HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1987-10-06 FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date a 88
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Cier
OCTOBER 6 , 1987
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , October 6 , 1987 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , James Baker , Robert Kenerson , David
Klein , William Lesser , Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia Langhans ,
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 : Timothy Ciaschi , Robin Percey , Keijo K . Autio , Doria
Higgins , Victor A . Lazar , Elaine V . Lazar , Neil R .
Alling , Kristin T . Alling , Richard Patterson , Jerry
Stevenson , Herbert Brewer , David C . Auble , Sandra
Rogers , Andrew Sciarabba , Agnes Turk , Muriel Trapp ,
Paul Glover , Stuart Lewis , Jonathan C . Meigs , Peter D ,
Novelli , Edwin A . Hallberg , Richard L . Atkins , Henry
Theisen , Esq . , Daniel McClure , Scot A . Raynor , Joan
Egner , Norbert Schickel , Paul Savience , Col . Richard H .
Comstock , Barbara Helmer .
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . ni . and
0 accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on September 28 , 1987 and October 10, 1987 ,
respectively , together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail
of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the properties under
discussion , as appropriate upon the Clerk of the Town of Enfield , upon
both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca ,
upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , upon the Tompkins
County Commissioner of Public Works , and upon the applicants and / or
Agent , on September 30 , 1987 .
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING : ( FROM SEPTEMBER 15 , 1987 ) : CONSIDERATION OF
FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 1 . 02 ACRE PARCEL
( A . K . A . TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 113 ) FROM TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 112 ( 24 . 07 ACRES ORIGINALLY ) , AND
FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED
21 - UNIT , SINGLE - FAMILY , DETACHED , CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION , PROPOSED TO
BE LOCATED ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO ,
6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 112 , OFF WOOLF LANE . TIMOTHY CIASCHI , OWNER OF PARCEL N0 .
- 11 . 112 ; KEIJO K . AUTIO , OWNER OF PARCEL NO . - 11 . 113 ; SCOT RAYNOR ,
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT , AGENT ,
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 35 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr .
Ciaschi was present , along with his builder Daniel McClure and Scot
Raynor , Landscape Architect .
Planning Board - 2 - October 6 , 1987
Mr . McClure appeared before the Board and appended maps to the
bulletin board .
Mr . McClure presented the final plan which consists of seven
clusters , three lots each . Mr . McClure noted that Mr . Autio has been
provided with a right - of -way and a timetable for providing access to
the Autio parcel , adding that Mr . Ciaschi has been granted permission
to build a retention pond on his land directly above the proposed
Westwood Hills Subdivision , which would meet the requirements for
storm drainage , and Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , has been
presented with a full set of drainage calculations and design for the
pond . Mr . McClure offered that there is a revised map showing all the
building setbacks and boundary setbacks . Mr . McClure also pointed out
that the Town Board approved the restrictive covenants for Westwood
Hills as presented two weeks ago , and amended at last night ' s Town
Board meeting .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to speak to this matter .
Victor Lazar of 108 Woolf Lane spoke from the floor and stated
that he had some reservations about the drainage capacity of the
retention pond . Mr . McClure responded that the retention pond abuts
the NYSEG right - of -way . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that he reviewed the
retention pond design , and felt it is a good design , adding that it
limits the amount of flow reaching the culvert under DuBois Road to a
quantity , after development , , that would not exceed that which is
occuring at the present time . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that based on a
25 -year storm this is a pretty conservative design . The run -off from
above this pond would flow into it and flow out by a smaller diameter
pipe , and store enough volume in the pond to keep the rate of run - off
from exceeding what it presently is .
Chairman May asked if anyone else present wished to speak . No
one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 41 p . m . and
asked for questions or comments from the Board .
David Klein asked about the requirements for metes and bounds .
Chairman May noted that a metes and bounds syrvey is required on each
lot before it. is filed , and Town Attorney Barney concurred that
Chairman May was correct .
Victor Lazar spoke from the floor and stated that it was his
understanding that subject subdivision is a little unique in that a
bond is being posted for the improvements to be completed , commenting
that , normally , the final plot would be made after the water , sewer
and roadway were complete . Mr . McClure stated that the developer is
aware that nothing can be done with the lots until the final
subdivision map , as approved , has been filed with the County Clerk ,
David Klein , referring to the draft resolution dated 10 / 6 / 87 ,
stated that window dressing is very much a requirement to cluster
approval . Mr . Klein noted that the Board is very much concerned in
Planning Board - 3 - October 6 , 1987
the development of the cluster that the landscape plan shown earlier
is , in fact , a typical landscape situation on every clustered lot .
Again , Mr . Klein noted that the typical setbacks shown before were 30
feet back , anis commented that the developer does not have approval for
clustering the rest of the site , and the only 30 - foot buffer shown is
on lot No . 2 . Mr . Klein remarked that the Board has not approved the
next cluster . Mr . Klein stated that he was not totally comfortable
about allowing the developer to go to the lesser setbacks on adjacent
land that is not part of the cluster .
Dr . Lesser inquired about a typical cluster layout as shown on
the appended map . Dr . Lesser noted that the measurements are
different , commenting that lots 13 , 14 , and 15 are 1681 ' x 1851 , and
lots 16 , 17 , and 18 are 1681 ' x 175 ' . Mr . McClure responded that
there are two segments to that line , and the overall line is the same
as the original plan . The slight change was made to keep the square
footage between the lots in that cluster the same . Mr . Lesser
wondered about the base line . Mr . McClure replied that the line was
moved about 5 •- feet east to balance the square footage between the two
adjacent clusters , noting that part of the difficulty was with the
curved road layout , and outer boundary lines which are not
rectangular .
Mr . Klein wondered about an encroachment of a deck in the typical
cluster layout . Mr . McClure responded that the structures were at
grade level , and the decks would be constructed of pressure- treated
wood , which would be the equivalent of a flagstone patio .
Chairman May asked about a permanent attachment to a structure .
Ms . Beeners noted that her thought were that a grade level patio would
not be a problem in this area . Andrew Frost , Building Inspector ,
stated that if it was at grade level there would be no problem . Mr .
McClure stated that the deck that is shown as typical is by no means
the only possible alternative .
Mr . Klein mentioned that Lots No . 1 and 2 are showing a 30 - foot
buffer , and Lots No . 5 , 8 , 141r 17 and 20 are probably more like 15
feet , anticipating that the rest of that lot is going to be the same
cluster . Mr . Klein commented that the adjacent lands , at this point ,
are not clustered and are zoned R - 15 . Mr . Barney noted that there is
a 30 - foot rear yard depth requirment in an R - 15 zone . Mr . Barney
noted that the 30 feet should be shown on the map .
Mr . Lesser asked about the deed restrictions . Mr . Barney noted
that some modifications were made and passed by the Town Board ,
commenting that the restrictions applied for 20 years .
There appearing to be no further comments or questions , Chairman
May asked if anyone cared to make a motion .
MOTION by Mr . :David Klein , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
• WHEREAS :
Planning Board - 4 - October 6 , 1987
• 1 . This action is the Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval
for the subdivision of a 1 . 02 acre parcel ( a . k . a . Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 113 ) from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 23 - 1 - 1 ]. . 112 ( 24 . 07 acres originally ) , AND FURTHER ,
Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for a proposed
21 - unit , single - family , detached , clustered subdivision , proposed
to be located on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 112 located off Woolf Lane .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency for environmental review , made a negative
determination of environmental significance , with certain
conditions , on July 21 , 1987 .
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on October 6 , 1987 , has
reviewed the following material :
" Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision - Final Plat - Phase
One " , by T . G . Miller Associates P . C . , dated September
11 , 1987 , revised through September 24 , 1987 .
" We :; twood Hills Residential Subdivision - Sheet 1 : General
Plan of Proposed Road , Sewer , Water & Drainage ; - Sheet
2 : Proposed Road , Sewer and Water Construction ; - Sheet
3 : Construction Details " , by T . G . Miller Associates
P . C . , dated August 31 , 1987 , revised through September
24 , 1987 .
• THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for 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 Final
Subdivision Approvals to the subdivisions as herein proposed ,
with the following conditions imposed as conditions of further
project implementation :
a . That a final subdivision plat suitable for filing at the
Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office and including bearings and
dimensions of each of 21 lots be submitted for approval by
the Town Engineer and Town Attorney ,
b . That such plat be revised to show a 30 - foot buffer zone
along the entire perimeter except the portion adjacent to
the public open space ,
c . That an agreement be executed between the Town of Ithaca and
the developer pertaining to the design and development of
• site improvements including water and sewer mains and
streets , substantially as described in a draft agreement
currently under review by the Town ,
Planning Board - 5 - October 6 , 1987
• d . That the final landscape working drawings include adequate
vegetation conservation and revegetation to buffer the
project site from adjacent properties , and that such plan
and installation be subject to the approval of the Town
Planner , and that landscaping be installed around each
cluster , substantially as delineated " Typical Planting Plan "
as ;shown on the plan entitled , " Westwood Hills Residential
Subdivision - Final Plat - Phase One " , by T . G . Miller
Associates P . C . , dated September 11 , 1987 ,
e . That: the 1 . 7 acre public parkland depicted on the
Subdivision Plan is being donated by the Owner to the Town
of Ithaca . Subsequent development , at the pleasure of the
Planning Board , shall be required to provide up to ten per
cent. ( 100 ) of any future developed area as open space or
parkland ,
f . That: a deed and title abstract for such area be presented to
and approved by the Town Board and Town Attorney before a
building permit on any lot be issued ,
g . That. the restrictive covenants be extended to thirty years .
h . That, the installation of all storm drainage improvements be
subject to the approval of the Town Engineer .
• There being no further discussion , Chairman May called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Ken erson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
Chairman May declared the MOTION carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of the Consideration of Final
Subdivision Approval for the Westwood Hills . subdivision duly closed at
8 : 24 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND CONSIDERATION
OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR
THE REZONING OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 18 - 2 - 10 , LOCATED AT
904 - 906 EAST SHORE DRIVE , FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 TO SPECIAL LAND
USE DISTRICT ( LIMITED MIXED USE ) FOR THE TOMPKINS COUNTY CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE , VISITORS AND CONVENTION BUREAU , AND TOURIST INFORMATION
CENTER , STANLEY J . AND MARY ANN BOWMAN , PROPERTY OWNERS ; TOMPKINS
COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE , APPLICANT ; ANDREW SCIARABBA , AGENT FOR THE
APPLICANT .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 26 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
• Mr . Andrew Sciarabba , representing the Tompkins County Chamber of
Commerce , appeared before the Board and stated that the Chamber of
Planning Board - 6 - October 6 , 1987
• Commerce is proposing that a Special Land Use District , Limited Mixed
Use , be approved for the location of the Chamber on the now Bowman
property which is the first parcel in the Town of Ithaca . Mr .
Sciarabba noted that preliminary approvals have already been received
from the City of Ithaca for access from James L . Gibbs Drive for
driveway access to the property and for additional parking . Mr .
Sciarabba referred to a letter from the Chamber of Commerce to the
Town of Ithaca Town Board , dated September 14 , 1987 , which states that
the Chamber feels very strongly that the subject site , even though it
is in an R- 15 zone , would not be hampered at all in the neighborhood ,
nor would the neighborhood be hampered by the addition to the R- 15
category of a modification for the Chamber of Commerce and Convention
Bureau . Mr . Sciarabba stated that the major buffers around this
property are the highway to the south , the Youth Bureau site itself ,
Stewart Park , and the Lake on the west side . Mr . Sciarabba noted that
the amount of residential property going north , which is the only
residential portion in the immediate area , is relatively small before
it gets into industrial and a commercial zone . Mr . Sciarabba stated
that the Chamber of Commerce feels that they would be a good neighbor
within the area community and could also become a catalyst for the
improvement of` that area .
[ Secretary ' s :[dote : The Chamber letter of 9 / 14 / 87 hereinabove and
hereinafter referred to follows . ]
if
Ladies & Gentlemen :
In the spring of 1986 a task force was formed to determine an
alternative to the Chamber ' s present location on West Court Street in
downtown Ithaca . The necessity of relocation was prompted by an ever
increasing emphasis on the development of tourism with the resulting
increase of visits by individuals and groups needing information and
the lack of adequate parking and traffic flow . In addition , the
establishment of the Visitors and Convention Bureau funded by the
motel / hotel tax created greater need for suitable office and marketing
space .
The task force began by identifying the corridor of Route 13 from
Green Street to Stewart Park as being most desirable since most
arterial roadways intersected in the area . Many properties were
investigated as possible sites but most disregarded since the
acquisition price for commercial property in this area is above the
normal for the community , the amount of space was not adequate and
only leasing of space was available . Another factor was the one -way
proposals of the various Route 96 plans which would have a detrimental
effect on the location .
An approach was arrived at by the committee which allows the
location most desired , i . e . , we approached the owner of the first
property in the Town of Ithaca adjacent to Stewart Park , and they
• expressed a willingness to sell their property . Because this property
in itself is not large enough to encompass the Chamber building and
parking needed , we approached the City for a license of enough land
Planning Board - 7 - October 6 , 1987
• next to the Youth Bureau to build a driveway from J . Gibbs Memorial
Drive to the Bowman property . This driveway would also contain some
parking which would be available to the users of the Youth Bureau .
After much discussion and public meetings , the Common Council of the
City of Ithaca approved this arrangement . We now need the approvals
of the Town of: Ithaca .
We , therefore are proposing that a Special Land Use District be
formed pursuant to a general plan which would permit the development
of Tax Parcel 18 - 2 - 10 , 904 East Shore Drive , for Tompkins County
Chamber of Commerce , Visitors & Convention Bureau , Tourist Information
Center , or for other similar non - profit office and tourism purposes .
The site plans reflect the proposed use and based upon a review
of the Town of Ithaca zoning ordinance we feel that the Chamber
facility should be interpreted as a public use building , as is
permitted in R15 districts .
We offer the following reasons why the special use district
should be approved .
- The area itself is a small patch of area currently zoned R - 15
that is bordered on the north by a business and industrial zone .
Route 13 provides a buffer on the south and the existing R- 15 zone
running north up East Shore Drive is only about 1 / 10 mile long before
changing to business and then industrial .
- This area also contains the City of Ithaca Youth Bureau , Village
of Cayuga Heights Sewage Treatment Facility , marinas , boat rentals and
board - sailing enterprises , hence it appears that the character of the
immediate areas is not residential .
- The area is currently in a state of disrepair with only a few of
the residence; being maintained properly . The Chamber ' s location to
the area could act as a catalyst to improved development .
- The Stewart Park land immediately to the south and the railroad
and shoreline to the west provide a major buffer area .
The development of the Bowman parcel tax map # 18 - 2 - 10 , is as per
the site plan presented herewith .
( sgd . ) Andrew J . Sciarabba , Chairman
Relocation Committee
Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce "
Chairman May thanked Mr . Sciarabba for his presentation and ,
noting that this was a Public Hearing , asked if there were anyone
present who wished to speak to this matter .
Ms . Doria Higgins , 2 Hillcrest Drive , spoke from the floor and
stated that she had received just today information from the City of
. Ithaca that the City did not make an environmental impact statement
before Common Council approved the resolution with respect to the
Planning Board - 8 - October 6 , 1987
license for the Chamber ' s proposal . Ms . Higgins stated that the City
• Department of Public Works stated that as long as an environmental
impact statement was not prepared before , it is sort of too late to do
it now without going through the process again . Ms . Higgins now
referred to the Long Environmental Assessment Form , dated October 2 ,
1987 , submitted by the Chamber of Commerce to the Town , and noted Item
20 , on Page it , which reads : " Will project produce operating noise
exceeding the local ambient noise levels ? " , and which is marked " Yes " .
Ms . Higgins stated that she felt it will increase noise . Ms . Higgins
also referred to Item 21 , on Page 4 , which reads : " Will project
result in an increase in energy use . and which is marked " Yes " . Ms .
Higgins pointE� d out that the applicant indicated the type of increase
as " Residential Construction " , and stated that she had thought it was
going to be an office building . Continuing , Ms . Higgins referred to
Item 13 , on Page 9 , [ Part II of the LEAF , the Town Planner ' s review ] ,
which reads : " Impact on Open Space and Recreation " - - " Will Proposed
Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open
spaces or recreational opportunities ? " , and for which the Town Planner
had indicated " Yes " , followed by " increased public touristic access - -
See Part II -A " , which reads : " No adverse impact is expected to the
quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational
opportunities . As described above , the proposed District and Chamber
facility would. be located peripheral to the main use areas of Stewart
Park . The availability of the proposed Chamber site to the public for
touristic and informational purposes will enhance and augment the
recreational opportunities currently available . " Ms . Higgins stated
that she felt the answer was " yes " as the impact will be much larger
than that , and that the green buffer to the north is enormously
important aesthetically . Continuing , Ms . Higgins referred to Item 18 ,
on Page 11 , [ :Part II of the LEAF , the Town Planner ' s review] , which
reads : " Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood "
- - " Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing
community ? " , and for which the Town Planner had indicated " Yes " ,
followed by " See Part II -A " , which reads : " The community and
neighborhood character in the vicinity of the site is defined by the
Lakeside orientation and slopes adjoining East Shore Drive to the
east . Other features and facilities include the Youth Bureau on
peripheral City park lands across the railroad right of way from the
edge of Stewart Park , shoreline , and State roads , with the parcels
immediately adjacent to the site on the north once used for commercial
and residential purposes and now in need of substantial upgrading .
In the greater vicinity of the site to the north is an area of
mixed owner - and non - owner- occupied residences mainly along the
shoreline , undeveloped land ( on the east side of East Shore Drive ) ,
the Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant , a general construction
contracting firm , and a marina . To the south of the proposed site are
the Route 13 interchanges , and the playfields and buildings of the
Boynton Middle School , and the Ithaca High School .
The proposed District is not expected to cause any significant
adverse impact to the character of this area or to the density of land
use , because of the proposed site plan and because of the benefits of
locating a quasi - public function in this area . The proposed facility
would not be significantly different from the public use buildings
already present in the area , would enhance public access to lands
Planning Board - 9 - October 6 , 1987
adjoining Cayuga Lake , and may benefit the area and stimulate its
• further upgrading .
No significant adverse impact is expected to community plans or
goals as officially adopted . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance
provides for the creation of Special Land Use Districts for limited
mixed use within such districts . The Special Land Use District as
proposed would operate under a unified plan of quasi -public uses that
would complement adjacent land uses , as described above . Because of
unique site circumstances , such as the potential use of adjacent City
lands for access and parking , and essentially vacant land in the
railroad right of way and along the shoreline , and because of the
scale of the facility , and the landscaping and fencing proposed , the
site is considered to be reasonably adapted to the proposed use . " Ms .
Higgins stated that this seems to indicate that there will not be much
impact on growth and character in the community , however , in another
part of the LEAF it is argued that it will stimulate development of
similar touristic and recreational uses , so there is a sense of it
bringing in a change in the neighborhood . Referring now to the Zoning
Ordinance , Page 64 , - - Local Law No . 3 - 1984 , with respect to La
Tourelle - - Ms . Higgins noted that one of the reasons it was passed
was because there was a need for that proposed use in its proposed
location . Ms . Higgins offered that there is certainly not a need for
a Chamber of Commerce in its proposed location , adding that the
character of the area will be adversely affected . Ms . Higgins pointed
out that , although this is City park land and not Town park land , it
is a community park . At this point , Ms . Higgins referred to the
• September 14th , 1987 , letter from the Chamber of Commerce to the Town
Board , and noted that the Chamber had stated that one of the reasons
they [ Chamber ] needed this land was because the only other appropriate
sites available could only be leased . Ms . Higgins stated that , in
fact , licensing is for a much shorter period of time than leasing . In
closing , Ms . ]Higgins urged the Board to please recognize that green
space and open space are increasingly precious .
Chairman May thanked Ms . Higgins and stated that he would point
out that the land under discussion is not park land , but private land ,
adding that , to the best of his knowledge , the Youth Bureau still does
not sit on City park land . Ms . Beeners responded that it was her
understanding that the Youth Bureau sits on City land as a result of
the annexation . Mr . Jonathan Meigs , Planner , City of Ithaca ,
commented that: most people consider any property owned by the City
adjoining Stewart Park as part of Stewart Park ,
Mr . Paul Savience , a resident of the City of Ithaca , spoke from
the floor and stated that he was opposed to the Chamber of Commerce
locating on this land . Mr . Savience stated that there was too much
building on too small a parcel of land , adding that he did not feel
the character of the neighborhood needed that .
Henry Theisen , Esq . , 202 Winthrop Drive , spoke from the floor and
stressed the need for the Chamber of Commerce to have a place to build
a new building , adding that this was the only known location available
• to them .
Planning Board - 10 - October 6 , 1987
• Ms . Higgins stated that the proposed building is not just a
Chamber of Commerce office building , but a Chamber of Commerce Tourist
and Convention Bureau ,
Mr . Meigs offered several comments concerning procedure and
timing of the various actions dealing with the proposal . Mr . Meigs
stated that the City appreciated , as a City body , the Town of Ithaca ' s
interest and dedication in providing the City the opportunity to
review the proposals and comment thereon . Continuing , Mr . Meigs
stated that the timing of the Town ' s schedule for review and
availability of information to the City in regard to the various City
agencies schedules makes it virtually impossible for any of those
bodies to make a meaningful attempt to determine what the proper
response for the City would be . Mr . Meigs noted that , in the " case of
the City Planning and Development Committee , previous to their meeting
in September 2987 , they received the word about the proposed multiple
parcel district , which includes the Chamber of Commerce parcel , and
there was not time to study it , and that Board found itself somewhat
unable to make an immediate determination and has directed him [ Mr .
Meigs ] to request that , to the extent possible , the Town Board defer
actions on this matter and , by association , on the currently proposed
matter . Mr . Meigs stated that this would allow the various City
agencies - - Planning Board , Board of Public Works , and , perhaps , the
Conservation Advisory Committee - - to make a study and report to the
Common Council for its response to the request from the Town regarding
specifically the designation of the Town Board as Lead Agency . Mr .
• Meigs stated that , also , because of this timing , it seems as if the
questions regarding siting and / or the preferred site , are on the table
presently and may be largely decided by the time the City is able to
make a response concerning the Lead Agency status . Mr . Meigs stated
that , in his opinion , the City would have a better opportunity to have
a voice in the whole process if the Town were to defer these actions .
Chairman May pointed out that there is a mandated schedule under
SEQR . At this point , Town Attorney Barney stated that no final
actions will be taken on this issue until at least November 16 , 1987 ,
adding that he assumed that that would give the City an opportunity to
both consider the Lead Agency designation and the merits of the actual
specific proposal , and , hopefully , get a response to the Town Board ,
Town Attorney Barney stated that there will be a public hearing , but
he did not know whether there would be a vote on the 16th of November ,
or whether they might wait , as it depends on what the comments were .
Town Attorney Barney wondered if November 16th would be an acceptable
date for the City in order to have whatever bodies necessary review
the matter and report back , and to have a response from an official of
the City for the 16th . Town Attorney Barney offered that , in this
particular situation , the Planning Board is really a representing
agency only - - it is not the deciding seat on the rezoning - - it is
the deciding agency on the site plan .
Mr . Meigs stated that he would ask , as a point of information , if
• the Public Hearing will address both of the rezoning proposals , with
Town Attorney Barney responding , no , and adding that it is just the
rezoning of the one parcel . Mr . Meigs wondered if that would indicate
Planning Board - 11 - October 6 , 1987
• that the proposal for the larger district has been tabled , with Town
Attorney Barney responding , yes . Mr . Meigs stated that the inference
here is that this is the preferred alternative - - single parcel
rezoning - - noting that it may well be that there is adequate time and
stating that ]ze will make every effort to pass this information on to
the respective agencies informing them , also , of the discussion at
tonight ' s meeting .
At this ]?oint , Mr . Meigs referred to the Draft Resolution before
the Board , and noted that on page 2 , paragraph 3 , sub - paragraph ( c . )
it is stated that " The proposed change is in accordance with a
comprehensive plan of development of the Town . " Mr . Meigs , commenting
that this was a proposed " Finding " of the Planning Board , stated that ,
as a long - term resident of the Ithaca area and one who was quite
familiar with planning and development activities in the City and
largely in the Town , particularly around the Stewart Park area ,
including the Youth Bureau redevelopment and the annexations and
exhanges of land between the City and the Town in that vicinity , he
found himself unaware basically of what is called here " a
comprehensive plan of development of the Town . " Continuing , Mr . Meigs
stated that he was aware of much of what went into the actions that
have given us this state that exists today , including proposals for
extension of the water district and the rationale for exchange of
plans between the City and the Town by annexation . Mr . Meigs stated
that , in his opinion , it does not seem that there is a comprehensive
plan for the development of the Town to the extent that it includes a
• change in land, use of this nature . Mr . Meigs noted that it has always
been his understanding that the areas involved were recreational and
residential , and that they would remain that way , more or less . Mr .
Meigs stated that another point having to do with the draft resolution
which he would briefly address is , again , on page 2 , paragraph 3 ,
sub - paragraph ( b . ) where it states that " The existing and probable
future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected . "
Mr . Meigs stated that he is familiar with the subject area and with
this property in particular and its present state as a residential
property . Mr . Meigs pointed out that the property has a number of
residential - type structures on it , and with the character of activity
being of a residential type , with traffic at a residential level , and
the traffic is conceivably at different hours of the day related to
residential use . Mr . Meigs stated that the type of site planning , the
layout of the property with large parking areas , number of cars at any
one time , and the location at the rear of the lot , will quite
definitely change the character of the area , adding that he ,
personally , did not think it would be a change for the better .
Dr . Lesser noted that it was his understanding that Common
Council , or some other group from the City , did agree , on an annual
basis , to let a certain amount of land for access , if indeed this
arrangement is accepted . Dr . Lesser wondered how that agreement is to
be interpreted , adding that , on the surface , it would appear that some
body within the City feels that this is a desirable arrangement and is
• willing to appear to collaborate with the Town in making it possible
for the Chamber to locate there .
Planning Board - 12 - October 6 , 1987
• Mr . Meigs responded that he , personally , was not involved in that
determination which , he thought , was made by Common Council . Mr .
Meigs stated that he could only say , there having been the visitor
information center near the Youth Bureau previously , that the Common
Council , although they were presented with a site plan similar to the
one before the Planning Board tonight , may not fully have comprehended
what the differences in use and appearance might be . Mr . Meigs
commented that he thought Common Council was generally disposed ,
certainly , to support the Chamber in their quest for a good location .
Mr . Meigs stared that it was his impression that the proposal of the
Chamber grew over a period of a few years from simply being the
information center to now being an office and a visitors and
convention facility in a much larger type and a larger intensity of
use and , again , different in character physically .
Mr . Paul Glover , Slaterville Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he wanted to caution the Board to recommend against this
application - -- to recommend against the rezoning of this lot on the
corner of the Lake . Mr . Glover stated that , whether or not the
Chamber , whether or not the people behind the proposed rezoning are in
earnest , and are sincere about turning this entire area into mixed use
commercial or not , he thought that the use that it presently occupies
is a higher use . Mr . Glover stated that , according to the
environmental summary , there is vegative debris there and trees over a
hundred years old . Mr . Glover noted that trees do not vote , trees do
not necessarily make money , but he thought that they have the last say
• that we are facing a situation worldwide where we have a concern for
trees . Mr . Glover stated that , also , at the same time , we are facing
yet another confrontation - - the use of land for commercial /
residential use versus use of land for breathing deeply and enjoying
open space . Mr . Glover offered that it is important to provide a
place for the Chamber of Commerce to operate , but green space is at
least as essential for our community .
Mr . Stuart Lewis , 105 Winthrop Drive , spoke from the floor and
stated that he was working with Mr . Sciarabba as % a member of the
committee on this proposal . Mr . Lewis stated that it has come time in
this community where we have to view the vision of basically where we
are heading . Mr . Lewis stated that the main priority in the Chamber
of Commerce is tourism , noting that the existing building is on Court
Street in downtown Ithaca City , and the Court Street building does not
offer an availability to the public who come to this community . Mr .
Lewis stated that the proposed building will be used simply for the
Chamber of Commerce office with four to five employees , and the
convention bureau , which this County sanctions as a worthwile project
to bring convE! ntions into this community . Mr . Lewis noted that the
existing tourist booth is presently located in this area under
discussion , adding that the proposed building is not in the Park , it
is outside the Park . Mr . Lewis stated that the proposed building will
be on a site presently owned by a private individual and the traffic
generated is a very passive type of traffic . Mr . Lewis stated that
the proposed building is a by - product of the Ithaca Centennial in
1988 , adding that a video presentation is going to be housed in this
proposed building . Mr . Lewis stated that the Chamber does not view
Planning Board - 13 - October 6 , 1987
• this proposed facility as anti - environmental , as a total commercial
entity , or as a hazardous situation - - the building will be a small ,
low- key , rustic building . Mr . Lewis stated that he felt that the City
of Ithaca has sanctioned their license for one reason - - they want
this project .
There appearing to be no further questions or comments from the
public , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 10 p . m . and
brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Ms . Beeners stated that on October 5 , 1987 , she had received , for
the record , a statement from Mr . Leo Wells , the owner of two adjacent
properties to the north . The statement reads as follows : " I , Leo
Wells , hereby request that both my properties , located at 910 and 912
East Shore Drive , be considered for rezoning along with the proposed
Chamber of Commerce property . " Ms . Beeners stated that she advised
Mr . Wells that he needed to work on what proposed uses he would have
there , and also submit a formal application .
Mr . Klein asked what the " dotted " house on the map represented .
Ms . Beeners responded that the dotted building to the north is on the
Wells ' property , adding that this building was a former roadside stand
that is basically demolished . Ms . Beeners noted that there is a
tremendous amount of public land , outdoor recreational land , and also
basic brush land which can be considered open space , to the south and
the east of this project , adding that as you move northward on East
Shore Drive , there is a Business " E " and Light Industrial zoned lands .
Ms . Beeners noted that the Light Industrial zoned lands are currently
being used by John Lowery , Inc . , a general contractor , and , generally ,
along that shore line is a combination of some small residential
enclaves that are mixed absentee - and owner - occupied , plus a good
amount of vacant land . Ms . Beeners pointed out , also , that the
Village of Cayuga Heights Sewage Treatment Plant and Liberman ' s Marina
are located in that area .
Dr . Lesser questioned the possible alternative uses of the
proposed building , should it be approved and constructed . Dr . Lesser
mentioned that , should the Chamber vacate the building at some point
in time , it would appear that it could virtually go to any other use ,
provided that it contained less than 10 employees . Dr . Lesser
wondered if it were possible for the Planning Board to recommend to
the Town Board that , if indeed , there is a Special Land Use District
placed here , it be limited for some period of time .
Town Attorney Barney stated that a limit could possibly be placed
on it in term : of time , but more appropriate might be to limit it in
terms of use . Town Attorney Barney offered that if at some time in
the future that use turns out not to be an appropriate use , or there
is difficulty or hardship in that use , there is recourse for the
landowner to either again seek rezoning to something different and go
through the process , similar to what is happening now , or to seek a
• variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals , if the landowner can
establish the requisite difficulties with the existing zoning . Town
Attorney Barney referred to the Chamber letter of September 14 , 1987 ,
Planning Board - 14 - October 6 , 1987
in which it is inferred that the use suggested was as a not - for - profit
office building by a not for profit concern and tourism use , adding
that that might be the use that would be put in a Special Land Use
District , and that that becomes the only use that is permitted there
without further action .
Mrs . Langhans noted that this may well change Mr . Wells ' idea of
wanting to change his property , if it is for a not - for - profit for
tourism . Ms . Beeners stated that she advised Mr . Wells that the
concept of the proposed rezoning at this location was one of a
non - profit , quasi - public , touristic -oriented use , and that he should
start thinking along that line .
Mr . Kenerson wondered about the railroad which has not been
mentioned , and also asked about the zoning requirements relative to
looking at the parking lot which is in the lot line . Ms . Beeners
noted that the Special Land Use District zoning enables creation of
special yard :requirements , adding that she had elaborated about that
in the SEAR review . Ms . Beeners stated that a fence is proposed that
would start at the street line of East Shore Drive and run back just
about half -way , or three - quarters of the way , toward the building , and
that is shown in the heavy line [ indicating on the map ] which would
serve to screen the cars , and would mitigate the proximity of the
parking to the! northern boundary line .
Mrs . Grigorov asked for a description of the fence , with Ms .
Beeners responding that it would be a combination wall and fence that
would be approximately two - and - a - half feet high and include a bumper
stop for cars in some kind of a masonary or wood . Ms . Beeners stated
that the upper part would be some type of fencing , probably out of
wood , and the bottom would be of a kind of structure that would screen
the bottoms of the cars .
Dr . Lesser wondered if all the parking , as shown on the site
plan , were necessary , and asked if it would be possible to reduce the
number of spaces between the proposed building and East Shore Drive ,
and provide a little bit more of a buffer on the side .
Chairman May wondered how many people use the Tourist Information
Booth , with Mr . Herbert Brewer responding that the Chamber kept the
Tourist Booth open a month longer this year - - through September
and that there! were 14 , 000 persons registered . Mr . Brewer noted that
over the past three or four years registration has ranged between
10 , 000 and 12 , 000 per season , and , with the advent of staying open an
extra month , it went beyond that . Continuing , Mr . Brewer stated that ,
in lieu of that , they are going to try and keep the Chamber open on
Saturday mornings .
Town Attorney Barney stated that it was his understanding that ,
if this proposed building is constructed , the existing visitors booth
will be removed . Mr . Brewer responded that that was correct , adding
• that the Chamber was asked about three years ago by the City to
upgrade that facility and that is the reason the Chamber started
looking more closely at the area for a permanent site . Mr . Brewer
Planning Board - 15 - October 6 , 1987
• recalled that the Youth Bureau plan originally did include a permanent
structure there , but that would mean the Chamber would have to
separate their facilities , which is not a good way to operate , adding
that at thattime the City asked the Chamber to move to the east side
of the new Youth Bureau facility . Mr . Brewer noted that when the
Chamber of Commerce approached the City on the Town of Ithaca site ,
they agreed that that would be a suitable site .
Mr . Klein , commenting that a good point had been made , in terms
of removing that existing structure , wondered how the existing
building tied in with the office function of the Chamber and asked if
they could not: , perhaps , reduce the parking requirements , if they were
to keep the existing facility which is obviously seasonal . Mr . Brewer
answered that the problem with the current facility is that it is very
limited in display space , and it does not have any public facilities ,
adding that the Chamber has been permitted limited access to the Youth
Bureau building for restroom use , and , looking at that aspect , the
Chamber felt it was much more economical and made more sense to keep
the whole operation under one roof . Mr . Klein asked how large the
proposed building would be , with Mr . Sciarabba responding , two floors ,
30 feet by 60 feet .
Mr . Lewis pointed out that one of the features in the Chamber ' s
relations with the City is the fact that the Youth Bureau parking lot
is right next door , so there is more accessibility for parking .
• There appearing to be no further comments , Chairman May asked if
anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval and the
Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board with respect
to a request for the rezoning of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 18 - 2 - 10 , located at 904 - 906 East Shore Drive , from Residence
District R- 15 to Special Land Use District ( Limited Mixed Use )
for the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce , Visitors and
Convention Bureau , and Tourist Information Center .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Town
Board has been legislatively designated to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board , the
City of Ithaca , the Tompkins County Planning Department , and the
New York State Department of Transportation are involved agencies
in coordinated review .
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on October 6 , 1987 , has
reviewed , among other submissions , the following material :
Long Environmental Assessment Form , dated October 2 , 1987 .
General Site Plan , dated October 2 , 1987 .
Letter from Andrew J . Sciarabba , Chamber of Commerce , dated
Planning Board - 16 - October 6 , 1987
• September 14 , 1987 , describing the proposal .
Map showing existing conditions on , and Deed for , Tax Parcel
No . 6 - 18 - 2 - 10 ,
4 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance for this action , subject to certain
conditions .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Town Board that a negative determination of environmental
significance be made for this action , subject to the following
conditions
a . Concurrence of potentially involved agencies as to the
designation of the Town of Ithaca Town Board as Lead Agency
in the environmental review of this action , and filing of a
notice of a conditional negative determination of
environmental significance to permit a 30 - day public comment
period .
b . Approval of the final site plan for the proposed facility by
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and by the City of Ithaca
Department of Public Works , and approval of site circulation
plans by the New York State Department of Transportation .
• Such final site plan is to include specific landscape and
drainage plans and schematic building plans and elevations .
c . The granting of a license by the City of Ithaca to the
applicant for use of City lands for access and parking .
d . The requirement that no more than 10 employees will occupy
the premises at any one time .
e . The :requirement that no activities will be conducted between
10 : 30 p . m . and 7 : 00 a . m .
f . The requirement that no activities will be conducted which
will cause disturbing noise , odors , or glare to any adjacent
landowners .
2 . That the Planning Board find and adopt and hereby does find and
adopt as its own findings the findings recommended by the Town
Planner in Part II - A of the SEQR environmental review .
3 . That the Planning Board also find and hereby does also find the
following :
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 .
Planning Board - 17 - October 6 , 1987
• c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development of the Town .
4 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Town. Board that the general site plan for the proposed
facility be approved , and that the Special Land Use District as
proposed be approved , subject to the following conditions .
a . Concurrence of potentially - involved agencies as to the
designation of the Town of Ithaca Town Board as Lead Agency
in the environmental review of this action , and filing of a
notice of a conditional negative determination of
environmental significance to permit a 30 - day public comment
period ,
b . Approval of the final site plan for the proposed facility by
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and by the City of Ithaca
Department of Public Works , and approval of site circulation
plans by the New York State Department of Transportation .
Such. final site plan is to include specific landscape and
drainage plans and schematic building plans and elevations .
c . The granting of a license by the City of Ithaca to the
applicant for use of City lands for access and parking .
d . The requirement that no more than 10 employees will occupy
• the premises at any one time .
e . The requirement that no activities will be conducted between
10 : 30 p . m . and 7 : 00 a . m .
f . The requirement that no activities will be conducted which
will cause disturbing noise , odors , or glare to any adjacent
landowners .
g . The compliance of the developer and all subsequent
landowners with all conditions and requirements that may be
set forth in any legislation rezoning the subject property .
h . That no uses shall be permitted if not pursuant to and
consistent with a unified plan for the Special Land Use
District , as such is recommended by the Planning Board to be
approved by the Town Board , and as may be subsequently
amended with the approval of the Planning Board .
i . That there shall be no new construction in this Special Land
Use District unless and until all of the requirements that
may be imposed in any ordinance establishing rezoning have
been complied with , and in addition , the following
requirements :
go
1 . The exterior design , specifications , and plans for the
building , and other improvements to be constructed on
the premises , and the development of the grounds and
Planning Board - 18 - October 6 , 1987
• construction of all outside facilities including
lighting , walls , and signs , shall have been shown on a
final site plan approved by the Planning Board , and any
construction thereafter shall be in accordance with
said site plan as finally approved .
2 . Building permits shall be required for any
construction , including construction of signs , walls ,
and outdoor lighting facilities . Such permits shall
not be issued until the Planning Board has approved the
design and specifications therefor .
3 . Any construction for which a permit is granted shall
comply with all applicable laws , codes , ordinances ,
rules , and regulations .
j . That the permitted occupancies in the District be limited to
occupancy by non - profit entities as offices and a visitors
booth , such entities may include the Tompkins County Chamber
of Commerce or other similar non - profit entity involved in
quasi - public activities including tourism .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Ken erson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
[ Secretary ' s Note : Part II -A follows . ]
" PART II - A : Proposed East Shore Drive Special Land Use District for
Chamber of Commerce and Related Uses
A . Action is Unlisted .
Be Action will receive coordinated review ( Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , Tompkins County Planning Department , City of Ithaca , New
York State Department of Transportation ) .
IMPACT ON LAND
There would be a small impact on land as a result of a shallow
water table common to Lakeside lands that is expected to be mitigated
through proper site and building construction , and that will be
subject to further plan approval .
IMPACT ON WATER
. Project site would not directly abut Cayuga Lake . If there were
any work done to improve the adjacent shoreline and drainage outfall
on City lands , which where there is currently a certain amount of
vegetative debris , a permit might be required by the New York State
• Department of Environmental Conservation . No significant adverse
impact is expected at this time for any work associated with the
Planning Board - 19 - October 6 , 1987
• proposed Special Land Use District with respect to the shoreline , or
with respect to drainage improvements on the site , subject to final
site plan approval .
No significant adverse impact is expected as a result of the
planned extension of public sewer mains from the Youth Bureau vicinity
northward , as is planned by the Town for 1988 , nor is any significant
adverse impact expected as a result of any lateral connections to the
proposed Chamber building , subject to final site plan approval .
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Project would require the removal of several spruce and hardwoods
from the Bowman lot . Associated project work would include site work
on City lands . A final site plan should show specific landscape
improvements . It is expected at this time that additional plantings
would mitigate any potential adverse impacts related to the removal of
existing vegetation .
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
The proposed facility is not expected to be obviously different
from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding manmade or natural
land use patterns . With the proposed small scale of the building and
the proposed use of wood siding , it would generally be a facility and
a land use that would be transitional between the public uses and
facilities to the south and the mixed residential uses and facilities
to the north .
The proposed facility would not significantly reduce the scenic
views of Cayuga Lake , not would it significantly reduce the enjoyment
of aesthetic dualities of Stewart Park and the Lake . Because of the
peripheral location of the proposed facility in relation to the main
use areas of Stewart Park and the main directions of Lakeward view ,
and because of the proposed architectural scale and design of the
facility , no significant adverse impact is expected to any aesthetic
or natural resources of the area .
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Historic Ithaca ' s proposal to the City of Ithaca that Stewart
Park be given :Local historic landmark status is currently under review
by the City . The proposed Special Land Use District would be
generally adjacent to this area , but , subject to final site plan
approval , to include adequate landscaping adjoining the Chamber
facility , no significant adverse impact on the Park is expected .
There is no known historic or archeological significance to the
existing buildings on the Bowman parcel . The Chamber of Commerce has
reported offering the buildings to the northern adjacent property
owner and to the Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Service , and more
information is requested as to the potential for building relocation
or salvage .
• IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Planning Board - 20 - October 6 , 1987
No adverse impact is expected to the quantity or quality of
existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities . As
described above , the proposed District and Chamber facility would be
located peripheral to the main use areas of Stewart Park . The
availability of the proposed Chamber site to the public for touristic
and informational purposes will enhance and augment the recreational
opportunities currently available .
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
No significant adverse impact on transportation or traffic
patterns is expected , subject to final site plan approval .
While there will be an increase in traffic volumes , site access
and circulation as shown on the current submissions has been
preliminarily approved by the Town Engineer , and access onto East
Shore Drive will require final approval by the New York State
Department of Transportation . The City of Ithaca Common Council , upon
review of a site plan on June 3 , 1987 , endorsed the licensing of land
to the Chamber of Commerce for a driveway and parking area between
Gibbs Drive and the proposed Chamber site , subject to final site plan
approval by the City Department of Public Works .
The parking and egress arrangement on Parcel 6 - 18 - 2 - 10 , combined
with the potential provision of entry access and a portion of the
proposed facility ' s parking on City lands adjacent to the proposed
site is adequate for the proposed use and poses no significant adverse
environmental impact , subject to final site plan approval by certain
involved agencies , including the N . Y . S . Department of Transportation ,
and the City and Town of Ithaca .
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
The community and neighborhood character in the vicinity of the
site is defined by the Lakeside orientation and slopes adjoining East
Shore Drive to the east . Other features and facilities include the
Youth Bureau on peripheral City park lands across the railroad right
of way from the edge of Stewart Park , shoreline , and State roads , with
the parcels immediately adjacent to the site on the north once used
for commercial and residential purposes and now in need of substantial
upgrading .
In the greater vicinity of the site to the north is an area of
mixed owner - and non - owner - occupied residences mainly along the
shoreline , undeveloped land ( on the east side of East Shore Drive ) ,
the Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant , a general construction
contracting firm , and a marina . To the south of the proposed site are
the Route 13 :interchanges , and the playfields and buildings of the
Boynton Middle School , and the Ithaca High School .
The proposed District is not expected to cause any significant
adverse impact to the character of this area or to the density of land
use , because of the proposed site plan and because of the benefits of
locating a quasi - public function in this area . The proposed facility
would not be significantly different from the public use buildings
already present in the area , would enhance public access to lands
• adjoining Cayuga Lake , and may benefit the area and stimulate its
further upgrading .
Planning Board - 21 - October 6 , 1987
• No significant adverse impact is expected to community plans or
goals as officially adopted . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance
provides for the creation of Special Land Use Districts for limited
mixed use within such districts . The Special Land Use District as
proposed would operate under a unified plan of quasi -public uses that
would complement adjacent land uses , as described above . Because of
unique site circumstances , such as the potential use of adjacent City
lands for access and parking , and essentially vacant land in the
railroad right of way and along the shoreline , and because of the
scale of the facility , and the landscaping and fencing proposed , the
site is considered to be reasonably adapted to the proposed use .
Recommended findings
It is recommended that there is a need for such a District in the
proposed location because of the following :
The desirability and benefits of encouraging public access
to lands near Cayuga Lake adjoining Stewart Park in the East
Shore neighborhood .
The need of the Chamber of Commerce , Visitors and Convention
Bureau , and Tourist Information Center for a central area
location convenient both to tourists and to Town and City
residents , and the benefits of complementing adjacent public land
uses with the quasi - public land uses proposed .
The election of the proposed facility site as the preferred
site by the Chamber of Commerce after a task force study of
alternative sites , with other alternatives generally rejected on
the basis of economic and locational constraints , as discussed in
the submissions for this proposal .
It is recommended that the existing and probable future character
of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected on the grounds
that :
The proposed District is similar to the public land uses
that are .in the general vicinity , and would act as a transitional
area between the public use , parkland , residential , educational ,
and transportation land use areas that the District would adjoin .
Subject to final site plan approval for any specific
development proposed within the District , the scale and type of
development proposed would be compatible with existing and
potential development in the adjacent R- 15 Residence District and
with adjacent P - 1 zoning in the City of Ithaca .
It is recommended that the proposed District be considered in
accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town on the
grounds that :
There has been a cooperative effort by the City and Town in
the history of development of East Shore lands , recently in the
annexation of the current Youth Bureau property by the City , and
in the planned extension of public sewer to properties along East
Shore Drive which have been annexed by the Town .
• The proposed District for the Chamber of Commerce and for
other interrelated uses proposed , adjoining City lands , is
Planning Board - 22 - October 6 , 1987
• considered by the reviewer as compatible with the history of
intermunicipal cooperation .
No significant adverse impact is expected with respect to the
proposed change in site land use and land use intensity . There would
be a change from a residential property with two dwellings and
accessory buildings to a non - residential property with one building
and accessory parking . The extent of building coverage would be
reduced with development of the proposed facility . The amount of
impervious surfaces would be approximately equivalent to existing
conditions .
Because of the unique circumstances of the proposed site and
proposed use of the District , it is not expected that the granting of
the proposal would set any important adverse precedent for potential
future projects . Further upgrading of adjacent properties , and
further development of vacant lands along East Shore Drive for
residential or non - residential uses may occur in the future , but any
such growth or development would not be directly or adversely induced
by the proposed Special Land Use District . Combined with the growth
of several marine recreational businesses on East Shore Drive , the
proposed District may indirectly stimulate the development of similar
touristic and recreational uses . Such potential development would be
subject to further environmental review .
O
There would be temporary , localized , short - term construction
• impacts that would not be adverse or significant , provided that there
are adequate safety and other measures during project implementation .
There would be an increase in traffic volumes as a result of the
proposed development , which is within the capacity of existing roads ,
and for which no significant adverse impact is expected , subject to
final site plan approval , and provided that a license is issued for
the use of adjacent City lands for site ingress and for a portion of
the facility ' s parking . No significant adverse cumulative impacts are
expected as a direct result of the proposed development .
There has been some public controversy by a local citizen group
named Citizens to Save Stewart Park . This group has raised objections
to the potential licensing of City land adjacent to the Youth Bureau
for access and parking for the proposed Chamber facility , and to the
potential for adverse visual impact of the proposed Chamber facility
on Stewart Park . It is the reviewer ' s opinion that the proposed
facility , separated from the main use areas of the Park by the
railroad right of way , and adjacent to the Youth Bureau , will actually
complement the park , adding to lands and facilities accessible to the
public , and increasing the touristic function of this area .
There have been no objections from property owners or residents
in the local area .
Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Town Board
• Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner
Review Date : October 2 , 1987 "
Planning Board - 23 - October 6 , 1987
• Discussion of the proposed Special Land Use District for the
Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce , Visitors and Convention Bureau ,
and Tourist Information Center , ended at 9 : 32 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FOR REVIEW OF A
DETERMINATION OF THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR / ZONING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING HEIGHT , DEER RUN SUBDIVISION , LOCATED
BACKLOT OF * THE INTERSECTION OF TROY AND EAST KING ROADS , TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 32 . EDWIN A . HALLBERG , DEVELOPER .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 9 : 33 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr .
Thomas Niederkorn , Landscape Architect , and Mr . Edwin Hallberg were
present .
Mr . Niederkorn addressed the Board and referred to the
Subdivision Regulations , Article V , Section 32 , No . 6 , which states :
" No more than six semi - detached , attached , or multi - storey dwelling
units shall be permitted to be clustered in any one structure , nor
shall that structure be more than three storeys high , including the
basement or cellar . Distances between structures in the clustered
subdivision shall be no less than thirty ( 30 ) feet . No building shall
be more than three storeys . In any event , no building shall be more
than thirty ( 30 ) feet in height . " Mr . Niederkorn noted that Deer Run
is built on a side hill facing in one direction , adding that the slope
• of the land is fairly substantial in some areas . Mr . Niederkorn
stated that , in maintaining the view and also acknowledging the
natural slope of the site , some of the buildings , because of the side
hill conditions , have elevations that are higher than the 30 feet that
is specified in the Subdivision Regulations . Mr . Niederkorn stated
that there are several reasons why the developer felt it was
appropriate for the Board to favorably consider waiving the 30 - foot
limitation in this particular case . Continuing , Mr . Niederkorn noted
that , in acknowledging the site , the developer decided not to fill on
the downhill ;side and create level or flat terraces , but let the
buildings flow with the hill , adding that on the uphill side the 30 -
foot limit would not be exceeded . Mr . Niederkorn mentioned that on
the downhill side of the building the 30 - foot limit is exceeded
because of the slope of the land which falls roughly 5 - 6 feet over the
width of the depth of the units . Mr . Niederkorn noted that another
thing that mitigates the higher than 30 feet height is the design of
the buildings , adding that the buildings have been designed to create
a roof profile that is variable , noting that in all cases the highest
buildings are located in the center of the cluster , and the end units
on all the clusters have progressively lower roof levels . Mr .
Niederkorn commented that the clusters that have a 38 - foot high
section are in ' the middle , and the end units are all very close to the
30 - foot maximum required . Mr . Niederkorn felt it was less visually
obtrusive to have this roof profile as variable and sloping down from
a high point than it would be if the buildings were a constant 30
• feet . Pointing to map , Mr . Niederkorn identified the three buildings
that have the most serious variations , adding that all three of the
buildings are on the downhill side of Whitetail Drive , Mr . Niederkorn
Planning Board - 24 - October 6 , 1987
noted that thin. only serious violation is on the downhill side of the
downhill units , adding that the uphill units have smaller violations .
Virginia Langhans wondered if there were an attic in the pitched
roof , with Mi. Niederkorn answering , no , and noting that the roof
level inside follows the steepness of the roof on the outside .
Chairman May , noting this was a Public Hearing , asked if there
were anyone present who wished to speak .
Mr . David C . Auble spoke from the floor and asked the height of
the buildings from ground level to the roof line . Mr . Niederkorn
responded that the downhill units that are the farthest out of
regulation are the three mentioned previously , and stated that the
center units , which have the highest roof line , are 38 feet from
ground level to the peak , adding that it slopes down on each side to
33 feet , and then down to 30 feet on the ends . Mr . Auble asked if
these structures were already built . Mr . Niederkorn answered , yes ,
two of them are already built . Mr . Auble wondered if there were a
reason why a variance was not requested prior to construction . Mr .
Niederkorn responded that the developer did not really understand how
much additional facade exposure there would be by using the site the
way the developer wanted to use it . Mr . Niederkorn noted that he felt
it would be a fairly simple matter to build up on the downhill side to
bring the roof back in , and fill it up to the point where there would
be proper measurements , but the developer did not want to do that
• because it violates the natural conditions of the site . Mr . Hallberg
stated that none of the basements that are exposed are walk - out
conditions , but there are windows because of egress loss , adding that
the windows are 4 - foot windows , and are 2 - 1 / 2 feet off the floor . Mr .
Hallberg stated that they were not trying to put in downstairs
apartments , or high roofs to get upstairs apartments . These units
will be only single - family residential use .
Chairman May asked if anyone else present wished to speak . No
one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 50 p . m . and
asked for questions or comments from the Board .
Mr . Lesser stated that he had visited the site and felt that the
buildings did present a very high facade , certainly from the downhill
side . Secondly , Mr . Lesser stated that , in his opinion , he felt it
extremely difficult to accept the fact that professionals like Mr .
Hallberg and Mr . Niederkorn had any difficulty understanding the
Subdivision Regulations , which are as clear and specific as could
possibly be . Mr . Lesser expressed his strong concern about the height
restrictions being waived . Mr . Lesser stated that he did not see any
compelling justification for the appeal presented to the Board . Mrs .
Langhans mentioned the fact that a lot of the land in the Town is
hilly , noting -that this situation could come up over and over again .
At this point , Mr . Niederkorn referred to Article IV , Section 11 , No ..
10 , of the Zoning Ordinance , which states " In Residence Districts R15 ,
• no building or structure shall be erected , altered or extended to
exceed thirty ( 30 ) feet in height . For purposes of this provision ,
the height of a structure shall be measured from the floor in contact
Planning Board - 25 - October 6 , 1987
• with the ground surface . " Chairman May stated that there was no
question that approval had been granted under the Cluster Regulations .
Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ,
stated for the record that Building No . 1 is 34 feet in height and has
the roof in place . Building No . 2 , which is downhill , and essentially
nearing completion , is 38 feet in height at the center . Building No .
3 , which has a building permit has not been constructed . Building No .
4 has a foundation , but Mr . Frost wondered if modifications were going
to be made either in raising the grade or lowering the roof on
Building No . 4 . Mr . Hallberg responded that the grade can be brought
up in the back of the building four feet . Mr . Hallberg remarked that
beyond that the development would get into an artificial fill
situation that: would become unstable in the long term . Town Attorney
Barney wondered if there were any building code requirements in terms
of piling dirt against the side of a building . Mr . Frost commented
that the Building Code has a different definition of building height
from the Zoning Ordinance or the Subdivision Regulations , adding that
by Zoning Ordinance definition the height should be no greater than 30
feet . Mr . Frost noted that there are no regulations that would not
permit the type of building that is proposed .
Chairman May noted that one of the concerns on the 30 feet was
preserving sight distances . Mr . Klein commented that a definition of
height should be put in the Zoning Ordinance . Mr . Klein stated that
he had viewed the buildings and they are very attractive , but scale -
•
wisetheythey are quite big , adding that the buildings are a lot taller
thanwhat is used to being seen around the Town of Ithaca .
Town Attorney Barney wondered if the Board would consider a
variance for the four buildings - - Phase I - - but conditionally deny
the variance without prejudice with respect to any future
construction .
Ms . Beeners suggested that the buildings in Phase 1 be granted
the waiver such that there would be a 38 - foot height on Building No .
2 , which is the one constructed , or , perhaps , reduce the height of
Building No . 4 to 36 feet , adding that Buildings No . 1 and No . 3 could
have a maximum height of 34 feet . Ms . Beeners suggested that Phase 1A
could have a maximum height of 36 feet on the downhill slope , and 34
feet maximum on the uphill units .
Mr . Lesser stated that he would accept the position to allow a
waiver for the four buildings in Phase 1 , but on the condition that
all the rest of the buildings in the subdivision meet the
specifications , which is 30 feet maximum .
Mr . Hallberg said there would be a hardship to redesign the
buildings , as about $ 200 , 000 . 00 of architectural drawings would have
to be thrown out . Mr . Hallberg offered that 3 / 4 of the buildings
would be over the 30 - foot limit because of the grade .
• Mr . Lesser stated that he objected to the position that is being
stated in that the Planning Board is going to be responsible for the
Planning Board - 26 - October 6 , 1987
• appearance of this property , adding that the Planning Board ' s
responsibility is to interpret and act on the regulations , noting that
it is the devE! loper ' s responsibility to present an attractive site .
There appearing to be no further comments or questions on the
four buildings under discussion , Chairman May asked if anyone cared to
make a motion ,.
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of an Appeal for review of the
decision of the Town Building Inspector with respect to building
height al: the Deer Run Clustered Subdivision , located backlot of
the intersection of Troy and East King Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 32 ,
2 . This is being reviewed as a Type I action , for which the Planning
Board haS been legislatively designated to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review . The Tompkins County Planning Department is
a potentially - involved agency which is being notified of this
action .
3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance for the granting of certain waivers
with respect to the proposed heights of buildings in Phases I and
IA , and a conditional negative determination of environmental
significance for the granting of certain waivers with respect to
proposed building heights in subsequent project phases .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED ,
1 . That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the
environmental review of this action , make and hereby does make a
negative determination of environmental significance for the
granting of a waiver of the thirty - foot height requirement of
Article V , Section 32 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca
Subdivision Regulations , to permit the following :
a . A maximum height of 38 feet , 1 inch on the two center units
of Buildings 2 and 4 in Phase I .
b . A maximum height of 34 feet on the two center units of
Buildings 1 and 3 in Phase I .
By way of discussion , Town Attorney Barney noted that , as to the
other buildings , Phase IA , that matter was being adjourned by the
Board . Town .Attorney Barney pointed out that the granting of these
particular waivers was due largely to the hardship which would result
from altering the construction plans at the point at which the
• developer is presently , and , as such , is not to be deemed a precedent
for the granting of subsequent waivers for any subsequent buildings .
Planning Board - 27 - October 6 , 1987
Board Member Lesser suggested that , perhaps , the negative
• determination should be made subject to the granting of final
subdivision approval by the Planning Board for subsequent phases , and
to the submission of a detailed landscaping and landscape management
plan , typical site selection , and other information that may be
required by the Planning Board to assess the potential for visual
impact and its mitigation .
There appearing to be no further discussion , the Chair called for
a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Ken erson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of an Appeal for review of the
decision of the Town Building Inspector with respect to building
height at the Deer Run Clustered Subdivision , located backlot of
the intersection of Troy and East King Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 32 .
• 2 . This is a Type I action for which the Planning Board , acting as
Lead Agency in environmental review , has made a negative
determination of environmental significance for the granting of a
waiver with respect to building height in Phase I of the project ,
on October 6 , 1987 .
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on October 6 , 1987 , has
reviewed the following material :
Appeal to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , dated September
28 , 1987 .
" Map Showing Commonland Areas , Deer Run Subdivision " ,
annotated with information related to building height .
Typical building elevations ( four pages ) , showing typical
maximum heights for buildings .
Deer- Run Townhouses - Cluster 2 ( C ) Planting Plan , Cayuga
Landscape Co . , 9 / 87 .
Letter to Edwin A . Hallberg from Andrew S . Frost , Town
Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , dated
September 17 , 1987 .
Long Environmental Assessment Form , dated September 24 ,
1987 .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
• 1 . That the Planning Board find and hereby does find the following :
Planning Board - 28 - October 6 , 1987
a . That: the strict application of the thirty - foot maximum
height requirement of Article V , Section 32 , Paragraph 6 , of
the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , would cause
practical difficulties in the development of the four
buildings in Phase I .
b . As to the four buildings in Phase I , the Planning Board has
determined that neither a significant alteration of the
purpose of subdivision control nor of the policy enunciated
or .implied by the Town Board in adopting the Subdivision
Regulations pertaining to clustered development would be
made in the granting of certain waivers as described
hereinafter in this resolution .
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant a waiver of
the thirty - foot height requirement of Article V , Section 32 ,
Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , to
permit the following :
a . A maximum height of 38 feet , 1 inch on the two center units
of Buildings 2 and 4 in Phase I .
b . A maximum height of 34 feet on the two center units of
Buildings 1 and 3 in Phase I .
3 . That the Planning Board requires that all remaining buildings in
the subdivision meet the thirty - foot maximum height requirement
unless additional waivers are granted .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
At this time , Chairman May asked the Board Members to go up and
look at the site , The Board Members agreed to view the site as soon
as possible .
Chairman May declared the matter of Consideration of an Appeal
for review of a determination of the Town Building Inspector / Zoning
Enforcement Officer with respect to building height at Deer Run duly
adjourned at 1. 0 : 28 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST THAT CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF
SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL BE MODIFIED WITH RESPECT TO
EASTWOOD COMMONS , PHASE III , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED NEAR HONNESS LANE
ON HARWICK ROAD AND SUNNY HILL LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO ,
6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 42 , HAVING BEEN GRANTED SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND FINAL SITE
PLAN APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS ON FEBRUARY 17 , 1987 , AND
HAVING BEEN GRANTED REVISED SITE PLAN APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CERTAIN
CONDITIONS ON APRIL 21 , 1987 . NORBERT H . SCHICKEL JR . ,
DEVELOPER / APPLICANT .
Planning Board - 29 - October 6 , 1987
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
• matter duly opened at 10 : 29 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Schickel addressed the Board and stated that he was
requesting that the requirement be waived that provided an easement to
Mrs . Orcutt ' s property because the developer simply does not have the
power to do so . Mr . Schickel noted that the property is owned by the
Eastwood Commons Residents ' Association and any easement would have to
be granted by them , adding that it was both a practical difficulty and
a hardship . Mr . Schickel stated that before a Certificate of
Occupancy could be issued a waiver would have to be granted .
Chairman May , noting that this was a Public Hearing , asked if
there were anyone present who wished to speak to this issue .
Mrs . Joan Egner , 205 Elmwood Avenue , spoke from the floor and
stated that she had read the minutes of the February 17 , 1987 Planning
Board Meeting in which this was the issue . Mrs . Egner wondered if
anyone would give her the background on why this was made a
requirement that it would be done before a Certificate of Occupancy
was granted .
Ms . Beeners , Town Planner , stated that the former Town Engineer ,
Lawrence Fabbroni , left instructions with cher that there should be a
provision of access through Lots 19 and 22 for the Orcutt property
• mainly because of the alledged . difficulties for Mrs . Orcutt to develop
a road to cross the creek , and to develop a road off Woodcrest Avenue ,
Ms . Beeners noted that that was basically how the requirement came
back into existence and became a requirement of the Phase III
approval . Ms . Beeners offered that Mrs . Orcutt had been notified
about this Public Hearing , Ms . Beeners stated that she felt , at the
present time , the possibilities for access to the Orcutt property
would be to give 15 feet of access to an area that could only have
maybe one . dwelling unit on it , adding that it would require frontage
variances to develop a lot there . Ms . Beeners stated that , in trying
to decide what possible scenarios there might be for the development
of the Orcutt property , perhaps three lots might possibly be developed
if it were developed to its maximum density . Ms . Beeners commented
that it could extend off Woodcrest Avenue and make a creek crossing ,
at some expense , to reach that land , and Woodcrest Avenue Extension
could become a public road . Ms . Beeners noted that , technically , Mrs .
Orcutt ' s property is not landlocked , however , somewhere along the
line , through the approvals of Eastwood Commons , the road reservation
fell through the cracks , and the building on Lot No . 20 was built , and
there was regrading done which would make it impossible at the present
time to actually have a road extension from Strawberry Hill Road to
Woodcrest Avenue ,
Chairman May wondered how Lot No . 20 was moved , as access was
provided to the Orcutt property in the original development phase .
Ms . Beeners responded that she could not recollect . Mr . Schickel
• stated that in the original approval in 1973 the question of the road
through there was specifically excluded of a connection between
Planning Board - 30 - October 6 , 1987
Eastwood Commons and Woodcrest Avenue , but a walkway was required .
• Mr . Schickel :noted that access to the Orcutt property was never , to
the best of his knowledge , mentioned to him until after Lot No . 20 was
conveyed .
Chairman May inquired about the 10 - foot existing dirt road which
was on the map of Phase I . Mr . Schickel answered that that was the
walkway . Mr . Schickel stated that subsequent to that the decision was
made to make the walkway to the bikeway instead of through Woodcrest .
Ms . Beeners stated that if a driveway were to be developed to Mrs .
Orcutt ' s property it would probably have to come off the Lot No . 19
driveway just about in the location where a path has been constructed
and comes down into that driveway . Ms . Beeners noted that the path
not only serves the pedestrian and bike circulation , but also as the
driveway for the three units in Lot No . 19 . Chairman May stated that
the path to the Maple Avenue bikeway is the one that is causing
problems at the present time , as people use it for skateboarding . Ms .
Beeners stated that the Town Planner and the Town Engineer approved
the path , and felt that it was the best location for the path to come
down into the development .
Chairman May wondered if a walkway was permitted into a unit ' s
driveway in terms of the Homeowners ' agreement . Mr . Schickel
responded that it was a matter of interpretation , adding that ,
basically , the homeowners of that unit [ No . 19 ] have exclusive use of
that driveway ,, but throughout the development the paved area driveway
• serves as both as a walkway and a driveway . Mr . Schickel offered that
the walkway system throughout the development incorporates portions of
those paved areas as part of the walkway .
Col . Richard H . Comstock , 19 - C Strawberry Hill Road , spoke from
the floor and stated that the residents were vehemently opposed to the
pathway from the driveway of Building No . 19 up to the old railroad
right - of -way , and the driveway from the Orcutt property .
Barbara Helmer , 17 Strawberry Hill Road , stated that she was
concerned with placing a walkway on private property .
Mrs . Egn.er , a member of the Board of the Eastwood Commons
Residents ' Association , noted that this issue has been a concern .
Mrs . Egner voiced her concern about the loss of privacy , adding that
the access to the Orcutt property as well as the pathway are not
really good ideas .
Chairman May stated that , personally , he would object to the
waiver being granted , noting that this was known for many years and
felt it was time to address the situation with the ' Homeowners '
Association . Mr . Schickel stated that he was not asking for a waiver
of the path , but a waiver of the easement to Mrs . Orcutts ' property .
Mr . Lesser stated that he could see the practical difficulties
with connecting to the Orcutt property through 19 or 20 , or some
• combination of them . Mr . Lesser wondered if Mr . Schickel had looked
into or discussed with Mrs . Orcutt the possibility of contributing to
Planning Board - 31 - October 6 , 1987
_ the additional cost of providing access to her property through the
• other route . Mr . Schickel responded that he had not discussed it with
Mrs . Orcutt , although he had asked her if she would be willing to sell
the property .
Town Attorney Barney noted that in 1969 a map was drawn that
showed the proposed road on Mrs . Orcutt ' s property running south from
Woodcrest Avenue and connecting to a proposed road on the property
then owned by Mr . Enos Pyle , Mr . Barney felt that this was the
genesis of the access issue , and obviously in the subdivision
planning , as it went on through for Eastwood Commons , it was not
carried forward , because it was not shown on what is now Lot No . 20 .
There appearing to be no further comments or questions , Chairman
May asked if anyone cared to make a motion .
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of a request that certain
conditions of site plan and subdivision approval be modified with
respect to Eastwood Commons , Phase III , with it being requested
that Condition IV . 5 of the Planning Board Resolution of February
17 , 1987 , granting final site plan and preliminary subdivision
approval to Phase III , be waived , and , that Condition IV . 6 of
. said Resolution , be modified . Condition IV . 5 required the
provision of a 15 - foot right of way between Lots 19 and 20 of
Eastwood Commons to Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 6 =60 - 1 - 25 . 1 , prior
to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for Phase III .
Condition IV . 6 required the removal of the 50 - foot road right of
way reservation from the Eastwood Commons map and from the Orcutt
map , prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for
Phase III: .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , is
acting as Lead Agency for environmental review . The Town of
Ithaca Town Board , the City of Ithaca , and the Tompkins Planning
Department will be notified of any final determination with
respect to this action .
3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance for the requested waiver and
modification .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the review of
this Unlisted Action , make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance , and directs the Town
Planner to file such determination with the Town of Ithaca Town
Board , the City of Ithaca , and the Tompkins Planning Department .
•
• Planning Board. - 32 - October 6 , 1987
There being no further discussion , Chairman May called for a
vote .
Aye - Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - May .
Chairman May declared the MOTION carried .
Chairman May asked if the Board Members were ready to move on the
matter of the requested modification .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of a request that certain
conditions of site plan and subdivision approval be modified with
respect to Eastwood Commons , Phase III , with it being requested
that Condition IV . 5 of the Planning Board Resolution of February
17 , 1987 ,, granting final site plan and preliminary subdivision
approval to Phase III , be waived , and , that Condition IV . 6 of
said Resolution , be modified . Condition IV . 5 required the
provision of a 15 - foot right of way between Lots 19 and 20 of
Eastwood Commons to Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 1 , prior
to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for Phase III .
Condition IV . 6 required the removal of the 50 - foot road right of
• way reservation from the Eastwood Commons map and from the Orcutt
map , prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for
Phase III .
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 on October 6 , 1987 .
The Town of Ithaca Town Board , the City of Ithaca , and the
Tompkins Planning Department will be notified of any final
determination with respect to this action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board find and hereby does find the following :
a . That the strict application of the aforementioned conditions
would cause practical difficulties in the further
development of Eastwood Commons Phase III .
b . That the Planning Board has determined that neither a
significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control
nor of the policy enunciated or implied by the Town Board in
adopting the Subdivision Regulations would be made in the
granting of a waiver of or a modification of the
aforementioned conditions .
• 2 . That the :Planning Board grant and hereby does grant a waiver of
Condition IV . 5 of the Planning Board Resolution of February 17 ,
• Planning Board. - 33 - October 6 , 1987
1987 , granting final site plan and preliminary subdivision
approval to Phase III , which condition required the provision of
a 15 - foot right of way between Lots 19 and 20 of Eastwood Commons
to Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 1 , prior to the issuance
of any certificate of occupancy for Phase III .
3 . That Condition IV . 6 of said Planning Board Resolution of February
17 , 1987 , which required the removal of the 50 - foot road right of
way reservation from the Eastwood Commons map and from the Orcutt
map , prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for
Phase III: , may be satisfied by the offer of a quit claim deed
from Eastwood Commons Development Company and / or Eastwood Commons
Building Corp . to Minnie Orcutt surrendering any rights to use
the proposed road shown on map entitled , " Survey Map - Minnie L .
Orcutt Property - 71 Woodcrest Avenue - In The City and Town of
Ithaca - Tompkins County , New York " , dated February 10 , 1969 ,
signed and sealed by Clarence W . Brashear Jr . , L . L . S .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - May .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Chairman May declared the matter of Consideration of a request
• that certain conditions of site plan and suabdivision approval be
modified with respect to Eastwood Commons , Phase III , duly closed at
11 : 09 P . M .
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING : ( FROM SEPTEMBER 15 , 1987 ) : CONSIDERATION
OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 28 - 1 - 3 . 3 , LOCATED AT 1465 MECKLENBURG ROAD , INTO TWO
LOTS AND A 60 - FOOT WIDE FUTURE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY , AND FURTHER ,
CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF
A 1 . 23 ACRE PARCEL FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 28 - 1 - 3 . 72 ,
LOCATED TO THE REAR OF 1463 MECKLENBURG ROAD . ROBERT L . AND BEVERLY
KENERSON , OWNERS OF PARCEL NO , 6 - 28 - 1 - 3 . 3 ; ROBERT DRAKE , OWNER OF
PARCEL NO . 6 - 28 - 1 - 3 . 72 ; ROBERT L . KENERSON , APPLICANT .
Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 11 : 10 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Kenerson stepped aside from his seat at the Planning Board table .
Mr . Kenerson addressed the Board and stated that he wanted to
build a one - story house on the adjacent property , which requires
subdivision approval . Mr . Kenerson noted that the proposal is for the
creation of four lots , commenting that the existing lot would be
divided into two equal size lots , and there would be a driveway
constructed into another lot , which would eventually become a Town
Road connecting to Woodgate Lane on the south end of the farm . Mr .
• Kenerson noted that Woodgate Lane has a subdivision on the south end .
Mr . Kenerson noted that all the land is agricultural , and is right in
.� Planning Board - 34 - October 6 , 1987
the middle of a corn field . Mr . Kenerson stated that Lot No . 2 needs
• to be made available for mortgage purposes , and also for selling , if
he decided to go that route , adding that this cannot be done unless it
is made into a lot . Mr . Kenerson offered that Lot No . 3 is just for
future construction , and Lot No . 1 is where the roadway would be .
Mrs . Langhans noted that it would have to be a roadway to gain access
to the other properties , with Mr . Kenerson commenting , that is the
problem . Mr . Kenerson stated that he would like an option of creating
some access or rights of way , adding that that is what he would do
with Lot No . 4 , and provide access to the state highway , which is
quite different from providing access by a Town road . Mr . Kenerson
noted that his present driveway is 60 feet , and he was proposing at
the present time for this to be a private road .
Chairman May stated that the non - conforming part was that the
property is not on a Town road . Mr . Kenerson responded that they are
now , but need to have access to a Town or state road so a building
permit or mortgage could be secured .
Susan BeE! ners stated that the existing property has 60 feet of
frontage on a public road , noting that this is a situation where in
order to build any houses , the developer would have to fulfill the
requirements of Section 280 - a of the Town Law , which requires that a
public road be constructed unless there are practical difficulties , as
well as meet the need for variances for the lack of frontage on a Town
Road .
• Town Attorney Barney stated that once subdivision approval is
granted , and -the property is sold , the Town is faced with the fact
that a subdivision was granted to a parcel of property that does not
face on a public road , adding that there could be ramifications .
There appearing to be no further comments or questions , Chairman
May asked if anyone cared to make a motion .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , 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 - 28 - 1 - 3 . 3 ,
located at 1465 Mecklenburg Road , into two lots and a 60 - foot
wide future road right of way , AND FURTHER , Consideration of
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 1 . 23 acre
parcel from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 3 . 72 , located to
the rear of 1463 Mecklenburg Road , in an Agricultural District .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review of the proposed subdivisions , and which has been reviewed
by the Planning Board at a Public Hearing on October 6 , 1987 .
3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance .
Y
Planning Board - 35 - October 6 , 1987
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
subdivision as proposed , conditional upon the granting of any
necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals .
There being no further discussion , Chairman May called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Lesser .
Nay - None .
Chairman May declared the MOTION carried unanimously .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans :
RESOLVED , that the matter of the proposed Kenderson / Drake
subdivision request be and hereby is adjourned sine die in order to
give applicant an apportunity to consider alternative means of access
to the proposed lots .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of the Kenerson / Drake
subdivision duly adjourned .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 16 , 1987
MOTION by Virginia Langhans , seconded by Carolyn Grigorov :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board that the Minutes
of the June 16 , 1987 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be
and hereby are approved with one correction , as follows :
Page 8 = Department of Agriculture should be Department of
Agronomy .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye = May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Lesser , Kenerson , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 7 , 1987
• MOTION by James Baker , seconded by Robert Kenerson :
Planning Board - 36 - October 6 , 1987
\ RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of July 7 , 1987 , be and hereby are approved as presented .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Lesser , Kenerson , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 4 , 1987
MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by Carolyn Grigorov :
RESOLVED , the the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of August 4 , 1987 , be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Lesser , Kenerson , Klein .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
• Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the October 6 , 1987 , meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 45 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .