illustrative , as well as one which is the site plan that the Board
approvedearlier this year for the same piece of real estate . Mr .
Trowbridge , noting that the first original site plan had large
rental - style units clustered around parking areas , stated that when he
[ Trowbridge ] came on the project he and Mr . Auble began to look at a
different style of project , but with the same number of units . Mr .
Trowbridge pointed out that , while the acreage has been reduced
somewhat because they are suggesting taking " this " piece out
[ indicating on the map ] as a subdivision , the number of units is the
same - - minus one , that is , a single - family dwelling on " this " parcel ,
with 119 units remaining on the parcel at large . Mr . Trowbridge ,
commenting that they began to look at a number of issues , stated that
number one was an overall image , the concern being that in the overall
neighborhood there is single - family housing with the exception of Deer
Run , which is cluster housing . Mr . Trowbridge spoke of the existing
houses on the road , with addresses on the road , and the parking
associated with individual units , and stated that , at that time , they
looked at a different architectural unit - - a two -bedroom with a den ,
parking associated with the unit , each unit with a garage , and one
exterior parking space . Mr . Trowbridge pointed out that many of the
units have more than one parking space per unit . Mr . Trowbridge
stated that the intent was to take advantage of the real qualities of
the site - - the pond , and the spectacular view , commenting that the
first site plan was really fairly unspecific as related to the site
it did not take advantage of the views . Mr . Trowbridge stated that
they were also concerned about not bringing the housing right up next
to the road , thus keeping some open space at the road edge , as well as
to give each unit the ability to have green space associated with it .
Mr . Trowbridge pointed out that the units in near the pond have been
clustered around green spaces facing the pond . Mr . Trowbridge noted
that , as with the first site plan , there is a 15 , 000 sq . ft . service
building that will be used for some storage for residents , maintenance
equipment , etc . , as well as a small pavilion for community gatherings ,
and , in addition , there will be a community walkway that would
traverse the site and which would allow individual units to get access
to a public walkway that would take them around the lake . Mr .
Trowbridge stated that this would allow for more control and access to
the green space . Mr . Trowbridge pointed out that that walkway , as
well , would connect back to a bus stop that has been proposed on East
King Road , Mr . Trowbridge stated that there are two entrances , one
which has been mandated by an adjoining right of way that exists
directly across the street on the south side of East King Road and
which would create a four -way intersection if that parcel were to be
developed in the future . Mr . Trowbridge noted that the quality of the
development is such that each two - story structure would look very much
like a single large house even though they would be multiple family
dwellings . Mr . Trowbridge stated that their intent is to have the
units look like single , large dwellings .
• With respect to phasing , Mr . Trowbridge stated that they have
discussed beginning the development at the easterly end in three
phases - - possibly 40 units per phase - - building from the east going
Planning Board - 20 - June 2 , 1987
• to the west . Mr . Trowbridge pointed out that there are two utility
lines that currently exist on the site - - an 8 - inch sanitary sewer
that runs the length of the site which will be utilized . Mr .
Trowbridge stated that the developer has allowed for a 20 - foot public
right of way for that utility that could then come out at the entrance
on East King Road . Mr . Trowbridge noted that there is also an 8 - inch
water line that runs the length of the site which would be utilized as
part of the site utilities . Mr . Trowbridge pointed out how all the
site drainage moves into roadside gutters , noting that the road
configuration would be asphalt , crowned , with two concrete gutters and
catch basins that would pick up all the water that would run from the
driveways onto the road and then to a swale that traverses the edge of
the property into an existing swale that ultimately connects into Six
Mile Creek , Mr . Trowbridge noted that this is fundamentally the same
drainage pattern that was offered in the site plan presented and
approved earlier this year . Indicating on the map , Mr . Trowbridge
commented that: the gray areas are the existing foundations of slabs
that currently exist on the site , and stated that there would be
considerable demolition of earlier Beacon Hills foundations and slabs
that were constructed as part of the site development , as well as
large amounts of top soil which would be distributed on the site . Mr .
Trowbridge stated that , in addition , they are proposing that all the
refuse , the concrete debris , on the site be used as fill , allowing for
a picnic area next to the pavilion .
• Mr . Trowbridge pointed out that the gray- colored area on the end
of the map " here " [ indicating ] is the area defined in December , 1982 ,
as part of Mr . Manos ' agreement , of which they set aside this portion
as a buffer zone . Mr . Trowbridge stated that they are asking the
Board to consider site plan review of this plan , commenting that any
building permit that would be offered for that portion would be
contingent upon an agreement between David Auble , the developer , and
Cornell Plantations who are responsible for the six - acre natural area
near the subject site . Mr . Trowbridge stated that they are looking
for site plan approval stipulating a contingency that building permits
will only be issued in that zone with private agreements made between
the parties .
Mrs . Grigorov commented that that would only apply to one
building , with Mr . Trowbridge noting that it is actually a group of
buildings .
Chairman :May , noting that this was a Public Hearing , asked if
anyone from the public wished to speak .
Mr . Robert E . Cook , Director , Cornell Plantations , spoke from the
floor and stated that he was relatively new to this and understood
that the Board has dealt with this area for a long time . Mr . Cook
stated that , in fact , he wanted to bring up history because it seemed
to him that that is what is most relevant . Mr . Cook stated that , in
looking at the new proposal compared with the old , he thought that
• what he would stress is the major difference of concern to them with
the existing lake and line of development that had been approved and
was part of the Manos ' agreement , and that was , no development beyond
Planning Board. - 21 - June 2 , 1987
• " this " point .. Mr . Cook stated that there was absolutely no
disagreement about the fact that this natural area is worth
preserving , adding that , historically , he gathered the Town and
Plantations and others have gone to great lengths to try to do this ,
and further adding that , in fact , much of the Manos ' agreement was
contingent upon this development of an agreement that created this
buffer area . Mr . Cook stated that clearly this plan here in its
entirety changes that substantially and , in terms of analysis of the
drainage and the total impact of not having a buffer here , they are
concerned about that , so , they want to be very sure about the
preservation of that , and their position is , they really believe that
to be absolutely critical to the natural area . Mr . Cook stated that
the Town has many times in the past attempted to protect this natural
area and that the whole agreement with the Deer Run development really
involves the protection of an area of land that is right next to the
Plantations land and that the drainage from " here " [ indicating on the
map ] goes right into that area . Mr . Cook stated that there is a sense
in which just keeping faith with even that earlier agreement involves
trying - very herd to protect this area right " in here " [ indicating ] ,
and their position is very much to try and continue to do that , adding
that Associate University Counsel Shirley Egan will speak to the draft
resolution . Mr . Cook pointed out on the map the line that Cornell
believed to be the so -called Manos ' line which appears to be different
from " this " line [ indicating ] . Mr . Cook stated that their concern is
clearly with these 12 units that are up on the western side of the
• lake and they would want to be in a position where unless an agreement
is reached between the three parties - - the Town of Ithaca , Cornell
Plantations , and Mr . Auble - - that the existing buffer , the buffer
that was embodied in the Manos ' agreement would be intact . Mr . Cook
stated that this would be most critical to Cornell University . Mr .
Cook stated that it is not only a question of hydrology but it is also
a question of general density in the area . Mr . Cook stated that it
was very hard to think of a better substitute than having a buffer of
natural vegetation .
Ms . Nancy Ostman , Cornell Plantations , spoke from the floor and
stated that it was her understanding that the boundary starts from
" this survey point here " [ indicating ] , but it was intended to run
perpendicular -to the road and so it would cut up " something like this "
[ indicating ] . Ms . •Ostman stated that , if the buffer were intact ,
" these " six units would definitely be within their buffer zone , and
part of " these " two units would be within their buffer zone . Ms .
Ostman stated that the buffer was defined using the watershed ,
basically the general flow that went into the corner of the natural
area and part of the Hallberg property which they have rare plants on .
Ms . Ostman stated that the original agreement , in fact , included that
Manos would remove part of " this one " and parts of " these units " off
of the buffer [ indicating ] , adding that they would have been on our
property and his agreement with us was that he would remove these
cement platforms as part of his construction , so , you can see that
definitely implies that the buffer was a little bit bigger . Ms .
Ostman stated that Cornell is having a severe problem with " these
units " , adding that Manos ' agreed to keep everything on " this " side of
the creek and Ithat means that Manos ' development and this development
Planning Boarc! - 22 - June 2 , 1987
• also reflected an agreement to keep everything on " this " side of the
lake . Ms . Ost.man stated that what Cornell had originally , encompassed
not just " these " twelve units but would have encompassed " all these
units " too [ :indicating ] . Ms . Ostman stated that Cornell is not
objecting to these units , at this point , but they are finding a great
deal of problem with what is going on .
Chairman May asked if anyone else wished to speak to this matter .
Ms . Shirley K . Egan , Associate University Counsel , spoke from the
floor and stated that her only concern was , commenting that she
hesitated to speak to it when it has not been made the subject of a
motion nor seconded , the Draft Resolution , a copy of which she had
received . Attorney Egan stated that the resolution seemed to imply
that there was an " agreement to agree " to allow development to the
west side of the original buffer line and that troubled her a lot .
Attorney Egan stated that it may lead to indications that even the
Town has agreed to agree , and , if Cornell would not agree to having
six units on the other side of its land then the Town would agree to
allow this to happen and this is all on things Cornell knows nothing
about at this moment . Attorney Egan stated that Cornell does not know
what sorts of solutions might be put forward for their consideration ,
but it is already being implied that they might agree to them .
Commenting that she has had discussions with Ms . Beeners , Attorney
Egan stated that , just to voice their concerns with a resolution like
• that , it implies things that just simply might not be there as of the
2nd of June , 1987 , in Cornell ' s intention about this . Attorney Egan
stated that Cornell is not anti -development ; they are not just
screaming for the sake of hearing their own voices ; they have some
real concerns . Attorney Egan stated that this issue catches them a
little bit quickly without having had a chance to bring forward their
own witnesses and experts , which could be done at an adjourned date .
Attorney Egan stated that this may not be necessary if we could come
up with something right now that she thought may allow Mr . Auble to
begin what he wants to begin on the eastern portion of the property ,
but which does not pre - suppose anything that is sacrosanct . Ms . Egan
stated that , actually , she would have a question as to whether the
Planning Board has any say in it all . Ms . Egan reiterated her concern
with a pre - supposing that anyone will agree to something within this
section , which for four years now has been sacrosanct , and where will
not be development - - as their buffer . Ms . Egan noted again that she
would question the jurisdiction of the Board to say that an incursion
could be made .into the buffer , adding that it changes the use of the
site and is an integral part of it and to the existence of that
property .
Mr . Cook ,spoke from the floor and stated that he wanted to add
one further point regarding the draft resolution , which he also had
received , and that was the use of the word " hydrological " . Mr . Cook
stated that Cornell ' s concerns go behond hydrological , obviously , that
is an ecologically important point to this parcel of land , but there
• is also a basic issue of density . Mr . Cook stated that if you look at
the history of the change in zoning in this area from an R30 to an R15
to a multiple residence , and now with this reduction in the area with
ti
Planning Board - 23 - June 2 , 1987
• the same number of units , in fact , you are continually moving in the
direction of an increase in density .and an increase in the number of
people in the area . Mr . Cook stated that he believed there has been a
10 % reduction in the area of this land without a 10 % reduction in the
number of units , so , there has been an additional increase in density ,
and so , ' consequently , the buffer is not just merely hydrological , it
is a kind of ecological concept that an entire system is there in
place to buffer a protected area .
Mr . Trowbridge stated that he would like to inform the Board that
extensive studies for the westerly end of the site have been done ,
however , he had chosen not to present those tonight based on the
resolution which was drafted for discussion this evening . Mr .
Trowbridge referred to one hydrology report and stated that since then
they have gone beyond those studies , and they have reviewed what the
impact would be on that portion of the property with the Town Planner
and with the Town Engineer . Mr . Trowbridge stated that they hesitate
to get further involved in this at this forum because the spirit of
this was to set aside the area on the westerly end of the property ,
and to allow Cornell University , Mr . Auble , and themselves to discuss
what might or might not ever happen in that area , outside of this
venue , rather than to bring in a number of expert witnesses to talk
about it in front of the Board , adding that a more appropriate setting
would be to do that outside of this forum and come to that collective
wisdom among ourselves . Mr . Trowbridge reiterated that they have
• studied that area and they have reviewed it with the Town Planner and
the Town Encrineer . Mr . Trowbridge stated that he felt the
hydrological issues for that portion of the site can be addressed ,
adding that , in fact , there is a letter that was drafted to the Town
which shows that in the last twelve years much more water has gone
into that little sub - watershed because of the existing slabs and
foundations that have existed as part of the old Beacon Hills
construction , and , by removing them , the developer is bringing that
back close to what it was historically . Mr . Trowbridge stated that
they have engineering techniques that would allow stabilizing the
amount of clean runoff that would run through that area and ultimately
onto the Cornell property . Mr . Trowbridge reiterated that so much
more technical work has been done , and added that he wanted the Board
to know that that groundwork does exist .
Mr . Cook spoke from the floor and stated that he had one further
comment to add which was that they , at Cornell Plantations ,
appreciated the intentions of the draft resolution and appreciated the
need and desire! of Mr . Auble to move forward in the eastern portion of
this parcel . Mr . Cook stated , however , from his perspective , from
Cornell ' s perspective , to keep intact the historical belief on the
part of the Town as reflected in the Hallberg agreement and as
reflected in apparently a great deal of discussion before that , a
natural buffer is the best solution for this particular problem right
now , adding that barring a convincing demonstration otherwise , that is
the way it should remain .
• Chairman May stated that he did not think anyone was arguing
about the natural buffer - - the question is , how much natural buffer .
Planning Board - 24 - June 2 , 1987
Chairman May stated that there is still a substantial natural buffer
there even with the proposal before the Board tonight . Responding to
Chairman May ' s statement , Mr . Trowbridge stated that. that was their
position as well , adding that they do not disagree with the concept of
the buffer - it is really the configuration of what that buffer
should be or might be . Mr . Trowbridge stated that they are very
supportive of the concept of the natural buffer in that area .
Mr . Cook spoke from the floor and stated that what has
traditionally been done in most ecological situations is to begin with
the drainage :basin which , he thought , was the basis of the Manos '
agreement . Ms . Ostman stated that the drainage basin , in fact ,
corresponds quite well with the drainage study that Trowbridge &
Trowbridge provided , that the buffer that we defined with Manos using
some of the experts in hydrology at Cornell , is very similar to the
drainage basin that they show - - it is not very different . Mr .
Trowbridge offered that the draft resolution should be set aside and
look at what constitutes a good buffer and make that agreement between
Cornell and his client , Mr . Auble . Town Attorney Barney wondered what
if " you " cannot reach an agreement , with Mr . Trowbridge responding
that that was -the reason for the third party caveat .
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Auble if he were prepared to go
with this plan of starting construction on the eastern end knowing
that , conceivably , he could wind up with twelve units on the western
end being taken off . Mr . Auble , the developer , stated that they would
have to reconfigure at some point , adding , assuming that discussions
would take place early on , and , if they had to reconfigure in some way
to try and get. those units , they would have to come back before the
Board . Mr . Auble stated that , if they had to go to an alternative ,
there might be a way to do it without infringing on the buffer area .
Mr . Auble offered that from his standpoint " this " [ indicating ] is the
30 - acre property in which he has invested , adding that he knew Ms .
Ostman of Cornell Plantations has strong feelings about this , but ,
when Ms . Ostman says " our " property - - meaning Cornell ' s - - he had
trouble dealing with that . Mr . Auble stated that he wanted to keep
matters on a friendly basis with Cornell , adding that he is a Cornell
Alum - - a graduate of the Ag College , with an MBA from Cornell , and
further adding that his studies included botany , entomology , and
agronomy .
Town Attorney Barney stated that Mr . Auble is before the Board
requesting the Board to approve a changed plan , which they may be
willing to do , but it is also being done in a context where part of
that changed plan , obviously , is the subject of some disagreement .
Town Attorney :Barney offered that the Board might not , necessarily ,
consent to another modification . Mr . Auble stated that that was a
risk he was willing to take . Mr . Auble pointed out that the Planning
Board is well aware of the fact that they are way under the permitted
density .
• Ms . Ostman spoke from the floor and spoke of the Manos ' s site
plan approval when Manos moved from R15 to multi - family . Ms . Ostman
stated that that approval to multi - family was contingent upon that
Planning Board - 25 - June 2 , 1987
• particular site plan and that particular density , as she understood
it . Ms . Ostman stated that it was subject to reversion back to R15
should that site plan not be completed , so , for the developer to say
that he has the potential for considerably higher density on that site
seemed erroneous to her .
Ms . Beeners stated that we are dealing with the same density
overall on 30 „ 56 acres as we were in the original plan . Ms . Ostman
agreed . Ms . Beeners stated that , also , we are dealing with density
that is the equivalent , in fact , that is lower , by about one -tenth to
what would be in the R15 zone . Ms . Ostman interjected that it was
more , with Ms . Beeners responding , no , equivalent . Ms . Beeners noted
that were this; zoned R15 , 4 . 4 units per acre would be permitted with
two - family lots , and here we have 4 . 27 units per acre . Ms . Beeners
stated that that is the same number that has been maintained in the
Manos , the Colletti , and now the Trowbridge plan . Ms . Beeners offered
that she thought it was really apples and oranges if the reversion
possibilities were going to be talked about .
Ms . Ostman spoke from the floor and , commenting that she was not
talking about that , stated that the implication was that there could
be as many as 400 units on the property , which is what the
environmental :review suggests - - that the maximum number of units on a
multi - family zone would be 485 , or something - - whereas she was saying
that it never was intended by the Board that the density on this
• property would ever be higher than 120 .
Mr . Cook spoke from the floor and stated that , presumably , the
reason for the movement of twelve units to the western portion is
because of the: loss of the area in the eastern portion . Mr . Auble
interjected that it was actually to take better advantage of the site
which is what he asked Mr . Trowbridge to design to . Mr . Trowbridge
stated that this is the prettiest piece of the site and described how
the site is very long and thin . Mr . Trowbridge described how they had
tried to take advantage of the particular resources of that site , one
being the lake , but particularly the views . Chairman May commented
that that was true , adding that those houses have some of the nicest
views on the whole property . Mr . Auble stated that he did not really
realize it until Mr . Trowbridge got into it and when they got into the
hydrology they realized they could mitigate it . Mr . Cook stated that
the hydrology :issue is going to come up , and he . could understand the
economic motivation of wanting to put houses on that particular
location and that is fine . Mr . Cook stated that , in terms of the way
the hydrology works , from their analysis , there is no doubt that water
basically moves down into Cornell ' s parcel of land . Mr . Trowbridge
presented a map and , commenting that he had not really wanted to get
into this , staged that he had walked the area with Mr . Flumerfelt and
Ms . Ostman and. Mr . Flumerfelt stated just yesterday that he would
confirm that there is a swale that runs back to contour 1270 that is
intact . Indicating on the map , Mr . Trowbridge pointed out that the
swale shows that the extent of the drainage is actually directed to
• " this area ” to " this point " , adding that at that point there are very
flat gradients , but the contours suggest that water is moving in that
Planning Board - 26 - June 2 , 1987
• direction . Mr . Trowbridge noted that this was a survey that was done
independently by Erdman & Anthony , Engineers and Surveyors , adding
that , again , they have not gotten any evidence from Cornell as to a
map or a planning study , they have given us theories . Mr . Trowbridge
stated that they have talked to a great number of individuals who have
given them theories about what happens , however , they have actually
looked at that. contour arrangement and have actually walked the swale
and the water runs downhill perpendicular to the swale . Indicating on
the map , Mr . Trowbridge stated that if we get water in this area ,
running in this direction , we expect it to run from this direction ,
and certainly not run on the Cornell property .
Mr . Cook spoke from the floor and stated that Cornell ' s position
is that this :is based on a map that was made in 1972 and they have
spent 15 years of plant growth in succession on this site , which has
created , basically , a situation not as a flat surface . Mr . Cook
stated that the land is basically very flat with tremendous numbers of
potholes . Mr . Cook said that water settles , it stays put , and then
moves very slowly between pockets . Mr . Cook stated that Cornell ' s
feeling is that water is generally moving in " this direction " , adding
that " this " is all of the land that they have just gone through an
agreement with Hallberg to create as a preserve , and to have donated .
Mr . Cook stated that they feel that what this will do , in essence , is
to undermine the total intent of that land .
• Mr . Trowbridge stated that the problem is that they have done
hydrological :studies based on topographic information and asked
Cornell to produce a study that was equal to or would contradict their
study . Mr . Trowbridge stated that what we are basically getting is
people ' s theories , adding that he thought the intent of the resolution
is appropriate and this matter is really one for another venue .
Ms . Kathy Wolf , of Trowbridge & Trowbridge spoke from the floor
and stated that they had walked the swale with Mr . Cook and Ms .
Ostman . Ms . Wolf stated that the swale is very well defined ; it does
become very flat and unclear in the location under discussion and , in
fact , it does begin to flow directly to the north in that location .
Continuing , Ms „ Wolf stated that they then did a more detailed study
which was carefully reviewed with Mr . Cook , adding that this report
suggested that some water from that area does move directly north once
it gets past the 1270 contour , but , that there is a way to engineer it
to be sure than. no runoff from the lawns or the roads would enter that
watershed . Ms . Wolf stated that they can engineer a program so that
the same amount of water enters the adjacent property , but that all
the " contaminated " water is diverted to the pond . Ms . Wolf stated
that they maintain that technically there is a way to do that . Mr .
Cook commented that what Ms . Wolf was suggesting was that there is an
engineering way to substitute for the natural buffer , and stated that
they find that very hard to believe without substantial evidence . Ms .
Wolf pointed out that it is not a " natural " buffer , it has been
entirely graded in the past , adding that it is not like we are talking
• about a piece of property that has never been touched ; it is not
virgin territory ; it has been regraded ; the hydrology has been
somewhat altered in the past , and it is now in engineered condition
Planning Board - 27 - June 2 , 1987
• and , given the foundations there which increase runoff to adjacent
property , they, can engineer it again in the appropriate manner .
Ms . Beeners stated that any buffer that would be created will not
be a " natural " buffer considering the fact of what you have now - -
with the majority of the " gray zone " where is has been disturbed
[ indicating ] . Ms . Ostman stated that the majority of the " gray zone "
has not been disturbed - - only the portion in the front , where you see
the foundations , has been totally disturbed . Ms . Ostman stated that
the back part has not been totally regraded , and [ indicating on the
map ] where the swale is shown , it looks like someone went in there
with a bulldozer and took a swipe at it . Ms . Ostman conjectured that
it looks like they got to the property line , where the 1270 contour
is , and then quit , adding that she did not believe that that regrading
significantly altered the runoff of the property . Ms . Ostman stated
that it is not a total disturbing . Ms . Ostman stated that her
evaluation of what has happened , in terms of the plant life on the
property , indicates that it was not a significant change in terms of
the runoff . Ms . Wolf stated that she thought the regrading that has
been done probably occured to where the cul de sac is located . Mr .
Trowbridge described a large pile of fill that has been stockpiled ,
probably for Beacon Hills in 1975 . Ms . Grigorov asked about the
location of the new land that has been given to Cornell University .
Mr . Trowbridge described 40 acres wrapped around the Cornell right of
way and described how ButterField is abutting on that new gift and not
• the historical piece of real estate .
Chairman May asked if there were any other comments from the
public . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at
10 : 15 p . m . and asked the Board what its pleasure was , noting that the
first thing is SEQR .
Mr . Klein stated that there was an awful lot of information given
to the Board tonight . Mrs . Langhans expressed her concern that there
appeared to be difficulties in the two parties resolving their
differences and stated that she did not know if the Board would want
to approve the whole site plan where one end of it is in question .
Mrs . Langhans suggested that the Board might want to adjourn since it
is being asked to approve the whole site plan . Mr . Auble requested
permission to speak and stated that there would be a real hardship in
delaying because of the construction season . Mrs . Langhans commented
to Mr . Auble that he was approved in January and he has changed it .
Mr . Auble , commenting that other developers have had phases approved ,
such as Deer Run , stated that they have applied for a first phase in
their application .
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Auble if it were possible to
approve it up to " that exitway " [ indicating ] on the left hand side .
Mr . Auble responded that they would really be looking at an economic
hardship situation if they do not get into motion . Mr . Cook stated
that that would be okay , adding that that was in the language so that
• they felt that , lacking an agreement , it remains as it is . Town
Attorney Barney stated that that was why he was asking the question ,
adding , there is agreement or Mr . Auble may be minus those units
Planning Board'. - 28 - June 2 , 1987
• " here " , in other words , the Board approves a plan where " this area " ,
which may end up on the plan , is not clearly defined . Mrs . Grigorov
offered that -the Board is not necessarily saying that they have to
come to an agreement but that it can be talked about later . Town
Attorney Barney stated that he tended to agree with Mrs . Langhans who
had a good point with respect to the Board approving a plan where this
end is not clearly defined . Mr . Auble stated that other agreements
that he has seen in reference to that property have been approved in
that vein , that is , if the parties cannot agree then the matter comes
back to the Board . Town Attorney Barney suggested that what is
approved tonight would have to stop " here " and not go beyond " that "
and be subject: to coming back , and , maybe approved , and , maybe not .
Mr . Trowbridge agreed , adding that they are looking for a gentleman ' s
agreement to look at that area between the two roads as a separate
matter . Town Attorney Barney responded , yes , but you are asking , in
the interim , for approval of a plan now which is somewhat less
discreet and if you never get approval , you could wind up short . Town
Attorney Barney stated that he wanted that understood that that is
what we are going in under . Mr . Auble stated that he was willing to
live with the Board ' s good judgment on that portion of the property .
Chairman May stated that he thought there were a lot of really nice
things about it and it would be a shame to lose it . Mr . Cook spoke of
the effort by the Town in the Hallberg agreement . Commenting that he
would like to ask a procedural question , Mr . Cook asked if the
Planning Board would have any authority to even approve any part of
• the subdivision that would go into that buffer zone . Town Attorney
Barney repeated Mr . Cook ' s question , asking if he had it correct in
that Mr . Cook was asking if this Board would have authority to approve
it , and responded , yes . Mr . Cook stated that his question was based
on the local law without amendment . Town Attorney Barney stated that
he would have to go back and look at it , however , he thought that
authority has been delegated to them by the Town Board . Town Attorney
Barney noted that as far as he knew , they could prevent it also ,
adding , however , that he would have to look specifically at it to see
if there were references to the buffer zone because he did not know
precisely the wording .
Board discussion followed . Chairman May reminded the Board about
the proposed subdivision also under discussion .
Town Attorney Barney wondered about the reasoning for subdividing
off the 2 . 71 acres , with Mr . Auble responding that he has attempted to
purchase the entire property but Mr . Manos is insisting on retaining
that portion of: the land and they agreed to the sale , and adding that
that was a stipulation that he [ Manos ] had . Chairman May commented
that , originally , that was going to be his [ Manos ' ] personal house .
Mr . Auble agreed , and stated that it had been designated as a single
family house . Town Attorney Barney wondered if it were fair to say
that Mr . Manos is demanding these 2 . 71 acres . Ms . Beeners stated that
the lot was originally somewhat defined by buffer plantings , adding
that the size of the lot was in the original Manos plan and ,
• basically , was set off as a single family home site . Mr . Auble stated
that if you look at Mr . Manos ' 2 . 71 acres and the buffer plantings ,
you would end up very close to the presently proposed project , adding
Planning Board - 29 - June 2 , 1987
• that the subdivision was not in the January 1987 plan , but the
proposed house was .
There appearing to be no further questions or comments from the
Board , Chairman May asked if anyone wished to make a motion with
respect to the proposed subdivision of 2 . 71 acres .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson ., seconded by Mrs . Virginia
Langhans :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 , located on East King Road , into two parcels of
27 . 85 ± acres and 2 . 71 ± acres .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review . The proposed revised site plan for a portion of this
property .is undergoing separate , Type I review .
3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance for this action , with the condition
that the proposed 2 . 71 ± acre lot be restricted to a single - family
dwelling .
• THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the
environmental review of this Unlisted action , make and hereby does
make a negative determination of environmental significance for the
proposed subdivision as presented , conditional upon the restriction of
development on the proposed 2 . 71 ± acre lot to a single - family
dwelling , such restriction to be evidenced by the filing of a
declaration to that effect by the landowner in a form satisfactory to
the Town Attorney .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grignorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was. declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
• 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 , located on East King Road , into two parcels of
27 . 85 ± acres and 2 . 71 ± acres .
Planning Board'. - 30 - June 2 , 1987
• 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency for environmental review , has made a negative
determination of environmental significance , with conditions .
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on June 2 , 1987 , has
reviewed " Survey Map of Lands of Bill J . Manos , Showing 27 . 85 ±
acre parcel to be Conveyed , King Road East , Town of Ithaca - Lot
86 , Tompkins County , New York " , dated April 20 , 1987 , by Clarence
Brashear .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
i . 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 Fina ]_ Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as herein
proposed , with the following conditions :
a . The provision of a final subdivision map prepared by a
licensed surveyor or engineer , suitable for filing by the
Tompkins County Clerk , for approval by the Town Engineer .
b . The restriction of development on the proposed 2 . 71 ± acre
lot to a single - family dwelling , such restriction to be
evidenced by the filing of a declaration to that effect by
the landowner in a form satisfactory to the Town Attorney .
There being no further discussion , the ' Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Griclorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of the Auble / Manos Subdivision
duly closed .
Chairman May asked if anyone wished to make a motion with respect
to the revised site plan for " ButterField " . Considerable discussion
of the draft resolution followed among the Board members , Mr . Cook ,
Ms . Ostman , Ms . Egan , Town Attorney Barney , Mr . Auble , and Mr .
Trowbridge .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of approval of a revised site
plan for " ButterField " ( former Majestic . Heights ) granted Site
Plan Approval by the Planning Board on January 20 , 1987 , proposed
• Planning Board - 31 - June 2 , 1987
• to be located in a Multiple Residence District on East King Road ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 31 .
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Planning Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review . The Tompkins County Health Department and the Tompkins
County Highway Department are potentially - involved agencies which
are being notified of this determination .
3 . The Town Planner has recommended that a negative determination of
environmental significance be made for the revised site plan as
presented , subject to certain conditions .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board act and hereby does act as Lead Agency
for environmental review of this Type I action .
2 . That the :Planning Board , finding that certain mitigation measures
have been included as part of the proposal , make and hereby does
make a negative determination of environmental significance for
the revised site plan as presented , conditional upon the
following .
a . The developer shall comply with all conditions and
• requirements set forth in Local Law No . 3 - 1983 , and Local
Law No . 3 - 1987 , and associated Resolution , as the same may
be amended from time to time .
b . No new construction shall be permitted in the area west of
the westerly line of the westerly access road as approved by
the Planning Board on June 2 , 1987 unless there is execution
of an agreement between Cornell University and the developer
in regard to the use and management of the buffer zone as
delineated on a map accompanying an agreement made on
December 21 , 1982 , between Bill J . Manos and Cornell
University , and a site plan is approved by the Planning
Board for the road , service building , and units to the west
of the westerly line of the westerly access road . If no
agreement can be reached between the developer and Cornell
University , the matter may be referred back to the Planning
Board. for further consideration and review .
c . 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 proposed public sanitary sewer main , as
shown on the revised plan as presented on June 2 , 1987 , 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 .
w
Planning Board - 32 - June 2 , 1987
• d . The final site plan showing the approved portion of the site
plan , in suitable form for filing and approved by the Town
Planner , shall be submitted for signature to the Chairman of
the Planning Board before any building permits are issued .
e . 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 , and shall
obtain approval of the final site drainage plan from the
Tompkins County Highway Department .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded ' by Mr . Robert Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of approval of a revised site
plan for " ButterField " ( former Majestic Heights ) granted Site
• Plan Approval by the Planning Board on January 20 , 1987 , proposed
to be located in a Multiple Residence District on East King Road ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 44 =ml4 . 31 .
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Planning Board , acting as
Lead Agency for environmental review , has made a negative
determination of environmental significance , subject to certain
mitigating conditions .
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on June 2 , 1987 , has
reviewed the following :
Plan entitled " ButterField - Utilities , Conceptual Drainage
Plan , and Existing Conditions , " dated May 28 , 1987 , by
Trowbridge - Trowbridge , Landscape Architects .
Report entitled " ButterField - A Residential Community " ,
dated May 28 , 1987 , along with other information
submitted as part of the record .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant site plan
approval to the revised plan as modified at the June 2 , 1987 meeting
to exclude the road , service building , and units west of the westerly
line of the westerly access road , conditional upon the following :
• a . The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements
set forth in Local Law No . 3 - 1983 , and Local Law No . 3 - 1987 , and
Planning Board - 33 - June 2 , 1987
• associated Resolution , as the same may be amended from time to
time .
b . No new construction shall be permitted in the area west of the
westerly line of the westerly access road as approved by the
Planning Board on June 2 , 1987 unless there is execution of an
agreement between Cornell University and the developer in regard
to the u .se and management of the buffer zone as delineated on a
map accompanying an agreement made on December 21 , 1982 , between
Bill J . Manos and Cornell University , and a site plan is approved-
by
pprovedby the Planning Board for the road , service building , and units
to the west of the westerly line of the westerly access road . If
no agreement can be reached between the developer and Cornell
University , the matter may be referred back to the Planning Board
for further consideration and review .
c . 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
proposed public sanitary sewer main , as shown on the revised plan
as presented on June 2 , 1987 , 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 .
• d . The final site plan showing the approved portion of the site
plan , in suitable form for filing and approved by the Town
Planner , shall be submitted for signature to the Chairman of the
Planning Board before any building permits are issued .
e . 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 , and shall obtain
approval of the final site drainage plan from the Tompkins County
Highway Department .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of the revised site plan for
" Butterfield " duly closed .
Chairman May declared the " ButterField " matters duly closed at
10 : 40 p . m .
Messrs . Auble and Trowbridge thanked the Board for their time and
is consideration .
Planning Board - 34 - June 2 , 1987
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the June 2 , 1987 meeting of
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 45 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .