Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1987-12-01 LDate AD F�ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD -�' `� DECEMBER 1 , 1987 The Town. of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , December 1 , 1987 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , James Baker , Robert Kenerson , David Klein , William Lesser , Virginia Langhans , John C . Barney , Esq . , ( Town Attorney ) , Robert R . Flumerfelt , P . E . ( Town Engineer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Andrew Frost ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) . ALSO PRESENT : Herbert Monkemeyer , Rose Gostanian Monkemeyer , John Yengo , Beth Wickenden , Evan Monkemeyer , Jose G . Amador , Edward A . Mazza , Esq . , Richard L . Atkins , Lawrence P . Fabbroni , Orlando Iacovelli , Ralph Iacovelli , David C . Auble , Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on November 23 , 1987 and November 26 , 198749 • respectively , together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the property under discussion , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicants on November 25 , 1987 . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR " ITHACA ESTATES " , PHASE II , SIX PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LOTS , ONE PROPOSED SCHOOL LOT , AND ONE PROPOSED PARK SITE , LOCATED ON EAST KING ROAD AND PROPOSED TO BE SUBDIVIDED FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 . HERBERT N . MONKEMEYER , OWNER ; EVAN N . MONKEMEYER , AGENT . AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR THE REZONING OF TEN RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF " ITHACA ESTATES " ( PHASES I AND II ) , WITH EIGHT OF SAID LOTS FRONTING ON EAST KING ROAD AND BEING PORTIONS OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 AND - 3 . 32 , AND , WITH TWO OF SAID LOTS DESIGNATED AS TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS N0 , 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 31 AND - 3 . 33 ( 134 AND 138 EAST KING ROAD , RESPECTIVELY ) , FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . HERBERT N . MONKEMEYER , OWNER OF PARCELS NO , 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 AND - 3 . 32 ; EVAN N . MONKEMEYER , AGENT , SAMUEL E . AND JOANNE BONANNI , OWNERS OF 134 EAST KING ROAD , THOMAS M . AND BETH WICKENDEN , OWNERS OF 138 EAST KING ROAD . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearing as posted and published and as noted above . Messrs . Planning Board - 2 - December 1 , 1987 • Herbert and Evan Monkemeyer , Owner and Agent , respectively , were present , along with Samuel E . Bonanni and Beth Wickenden , Mr . Evan Monkemeyer appeared before the Board and appended maps to the bulletin board . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that he is seeking the final subdivision approval of the Montessori School site , the Town Park site and six residential building lots on King Road , and also rezoning the lands that front on King Road East which would be a total of ten lots , two of which are already built and existing , from R - 30 zoning to R - 15 . Mr . Monkemeyer noted that the last time [ August 4 , 19871 said proposal was presented the Town had some requirements that were to be added to the plan , and since that time the additions and changes have been made to the plan . Mr . Monkemeyer said that the Phase I section has been incorporated ( which was a five - lot subdivision ) , and has been approved and filed . Mr . Monkemeyer noted that both maps are shown together so the Board could get an overall picture . Mr . Monkemeyer offered that the Montessori School is about 30 days away from completion . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak to this issue . John Yengo of 1147 Danby Road spoke from the floor and asked what the basic significance was for changing from R- 30 zoning to R- 15 . • Chairman May responded that the usual reason for that change means that there is water and sewer on the site , adding that the minimum size lot changes from 30 , 000 square feet to 15 , 000 square feet . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that a minimum of 30 , 000 square feet net per lot has already been set aside , and he was going to maintain that size . Mr . Monkemeyer said that he is requesting a rezoning of this strip [ pointing to map ] of land so that we may reduce the side yard requirements under the Ordinance . Mr . Monkemeyer commented that the current Ordinance requires a 40 - foot side yard set - back in an R- 30 zone , even when there is water and sewer available , and adding that with 150 - foot frontage it limits the size of a rectangular ranch style home or any style of a rectangular nature . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that in discussions with the Town Planner , Susan Beeners , and the Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , Andrew Frost , it was decided that the best course of action to allow the freedom of design was to rezone the parcels so that the side yard set- backs could be reduced from 40 - feet to a 20 - foot set - back . The lower density will be maintained , but we are trying to have some flexibility in the side yard set - back . At this time , Mr . Monkemeyer distributed copies of a map indicating allowable building footprints with current R - 30 regulations . Beth Wickenden of 138 King Road East wondered about placing restrictions , and if the change in zoning would affect the existing houses . Planning Board - 3 - December 1 , 1987 . Susan Beeners stated that there would be some restrictions , and noted that the Board is looking specifically at residential lots as far as the rezoning is concerned . Chairman May added that there might be a difference in permitted home occupations . Ms . Beeners wondered about the 15 - foot minimum side yard , and asked Mr . Monkemeyer if he was satisfied with the maximum 3 , 000 square foot lot coverage by building . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that he has no problem with any of the other requirements , noting that it is just the side yard requirement for requesting the rezoning from R - 30 to R - 15 , adding that the rezoning would offer a greater degree of flexibility in the design and the siting of the buildings . Ms . Beeners recommended that as far as the rezoning is concerned that instead of going straight R- 15 , which would have such things as a 20 % lot coverage , that a maximum 3 , 000 square foot lot coverage be maintained which would be the same as in the existing R- 30 zone , and suggested the Board should consider the 15 - foot side yard requirement as just a straight requirement in this zone . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that when a two - car garage is added to a structure it takes away from the length of the structure , and also takes away from livable space . Mr . Monkemeyer said that two deed restrictions have been maintained for the subdivision - - one being that the homes are single family residences , except that could be modified with the seller ' s approval , for instance , if someone wanted . to have a grandparent apartment . The other restriction is that the lot sizes would have to be a minimum of 30 , 000 square feet on those ten lots . Mr . Lesser inquired of Mr . Monkemeyer if there were any further deed restrictions that would limit the size of that second dwelling , with Mr . Monkemeyer responding that it is pretty open and up to the discretion of the seller ( Monkemeyer ) . Chairman May asked for any other questions or comments , and there being no response , closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 49 p . m . Chairman May turned the matter over to the Board for discussion . Ms . Beeners referred to Item # 5 in the conditions from the Preliminary Subdivision Approval as indicated in the August 4 , 1987 Planning Board minutes - - " Area of each lot to be shown net of highway right- of -way . " Ms . Beeners noted that the residential lots were being discussed at that time , and that the net area is not indicated on the subdivision plan for the park and the school , but that the net area had been shown for the lots . Mr . Lesser asked if , at this point , water and sewer had been extended to the properties , with Ms . Beeners answering that the water line is on the south side of King Road , and the sewer plans are in the process of being approved . • Ms . Beeners commented that in an effort to keep the record straight , and to review what kinds of things were required in the subdivision regulations for a final plot , a check - list was prepared i Planning Board - 4 - December 1 , 1987 • showing whether the item has either been included on the plot or has been submitted separately . Ms . Beeners noted , in discussion with the Board , that there is a circle by the items that generally need to be completed and items which are proposed to be waived at this time . Mr . Barney wondered about the waivers that are marked as " 0 " , but have a comment . Mr . Barney asked if the comment was being waived . Ms . Beeners answered that she was decribing that that condition should be on the final map before it is filed . Mr . Barney commented that , in other words , the waiver itself is modified and that before one is finally filed it should show all existing monuments and all proposed to be set . Ms . Beeners responded that that is correct , and that applies to building set - back lines with dimensions , noting that the front yard set - backs are shown . There being no further discussion , Chairman May asked if anyone would like to make a resolution on the final subdivision only . MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for " Ithaca Estates " , Phase II , six proposed residential lots , one proposed school lot , and one proposed park site , located on • East King Road and proposed to be subdivided from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 . 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 at Public Hearing on August 4 , 1987 , and granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval to the proposed subdivision on that date . 3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on December 1 , 1987 , has reviewed the following material : Site plan composite of Ithaca Estates Phases I and II showing the proposed area to be rezoned . " Location Plan - Proposed Rezoning of Ithaca Estates I and II " " Land Use " plan showing existing and potential land use submitted by Jose Amador for the applicant . 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 , . and with a description of such waiver included in the record as Appendix " A " to this Resolution . i Planning Board - 5 - December 1 , 1987 . 2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as herein proposed , with the following conditions . a . The submission of all information being waived by the Planning Board for approval by the Town Engineer prior to filing of the final plat with the Tompkins County Clerk . b . Approval of the proposed park site by the Town Board prior to filing of the final plat with the Tompkins County Clerk . c . Modification of the map , if rezoning is approved , to show the subdivision is in an R- 15 zone . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Klein , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . Chairman May declared the MOTION carried unanimously . [ APPENDIX " A " HERETO ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 1 ] Chairman May opened the Public Hearing at 7 : 51 p . m . on the issue of rezoning for Ithaca Estates . . Chairman May noted that the Town Board has been designated as Lead Agency for the Environmental Review regarding this matter . Chairman May also noted that the Planning Board will only make a recommendation . At this point , Chairman May wondered if water and sewer was in place for all ten lots , with Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , responding that water was in place , but the sewer still has to be extended . Chairman May asked for any questions or comments from the public . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 53 p . m . , and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion . David Klein wondered if a condition should be imposed regarding the developer extending water and sewer prior to rezoning . Susan Beeners , Town Planner , responded that the developer could not secure any building permits without the utilities being in place . Town Attorney John Barney commented that he did not see any harm in noting that as a condition of a rezoning recommendion , adding that the subdivision application shows public water and sewer . Mr . Barney said that if it were rezoned to R- 15 , and the sewer was not put in that that would be a modification of the subdivision plan , and would compel the developer to bring it back before the Planning Board , which • could at that point , generate either a revision in the subdivision plan allowing non - public sewer or a suggestion to the Town Board that it be rezoned back to R - 30 because public sewer was not installed . Planning Board - 6 - December 1 , 1987 Mr . Barney remarked that he did not see this as a problem because of the way the matter is proceeding . Virginia Langhans asked how far the sewer was extended . Mr . Monkemeyer , pointing to the Springwood Land Use Map , noted that it goes about halfway up in the middle of the property so it could , technically , serve three or four of the lots on the lower six of the subdivision . Chairman May commented that the Health Department would not issue a permit to build a septic system on any of these lots because the final subdivision plans for Phase I had already been filed , and it is contingent upon the sewer being moved up the hill . There being no further questions or comments , Chairman May asked for a motion . MOTION by Mrs .. Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of General Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Town Board with respect to a request for the Rezoning of ten residential lots of " Ithaca Estates " ( Phases I and II ) , with eight of said lots fronting on East King Road and being portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 and - 3 . 32 , and with two of said lots designated as Tax • Parcels No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 31 and - 3 . 33 ( 134 and 138 East King Road , respectively ) , from Residence District R- 30 to Residence District R - 15 . 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 and the Tompkins County Planning Department are involved agencies in coordinated review . 3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on December 1 , 1987 , has reviewed the proposed rezoning . 4 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance for this action . 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 the rezoning as proposed . 2 . That the Planning Board find and hereby does find the following : a . there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location , • be the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected ; Planning Board - 7 - December 1 , 1987 • c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . 3 . That the Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the general site plan for the proposed action , as reviewed by the Planning Board on December 1 , 1987 , and recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that the ten residential lots described above be rezoned from Residence District R- 30 to Residence District R- 15 as proposed , conditional upon the f of lowing : a . the approval of deed restrictions for the vacant lots included in the area proposed to be rezoned with respect to single - family occupancy , minimum 30 , 000 square foot lot size and the 20 - foot drainageway reservation prior to any final rezoning of the subject parcels by the Town Board ; b , the requirement that the maximum building coverage on a lot be no more than 10 per cent of the lot area. . There being no further discussion , Chairman May called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Klein , Langhans , Ken erson. , Lesser . • Nay - None . Chairman May declared the MOTION carried unanimously . [ Note : Town Planner ' s Review and Recommendation follows . ] " PART II - Environmental Assessment - Proposed Ithaca Estates Phase I and II Residential Lots Rezoning from R- 30 to R- 15 A . Action is Unlisted . Be Action will receive coordinated review ( Town of Ithaca Planning Board , Tompkins County Planning Department ) , C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising from the following : Cl . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise levels , existing traffic 2atterns , solid waste Production or disposal , 12otential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? No significant adverse impact is expected with respect to these factors . Public water and sewer mains are being provided for the subject lots . Applicant is . proposing to maintain a low density development equivalent to that already permitted under the present R - 30 zoning , with 30 , 000 square foot minimum lot sizes , with the main difference under the proposed rezoning being the reduction in minimum yard setbacks . Planning Board - 8 - December 1 , 1987 • Present R- 30 minimum setbacks : front yard 30 ' ; side yards 40 ' ; rear yards 50 ' ; 10 per cent maximum building coverage . R- 15 requirements : front yard 25 ' ; side yards 15 ' ; rear yard 30 ' ; BUT it is recommended that the maximum building coverage be held at 10 per cent: or ± 3000 square feet and not be the normal 20 per cent as permitted in R- 15 , as a condition of any rezoning as proposed , because of the! large lot size . Applicant is also proposing to limit lot occupancy to single families unless as modified through written agreement with the seller . C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character ? With the proposed maintenance of large lot sizes , no significant adverse impact is expected to these factors . The reduction in yard setback requirements would , from the information on preliminary building siting presented by the applicant , permit flexibility in building siting while having no significant adverse impact on aesthetic resources or community character . C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? • No significant species or habitats are known in the project area , based on field inventories , that would be adversely affected by this action . C4 . A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change :Ln use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? Proposal would generally meet pertinent zoning and subdivision requirements , as subject to the recommended maximum 10 per cent building coverage . Because of the proposed lot size and proposed lot occupancy deed restrictions , no significant change in land use intensity from that currently permitted under the present zoning is expected . C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced :by the proposed action ? The potential development of the 8 vacant lots in the current rezoning proposal as single - family lots would cause no significant adverse demand for public services because of the low density currently proposed . It is possible that the applicant may request that additional R- 30 lands on Tax Parcels 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 and - 3 . 32 be rezoned in like manner , which at this time is expected to have no significant adverse impact , subject to further review at the time of such potential application . • The Land Use plan submitted at the reviewer ' s request shows existing and potential land uses for which no recommendation is being Planning Board - 9 - December 1 , 1987 • made at this time . However , the proposal at hand would pose no significant adverse impact with respect to potential land use as submitted by the applicant or with respect to alternate potential land use . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - 05 ? Not expected , C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Not expected , D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? Not expected , due to the low density and scale of the present proposal . PART III A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended . No significant adverse environmental impact is expected • from the proposed rezoning , which , aside from a change in permitted yard requirements , and as is recommended to be subject to 10 per cent maximum building coverage on a lot , would essentially maintain the same or lower density than that which is already permitted under the present R- 30 zoning . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Town Board Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner Review Date : November 23 , 1987 " Chairman May declared the matter of the proposed Monkemeyer rezoning from R- 30 to R - 15 duly closed at 8 : 02 p . m . SIGN REVIEW BOARD : CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING , PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 3 . 01 ( h ) OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW , A PROPOSED 27 [ 15 . 48 ] SQUARE FOOT SIGN FOR " SIX MILE CREEK VINEYARD " , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 1551 SLATERVILLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 56 - 2 - 1 . 1 . ROGER M AND NANCY S . BATTISTELLA , OWNERS / APPELLANTS , Chairman May opened the discussion on the above -noted matter at 8 : 09 p . m . , and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Roger and Nancy Battistella were present . • Nancy Battistella addressed the Board and stated that a 27 square foot sign , as noted in the Agenda , is in error . It should read 15 . 48 Planning Board[ - 10 - December 1 , 1987 • square feet . Town Planner , Susan Beeners concurred that it should be a 15 . 48 square foot sign . Susan Beeners stated that this is a situation where the Planning Board is permitted ( the maximum six square foot is permitted ) to allow a 25 % increase over the six square feet . Chairman May asked the applicants if they planned to sell any wine other than from grapes grown on the farm , with Mrs . Battistella answering , no . Virginia Langhans wondered if there was presently a sign erected . Mrs . Battistella responded , no , there is only a small sign on the barn . Mrs . Battistella stated that a sign is being requested to inform the public of their location , as the visibility is very important , adding that the neighbors have been very supportative of their operation . Mr . Lesser asked if the sign would be parallel with or perpendicular to the road , with Mrs . Battistella answering , perpendicular . Mr . Lesser also wondered if the sign would be two - sided , with Mrs . Battistella responding , yes , it would be two - sided . Susan Beeners , Town Planner , commented on size in comparison with • the Commonlandl sign , which is almost 18 - square feet , the Commonland Crescent sign is about 15 - square feet , the Video Sound sign , which is right across from Commonland is between 15 and 17 square feet . Ms . Beeners noted that she checked on legibility of lettering in regard to size with the Department of Transportation ( even though DOT has no jurisdiction in this case ) . Ms . Beeners said that the sign does appear to be of an appropriate letter size , but may be a little too flower for actually being legible at a distance . Ms . Beeners commented that the sign is very attractive , but one should think whether there is a little too much ornateness involved , and if visibility might be reduced because of the ornateness . Ms . Beeners stated that , aside from matters of style , the size of the sign is pretty good for that location . Virginia Langhans wondered about the distance of the sign from the edge of the pavement , with Mrs . Battistella answering that the sign is two - feet from the existing telephone pole . Robert Kenerson asked how the sign was proposed to be lighted . Mr . Battistella stated that the sign would be lighted with flood lights , as the sign is not self - illuminated . Chairman May asked if there were any other questions . There being no further discussion , Chairman May asked for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals . • MOTION by Virginia Langhans , seconded by James Baker : Planning Board - 11 - December 1 , 1987 • RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , upon reviewing other signs in the neighborhood , that the proposed sign is not inconsisent with other signs in the general area , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a variance be granted to permit the 15 . 48 square foot sign for the Six Mile Creek Vineyard , Aye : May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Klein , Lesser . Nay : None , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May closed the discussion of the proposed 15 . 48 square foot sign at 8 : 24 p . m . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : CONSIDERATION OF SKETCH PLANS FOR PROPOSED " KLONDIKE MANOR " , A . CLUSTERED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 53 - 1 - 17 . 1 , - 17 . 2 , - 5 , AND - 10 , 9 . 63 ACRES TOTAL , ON CODDINGTON ROAD , NORTHWEST OF JUNIPER DRIVE . ORLANDO AND RALPH IACOVELLI , APPLICANTS . Chairman May declared the matter opened at 8 : 25 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Messrs . Orlando and Ralph • Iacovelli , Consulting Engineer Larry Fabbroni , and Attorney Edward Mazza were present . Mr . Fabbroni appeared before the Board and appended three maps to the bulletin board . At this time , Mr . Fabbroni stated that he had planned to lead the Board on a brief video tour of the site , but encountered problems with the video . Mr . Fabbroni noted that this was a proposed cluster subdivision on approximately 9 . 63 acres on South Hill between Pennsylvania Avenue and Kendall Avenue , Juniper Drive and Northview Road . The old subdivision in the Pennslyvania Avenue / Kendall Avenue area started in the late 1800s . The Juniper Drive / Northview Road subdivision was more the 1950 ' s type , R- 15 type , of subdivision in the Town . The bulk of the property on the other side of the road is either owned by Ithaca College or the Raponi family . The Six Mile Creek gorge runs along the Sincebaugh land which consists of 40 acres , and joins the new Iacovelli property just to the east . Mr . Fabbroni stated that Pennsylvania Avenue now comes down approximately one - half mile and dead -ends , and the public right - of -way ( pointing to map ) ends here , and there seems to be some continuing legal question over that last portion of Pennsylvania Avenue . Mr . Fabbroni stated that subject site is a good Elite to cluster , commenting that in the Subdivision Regulations one of the stated policies of the Town of Ithaca is to cluster where it would create a better use of the land in the Town . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the major constraint is to only cluster in • six -unit buildings , which is what the Iacovelli are proposing on this site , and basically to meet the 3 . 5 unit per acre restriction . Mr . Fabbroni commented on the above points because he thought it was Planning Board - 12 - December 1 , 1987 . important to differentiate them from multi - family zoning and use , which is 10 - 14 units per acre . Mr . Fabbroni offered that when making comparisons between cluster as a mechanism for multi - family and multi - family itself there is a large difference in terms of land coverage , impervious areas , and overall density . Mr . Fabbroni said that one of the things on the video tour was that a person could look over on East Ithaca and see Eastwood Commons as one example of basically multiple housing , which is about eight - units per acre . Also , Honness Lane and Grandview can be seen . Continuing , Mr . Fabbroni commented that everyone felt like they had been clustered out these days , particularly in East Ithaca , but noted that he wanted to bring out the important differences between what is being proposed in the way of cluster and what people would like to call multiple units . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the video tour also would have shown the Board what has happened in the neighborhood to the North of the Iacovelli property in terms of consolidating five and six lots at a time , with one building on the lot . The open space around that one building is open space forever . Mr . Fabbroni noted that there is a stand of hardwood off to the north of subject site , adding that , when the fall foliage is off , a complete outline of the Lake can be viewed . Mr . Fabbroni remarked that one of the prime considerations in this matter is - - how do you affect the adjacent neighbors and their quality of life ? Mr . Fabbroni stated that , in many ways , coming in from where the road and the buildings are shown in this proposal , it is a carving out process of the landscape ,, adding that the barest part of the site is right down through here [ pointing to map ] , and the rest of the site is pretty foliated with natural shrubs . Indicating on map , Mr . Fabbroni stated that the hedgerow here is roughly 20 - 25 feet in height , noting that in its fall skeleton ( which would have been viewed in the video ) , the houses can hardly be seen , commenting that a better buffer could not be built than what is existing . At this time , Mr . Fabbroni commented on issues of site distance , and stated that , basically , what was done in the video was to make this location [ indicating on map ] and this location sight: back up Coddington Road . Again , indicating on map , Mr . Fabbroni stated that there is roughly a ten second sight distance to the south from this location and a fourteen second sight distance from this location or a 750 - foot sight distance from this location , and roughly a 900 -afoot sight distance from this location , adding that the sight distance to the North is unlimited - - one can almost see from this point where Hudson Street and Coddington Road meet . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the purpose for the meeting tonight is to discuss the density of the overall units , and wondered what adjustments the Board thinks can be made from the plans that were before the Board , noting that there were other plans if the Board did not approve of the plans that were before them . Mr . Fabbroni again stated that the most important point is the transition from this neighborhood , which has been largely cleaned up in the past ten years time by " these " pseudo - clusters ( if anyone wants to call them that ) . • Mr . Fabbroni said that what he was trying to point out to the Board was that the open space around the Iacovelli buildings is more than in the neighborhood to the north . Planning Board - 13 - December 1 , 1987 • Mr . Fabbroni said that , in terms of utilitizing the existing utilities and recognizing the difficulties of building on South Hill the lay of the land needs to be followed . Mr . Fabbroni noted that water comes up [ pointing to map ] to this area " here " and along the frontage " here " , adding that in looping the water from this location to that location the water comes all the way around by way of Pennsylvania Avenue and Kendall Avenue . Indicating on map , Mr . Fabbroni commented that the pressure zone " here " is different from the pressure zone " here " . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out on the map that the best place for a road is " here " in terms of the wood stand that exists around the gay- age up in this area , and the general slope of the land . Mr . Fabbroni said it depended on what is viewed as the future of Spruce Way above the road . If this is only serving four houses it does not make a whole lot of difference where this road is because of the site distances , adding that , if Spruce Way is viewed as being extended to serve the Raponi land then it becomes a bigger decision of where the road would be better located . Mrs . Grigorov asked how many acres were contiguous to the subject site , with Mr . Fabbroni responding , roughly six acres . Mr . Lesser wondered how many lots were being shown on this plot . Mr . Fabbroni answered , 17 lots . Mr . Lesser also wondered if it was permissible to build a public road across the NYSEG right - of -way . Mr . Barney , Town Attorney , stated that it depends on what the deed states , • in terms of whether that is a fee owned right - of - way or whether it is a right to erect towers and put lines over it , adding that , normally the Town will accept roads with , for example , service line types of right - of -way . Mr . Barney remarked that he does not know the condition of title . Mr . Fabbroni said that NYSEG has been receptive in the past concerning right - of -way , but not things that would obstruct if NYSEG wanted to make use of that land . Mr . Lesser wondered if the developer was proposing a regular standard subdivision which would require a road acceptable to the Town to cross that :right -of - way . Mr . Lesser also wondered if that would be a feasible matter as to whether NYSEG would allow that , and if it is allowed , whether the Town would accept it . Mr . Fabbroni commented that the developer does not have any reason to doubt that he would not be able to offer the Town a road built to Town specifications ( either under our fee or NYSEG ' s fee for that portion of land . ) David Klein noted that there would be a hook - up with Pennsylvania Avenue Extension , and wondered if that road was a properly improved road . Mr . Fabbroni responded that that is a legal matter , adding that the road has been used as a Town road for over 30 years , and commenting that he is not aware of it having clear title as a Town road . Mr . Lesser inquired if it was a 60 - foot right -of- way , with Mr . Fabbroni responding , no , it is 50 feet . Mr . Klein stated that the layout to the open space does not really accomplish anything except some left over spaces . Mr . Fabbroni Planning Board - 14 - December 1 , 1987 • said that his impression of Sketch Plans was to get at the heart of the issue . Mr . Lesser added that at this level he has no particular problem with the site , but it is the concept of clustering , and his understanding is that the developer is building multiple residences . Mr . Lesser remarked that in an R - 15 zone it is a two - family maximum , and that sixplexes can be rented to a number of individuals . Attorney Mazza noted that clustering speaks to six dwelling units per structure , and the subdivision regulations state that developers of larger subdivisions are encouraged to consider use of clustering in their designs . The subdivision regulations refer to restricting the number of unrelated persons residing in a dwelling unit , and do not speak to them being the owners of that dwelling unit . Mr . Mazza stated that if it was the intention of the drafters of the Subdivsion Regulations to restrict that to owner occupancy it would be stated as such . Mr . Mazza offered that there is the restriction of unrelated persons noted in the Zoning Ordinance . Mr . Fabbroni referred to the Subdivision Regulations , Article V , Section 32 , number 6 , which states , " No more than six semi - detached , attached , or multi - story dwelling units shall be permitted to be clustered in any one structure , nor shall that structure be more than three stories high , including the basement or cellar . " Mr . Fabbroni stated that he understood what the Board was trying to say , but felt that the Board was talking about a traditional R - 15 lot . Mr . Fabbroni • offered that all the developer is asking for is what the cluster would enable him to have . Mr . Lesser stated that he felt that the Board was discussing a very different: environment than would be permitted under R - 15 zoning , adding that his understanding of cluster subdivisions was a different location of buildings on a lot , but basically the concept of family homes remains intact . Mr . Lesser felt that his understanding is a very different concept than what is being proposed , which is small apartment houses . Mr . Lesser offered that , in his interpretation , that is not at all what was intended under the cluster subdivision regulations , and felt that it very much changes the character of the plan if you have owner occupied rental use . Chairman May commented that he had real difficuly looking at cluster ordinances being for rental , and agreed that the ordinance does not specifically state that the building has to be owner occupied . Chairman May also stated that he had difficulty with the two lots being included with the cluster . Mr . May noted that the two lots should be looked at as a totally separate operation , in terms of the acreage calculations and in terms of the houses not being on a public road . Mr . May felt that the two lots were included in the cluster concept so they did not have to meet the requirements for being on a public road , and personally felt that the two lots were very much divorced and separated from the cluster , adding that the lots were not contiguous areas , but that they just happen to be in the • general vicinity . Planning Board - 15 - December 1 , 1987 • Attorney Mazza wondered what else could be done with that land . Mr . May responded that that should be a separate discussion . Mr . Mazza remarked that there is no public road to the two lots and they are landlocked , adding that this is an avenue by which something can happen there without going through other channels . Mr . May stated that the mechanism for unlandlocking is basically within the applicant ' s means . Mr . Fabbroni wondered about constructing an 800 ' road to these two parcels , and if it would be acceptable to the Town . Mr . May stated that he does not believe that the clustering of these two parcels in order to prevent them from meeting the requirements of being on a public road is the right thing to do . Mr . Fabbroni mentioned the fact that there is a practical difficuly if the Board does not accept these two houses . Susan Beeners asked about the requirements of Section 280 - a of the Town Law , adding that it was her understanding that that still could be waived by the Planning Board in granting a cluster as far as provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations , but the developer still would have to seek a variance of the Section 280 -a requirements . Attorney .Barney commented that he had difficulty calling the two parcels part of the cluster as there is no access . Mr . Klein • commented that if this cluster were approved it becomes one parcel , and there would be a problem with frontage if a unit was sold . Mr . Fabbroni offered that this parcel could be viewed several ways - - as part of a cluster , single parcel , subdivision with ownership of this parcel , and subdivision without ownership of this parcel . Mr . Fabbroni noted that in each of the above cases there is still some practical difficulty of access to said parcel . Mr . Barney stated that he did not think it was a Planning Board function to consider the two units , adding that that is a Zoning Board of Appeals matter . Mr . Barney noted that the developer is requesting two principal buildings on one lot which do not front on a public road . Mr . Lesser stated that the Board ' s interpretation of the cluster regulations is that they were not intended to allow the development of essentially small apartment houses , commenting that the houses were rather intended as alternatives to the physical location of single family homes on development properties . At this point , Chairman May mentioned that it was the Planning Board ' s feeling that the two - unit parcel is not part of the major parcel , and secondly , rental cluster is not a prerogative of the Board . Mr . Fabbroni wondered if the Board would be more receptive if the developer proposed 18 units with a well thought out site plan with individual ownership . All of the Board members concurred that they is would be more receptive to the 18 units . Planning Board - 16 - December 1 , 1987 • Virginia Langhans stated that she visited the site , and in discussing the proposal that each unit had three bedrooms , such that with 30 units there actually would be 90 bedrooms , which would be rental for 90 individual students , and that she felt that this was a tremendous impact on that residential area . Ms . Beeners mentioned meeting zoning criteria for conventional subdivision , and stated that the only possible problem she can see with this is the dimensions of Lot No . 10 and Lot No . 7 . Lot No . 7 is at the northwestern end and is 140 ' and not 150 ' . Lot No . 10 does not have a 150 ' depth . The pie - shaped lots on the former Brown property are fine , but with the square shaped alternative conventional layout for that area [ pointing to map ] the Planning Board should consider the desirability of maybe having that provision to extend access North into the Steenhuis and Baker properties . Mr . Fabbroni responded that the Steenhuis property was 80 ' wide , and if the road was extended it would not be possible to subdivide lots off either side of it to meet zoning requirements , adding that Mr . Baker ' s property was 100 ' wide , but that they were long parcels that are approximately 800 - 900 feet deep . Mr . Lesser , pointing to map , stated that he had a little difficulty with the other end , adding that he did not see how one can gain access to the open space , and secondly , did not know the status of lots No . 5 and 6 . Mr . Fabbroni said that the access to the open • space would be by way of NYSEG access , but could be made available through one of the two lots . Mr . Barney stated that if anything were brought in concerning the NYSEG right - of-way the Planning Board definitely would want to make it an absolute condition that the title would have to be proved in a manner that was acceptable to the Town . Chairman May noted that the open space access is very important . Robert Flumerfelt stated that the visibility is not very good where the proposed road intersects Coddington Road , adding that as you exit on Coddington Road from the proposed development to the left there is a little rise in the road . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he had checked that location and a vehicle can be seen coming from the south 750 ' , remarking that the site distance issue was on the video . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that his first impression was that it was rather poor , visibility -wise , for traffic in that location , as compared to a road opposite Spruce Way . At this point , Attorney Mazza asked what areas , specifically , on the proposed plan need to be altered . Chairman May responded that one item is the access way into the park . Also , the Planning Board has some concerns about the road that can be altered , and certainly lot No . 10 is a questionable lot . Mr . May mentioned set -backs on all the pie - shaped lots and a statement from the Gray ' s to join in with the subdivision request . Susan Beeners stated that she and Robert Flumerfelt viewed the • different alternatives for the road . Ms . Beeners noted that it appeared that having the road location accessing the Klondike Manor property opposite Spruce Way was the preferrable location . Mr . Planning Board - 17 - December 1 , 1987 Fabbroni asked , from a zoning point of view , what could be done with the existing house , with Ms . Beeners suggesting , seeking a variance . Chairman May commented that the sight distance benefits would outweigh the disadvantges of having the road next to the house . Chairman May asked if there were any other comments or questions , There being none , Chairman May declared the matter of the Iacovelli Sketch Plan Review closed at 10 : 00 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17 , 1987 MOTION b ,� Mr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED ,, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of November 17 , 1987 , be and hereby are approved as written , There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye : - Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kennerson , Lesser , Nay : - None . Abstain : - May . The MOTION was carried . RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD IN RE REAPPOINTMENT OF JAMES BAKER ' TO • THE PLANNING BOARD . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that James L . Baker be reappointed as a member of the Planning Board for a five - year term commencing January 1 , 1988 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye : - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay : - None . Abstain . - Baker . The MOTION was declared to be carried . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that Virginia Langhans be appointed to the County Planning Board . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye : - May , Grigorov , Baker , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . • Nay : - None . Abstain : - Langhans . Planning Board - 18 - December 1 , 1987 • The MOTION was declared to be carried . At this time , Chairman May noted that there was a vacancy on the Codes and Ordinance Committee , and asked if anyone on the Planning Board was interested . Board Member Lesser stated that he will consider the appointment and report back to the Planning Board on his decision . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that Carolyn Grigorov be reappointed as Vice Chairman of the Planning Board for the year 1988 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye . - May , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay . - None Abstain : - Grigorov . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . David Klein : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that Montgomery May be reappointed as Chairman of the Planning Board for a term of one year , commencing January 1 , 1988 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye . - Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Klein . Nay : - None . Abstain . - May ., The MOTION was declared to be carried . At this point , Chairman May noted that the Planning Board needed to make a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the vacancy on the Planning Board , Board Member Kenerson stated that he knew of someone who would be interested in serving , and will inform the interested person of the procedure . Chairman May stated that the interested person will have to appear before the Planning Board so that a recommendation could be made to the Town Board , adding that the Board will interview interested persons at the December 15 , 1988 Planning Board meeting . NON -AGENDA ITEM Mr . Richard L . Atkins appeared before the Board and asked for a few minutes of their time . • Mr . Atkins apologized for not being in attendance at the prior meeting ( November 17 , 1987 ) . However , Mr . Atkins stated that his Planning Board - 19 - December 1 , 1987 • Consulting Engineer , Peter Novelli , informed him as to the Board ' s reception regarding the proposal of a neighborhood shopping center located on Troy Road at its intersection with East King Road , Mr . Atkins commented that he has a keen desire to do a lot of building on South Hill , and understood the mechanism that makes up a Board , adding that he appreciated being able to attend tonight ' s meeting , and admired the conduct carried out in the Klondike Sketch Plan Review , Unfortunately ,, Mr . Atkins felt that his Sketch Plan was different because the public had a chance to make comments in his review , and felt that public comment put him at a disadvantage . Mr . Atkins wondered how .far the perimeter extended for persons to be notified of a proposal . Chairman May responded that he believed it was an unofficial rule , but that the staff does notify adjacent property owners within the immediate area , adding that there is not anything in the Zoning Ordinance that states the Board has to notify anyone . Mr . Atkins wondered if he would be permitted to have a copy of the tapes concerning his proposal , which would be the September 1 , 1987 meeting , November 17 , 1987 meeting , and this meeting . Chairman May said that the Planning Board has never had that request before , commenting that there would be no reason for not issuing a copy , except for the cost . Mr . Barney stated that the tapes are not taken so much as a mechanism for providing a public record , but more as an aide to the secretary in preparing the minutes , noting that if Mr . Atkins wanted to pay for the cost of duplicating , the Board would see • to it that copies were made . Mr . Atkins stated that , based upon the influx of development that has taken place on South Hill , and looking at the commercial activity existing , there could be a need for some neighborhood shopping . Mr . Atkins commented that he has plans to build . one of the finest emergency care centers on South Hill and would be back before the Planning Board on this matter . Mr . Atkins remarked that Ithaca College is the largest landowner on South Hill , Chairman May mentioned to Mr . Atkins that before going too far on the medical center that it might be a good idea to check the current covenants with the Tompkins Community Hospital , Mr . Atkins responded that he had talked with Bonnie Howell , Tompkins Community Hospital Administrator , and she stated that the Hospital would like a joint venture with him . Mr . Atkins remarked that he plans on appealing his proposal and inquired about the procedure . Ms . Beeners stated that she understood that she would be taking a report of the Planning Board Adopted Resolution ( which basically denies the plan as presented ) to the Town Board for review . The Town Board is the Lead Agency in the Environmental Review and Ms . Beeners would be recommending to the Board that more information be supplied as far as mitigation of some of the impacts that were identified at the Hearing and the documentation of need , etc . , which is in the Environmental Review of the shopping center . • Mr . Lesser stated that he felt it was unfortunate Mr . Atkins left the meeting feeling that he had been unfairly dealt with compared to Planning Board - 20 - December 1 , 1987 • the Klondike Sketch Plan , Mr . Barney commented that Mr . Atkins ' proposal was not presented as a Sketch Plan as it was advertised as a Public Hearing . Mr . Atkins concurred that he did request Ms . Beener ' s to advertise the meeting as a Public Hearing , Mr . Atkins wondered , in the Planning Board decision to deny , prior to making a report to the Town Board , if there were options that he could still come in for reconsideration of the denial . Mr . Atkins commented that: he is concerned with the findings of the Planning Board Adopted Resolution of November 17 , 1987 , which are as follows : 1 . There has not been a demonstrated need for the proposed rezoning , and 2 . The rezoning , as proposed and at the scale proposed , would constitute a drastic alteration in the character of the neighborhood , and 3 . The proposal for commercial development in this particular area is not in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Atkins stated that he would like to review the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Ithaca , adding that he had never been informed that there was something he could not mitigate on subject property . • Mr . Lesser stated that the Town of Ithaca Planner , Susan Beeners , stated her professional opinion and it is her responsibility to present the best proposal to the Board , and the Board , in its judgment , and its interpretation of these responsibilities and rights under these acts , ( as was stated unanimously at the prior meeting ( 11 / 17 / 87 ) did not feel that that was appropriate , adding that Ms . Beeners judgment in working with Mr . Atkins did not in any way commit the Board to a decision on that proposal . Mr . Atkins offered that he did not see anything in the Environmental Review that would preclude eventually having that land rezoned . Mr . Barney noted that rezoning is a discretionary act , and no one has a right to have property rezoned , indeed , the burden of securing rezoning rests with the applicant to establish that the Town should rezone , and if not , the Boards that deal with it are not convinced of the validity and reasonableness of the rezoning , or the desirability of the rezoning . At this time , Mr . Barney suggested that Mr . Atkins talk with a lawyer , as this is an area where the Town does not want to be rendering legal opinions . Mr . Barney noted that the process continues to the Town Board and they will take into account the recommendation from the Planning Board ., Mr . Barney also noted that the applicant has the right , if he so chooses , to go to court right now in what is called an Article 78 proceding and state that the Planning Board acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in making its decision not to recommend . Mr . May stated that one of the things Mr . Atkins has the option of doing is withdrawing this proposal , and not taking it to the • Town Board . Chairman May stated that , at that point , Mr . Atkins could come back before the Planning Board with a revised plan . Mr . Atkins commented that , based on Mr . Novelli ' s information , he would have Planning Board - 21 - December 1 , 1987 • withdrawn if he had been able to be in attendance at the November 17 , 1987 meeting . At this time , Mr . Atkins stated that he would like to come back before the Planning Board as early as possible . Mr . Barney remarked that at this juncture Mr . Atkins could advise the Town through Ms . Beeners that he would choose not to have the proposal presented to the Town Board , and wished to come back to the Planning Board with a modified proposal . Mr . Atkins thanked the Board for their time , and stated that he was withdrawing proceeding to the Town Board to give him the opportunity to revamp the plans and come back with a site plan on the same land . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the December 1 , 1987 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 30 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , • Town of Ithaca Planning Board . • i LS IS & ion 37 . . Form of Final Plat . Fro 1 . A final plat with - the • following : information . must be filed in the Office of the Town Engineer at least ten ( 10 ) days prior to the 7 Planning Board meeting at which final approval is requested . Four ,dark- Line .prints of the proposed plat . - ` (c' Fully completed Environmental Assessment Forms , with comments ' from the Town I Engineer or Town Plannerindicating whether the • nn•, proposed subdivision is a Type 1 , Type II , or Unlisted action and ' z .. indicating a recommendation for negative or positive declaration of environmental impacts . Highway and alley boundary or right -of-way lines , showing boun- ; ' dary , right-of-way or easement width and any other information needed for locating such lines ; purposes of easements . Highway center lines , showing apgles of deflection , angles ofintersection , radii ; lengths of tangents and arcs , and degree of curvature , with basis' of curve data . Lengths and distances shall be to the nearest one hundredth foot . Angles shall be to the nearest half minute . Highway names . Key map , when more than one sheet is required to present plat . d Accurate . l cation's - and descriptions of all subdivision monuments . Showa I e')CISi q WOO . � � 1 I P,% Pos�d Accurate .outli es . and descriptions of any areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use or acquisition , with the purposes' indicated thereon ; any areas to be reserved by deed covenant for IY . : : common uses of all property owners in the subdivision , V Border lines bounding the sheet , one inch from the left edge and • one half Iinch from each of the other edges ; all information , including all plat lines , lettering , signatures , and seals , shall be within the border lines . � ) Building setback lines with dimensions . F'dw+ LlA1KG( S-e � C �j rc ✓ Date of : Plat . GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ✓Exact boundary lines of the tract , indicated by a heavy . line , giving dimensions tothe nearest one hundredth foot , angles to .. . . : V the nearest one-half minute , and at least . one : bearing ; the . V V traverse shall be balanced and closed with an error of closure . not to exceed one to two thousand ; the type of closure shall be Q noted_. . V Location and description of all section line corners and govern- ment survey monuments in or near the subdivision , to u t least one of which the subdivision shall be referenced by true courses and distances , e avc. 5�awh aveWJOI - �YZYeO� pray blab . �� A y: 1ItI djh.riA' EXHIBIT 1 Locations, , name and dimensions of each existing highway and :. , alley and each utility , drainage , or similar easement within , abutting , or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed subdivision . Location of - the property by legal description , including ureas in acres or square feet . Source of title , including deed record book and page numbers . Name and address of al 1 owners of the property and name and ��'-„ :<xr` . , ;? :,:. tri •” .. address of all persons who have an interest in the property , such as easements or rights -of-way . Lot liness fully dimensioned with lengths to. the nearest one -hundredth foot and angles or bearings to the nearest z: :jy ,,r„s; ;: on f minute . ;; 7 ii Map Scale ( 1 ”=50 ' or 1 "= 1001 ) and north point . CG bLt,,? O Mortgagor ' s certificate : certificate signed and sealed by the mortgagor ( s ) , if any , to the effect that he consents to the plat and the dedications and restfictions shown on or referred " to on the plat . Name of subdivision , which shall not duplicate the name of any other subdivision in the county . s ✓. Name of Town , county , and state . Name ( s ) and address (es ) of the owner ( s ) , � Name ( s ) and address ( es ) of the subdivider ( s ) , if the subdi - ) ' vider ( s ) is ( are ) not the owner ( s ) . j ✓ Name and seal of the registered land surveyor or engineer h i Who prepared the topographic information . Date of survey . z � ✓ Name and seal of registered land surveyor who made the • j . boundary survey . Date of the survey . . . Names and addresses of owners of all parcels abutting the ) proposed subdivision . ✓ Names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdi • i •: r,y vision . Owner ' s certificate : a certificate signed by the owner ( s ) to ' ✓ the effect the he ( they ) owns the land , that he has caused •'4j) vis t ;y - the land to be surveyed and divided , and that he makes the ' dedications indicated on the plat . r� �� �� r25o ) ufio-k )Certification signed by the chairman or other designated / official or agent of the Planning Board to the effect that the plat was given preliminary approval by _ :the Planning Board . •: . Reference on the plat to any separate instruments , including restrictive covenants , which directly affect the land in the subdivision . , . T6whY -fJVl � ✓Q COYiSIG�•,�i SO c Y3rCl + i''Jjafw� T ��� jf411 Hie v - - t1 �1 VE rA R T2s 9k , s _� f} - . .. 'r".� r . t �u j� r•1�l s 't ` - • 1l• u 1 - �,y�,' . , . , .. ._ _'w. Ur 'a�.`fr`�`r , 11 of r kt t4 ,4 :RRrSFAD lifiYz35.aTP'tn. 1�1 .�'• 5 `e+ • t �. — . . r. . �9 _ , Vr .. y , ftr : r i '. 4d, dd a -Vrrq ;t .' ��- Surveyor ' s • . oertificata ' certificate ; signed k and sealed byd a registered land surveyor to the effect that ( 1 ) the plat repro• sents . a survey made by 'him , ( 2 ) the plat is• a correct represents - .' tion of all exterior . boundaries of the land surveyed and the ^� subdivision of it , ( 3 ) all monuments indicated on the plat actually exist . and their location , , size and material are cor- rectly , shown , . and (4 ) the requirements of these regulations and w New York State laws relating ..to - subdividing and surveying have . been complied withe . . Tax and assessment : certificate : a . . certif.icate ` signed by the county treasurer and other . officials as may be appropriate , to the effect that there are '. no : unpaid •taxes - due on the land being subdivided and payable at the time. of plat approval and no unpaid special assessments , : and. that all outstanding taxes and ,special v'r assessments have been paid on all property dedicated to public h 4 _ � . use . The blocks are numbered consecutively throughout the subdivision and the lots are numbered consecutively throughout each block . . , The original or myl'ar copy of the• plat to be recorded and four dark - line prints, on one or more sheets . Sud rvi�t- a.-F'•}e�,r All P iA'9 () Two copies of the County Health Department approval of the water supp'ly and/or sewerage system . t/ V cinity Map , showing the general location of .the property , 1 "=1000 ' :or 1 "=2000 ' . . ' ���wn otn 5VC&Vt Z ) h •a Width at building line of lots located on a curve or having non - parallel side lines , when required bye the Planning Board , a r. .tLhyT x S 1, • l 1 . 3 t . . . . 29 iV. L . y,I?i All.[ry,,ip�1,} dr f W I ) 1,41 a VV k i l '" µ= : Sectian 38 ' " Improvement Plans and Relatid InformationIt . ! ' Where improvements are required for a proposed . subdivision , the { following documents shall be submitted to the Planning Boards }: -: Detailed construction plans and specifications ,. for .water lines , including locations and descriptions of mains , valves , hydrants , appurtenances , etc . "s�Y 'r„4s�,✓I ;; Detailed construction plana , . profiles , and ' specifications for - sanitary sewers and stone drainage facilities ; including locations and descriptions of pipes , manholes . . : lift sta - - `"` tions , and other faci l i ties. Highway paving plans and specifications . r , • J4 131C .1r a f jj jr The estimated cost of a , a ) grading and filling , O b ) culverts , swales and other .storm drainage facilities , c ) sanitary sewers , p d ) water lines , valves , and fire hydrants , p e ) paving , curbs , gutters , and sidewalks, r -oil f ) any other improvements required by these regulations . The plan and profile of each proposed highway in the subdi - vision , with - grade indicated , drawn to a scale of one inch equals 50 feet thorizontals and one inch equals 5•w feet n : vertical , on standard plan and profile sheets . Profiles shall show accurately the profile of the highway or alley along the highway center line and location of the sidewalks , if any , - q v �� fAA �r Y 4 Tom.„ ti 14 I i 30. �,i`•-'?i"p1"� A ttr1(it lid. l ifa �p• r +'fid �S`= r: 4 d4 J'N>.i�r r. � , ,J�• (r-yri x� $ i{V� S . [ i.bW •.n�4fd • ^ ",'!w� "' i�.c> + „ . . • ' n J >, • � {S7 rNtl�r OR, j '_ • I S ..,yAi• r r. L ��Nyx�-fS1 .+ �• s , , ' ..i :in`'V T'IM•.> a a F:all =ate i�.7 :•1 Sc b \ �• . . $ 1 5�S �. , • � Q 27�d"f'�•dT:. . pl” t t( � I [ it : <�Si� � Tn {` y,� , • s3' � y . :r.4� 5 I ' ♦ - } `r.:i L by t( `