Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1988-03-01 { FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date'° TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk2yd � MARCH 1 , 1988 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , March 1 , 1988 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . r PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia Langhans , Robert Miller , Robert Kenerson , William Lesser , David Klein , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Robert R . Flumerfelt ( Town Engineer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Andrew S . Frost ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) ALSO PRESENT : Jerry Weisburd , Irving Lazar , Jules Marquart , Andrew McElwee , Robert Greenwood , Doris Greenwood , Bob Allan , . Joan Egner , Pamela Kingsbury , Anton Egner , T . A . Ryan , James Orcutt , Minnie Orcutt , Lyle Neigh , Gary Moravec , Edward M . Olmstead Jr . , Sean Killeen , Pat and Savino Ferrara , William J . Gray , Robert Bartholf , Larry Hoffman , Thomas Salm , Richard Mulvey , Edna Clausen . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and • Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 22 , 1988 , and February 25 , 1988 , respectively , together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon the Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , upon the Tompkins County Administrator , and upon the applicants and / or Agent , as appropriate , on February 24 , 1988 . FIRE SAFETY NOTIFICATION Chairman May read aloud the Fire Safety and Exit Notification Regulations as required . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSFER OF 0 . 05 ± ACRES FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 66 - 4 - 22 , 2 . 8 ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED AT 145 FOREST HOME DRIVE , TO TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 66 - 4 - 23 , 0 . 37 ± ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED AT 131 JUDD FALLS ROAD , IRVING LAZAR , OWNER OF PARCEL NO , 6 - 66 - 4 - 22 ; ANDREW W . & BARBARA C . MCELWEE , OWNERS OF PARCEL NO . 6 - 66 - 4 - 23 . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of • Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . r' Planning Board - 2 - March 1 , 1988 Mr . McElwee addressed the Board and stated that the Lazar property line is within six inches of a garage on the McElwee property . Mr . McElwee stated that he would be adding 33 feet to his property on the east , which is the . 05 acres . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone who wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 32 p . m . and asked for questions or comments from the Board . There appearing to be no comments , Chairman May asked if anyone cared to make a motion . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed transfer of 0 . 05 ± acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 60 - 66 - 4 - 22 , 2 . 8 acres total , located at 145 Forest Home Drive , to Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 66 - 4 - 23 , 0 . 37 ± acres total , located at 131 Judd Falls Road , 2 . This is a Type II Action for which no further environmental review is required . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on March 1 , 1988 , has reviewed a map entitled , " Survey Map Showing Lands of Anson Wright Gibson Estate , Located in Forest Home , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York " , dated April 28 , 1977 , amended to show parcel to be conveyed to McElwee , February 11 , 1988 , by T . G . Miller , P . C . , Engineers and Surveyors . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board , finding that the aforementioned survey map is adequate for consideration of the proposed subdivision , waive and hereby does waive certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval , having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town. Board . 2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as herein proposed . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Miller , Klein , Lesser , Kenerson . Nay - None . • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously , i Planning Board - 3 - March 1 , 1988 . Chairman May declared the matter of the Lazer /McElwee property transfer duly closed at 7 : 35 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2 , 1988 MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by Virginia Langhans : RESOLVED , the the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of February 2 , 1988 , be and hereby are approved with the following corrections . 1 . That , on Page 1 , Paragraph 1 , February 2 , 1987 should be changed to read February 2 , 1988 , and 2 . That , on Page 4 , of Paragraph 7 , ( " David Klein wondered . . . agreement with Mr . Gray " ) , be deleted and the verbatim transcript attached hereto as Exhibit 1 be inserted on Page 6 after the SEQR Motion and before the approval Motion made by Mr . May ( between lines 15 and 16 ) . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Miller , Kenerson , Klein , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16 1988 MOTION by William Lesser , seconded by Robert Kenerson : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of February 16 , 1988 , be and hereby are approved as presented . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Miller , Kenerson , Klein , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF. A REQUEST BY THE EASTWOOD COMMONS RESIDENTS ' ASSOCIATION THAT CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WALKWAY IN EASTWOOD COMMONS , AS SET FORTH IN THE FEBRUARY 26 , 1973 , TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE EASTWOOD COMMONS MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT , AND AS AMENDED BY THE TOWN BOARD ON FEBRUARY 9 , 1987 , BE RESCINDED , AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF THE PROVISION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS TO THE ORCUTT PROPERTY , Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of • Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . c Planning Board - 4 - March 1 - , 1988 • Attorney Richard Mulvey was present and stated that he was representing the Eastwood Commons Residents ' Association . Attorney Mulvey offered that , basically , the problem was that a blacktop path was constructed from the driveway of: Lot No . 19 over to the recreation area , and added that this was unknown to the three occupants of that particular lot . Attorney Mulvey stated that this has created a traffic situation which is not appreciated , commenting that the situation has been looked into , and there appears to be no authority for the path to have been constructed . Attorney Mulvey stated that Mr . Schickel constructed the path in compliance with the Local Law dated February 1987 . Attorney Mulvey noted that in 1973 the Town Board passed a resolution that required. Mr . Schickel to construct , at his expense , a sidewalk and bicycle path from the rezoned area to Woodcrest Avenue , noting that -the path was never constructed . Attorney Mulvey stated that the Planning Board , on February 17 , 1987 instructed that a path be completed between Eastwood Commons and the East Ithaca Recreation Way , noting that no specific location was specified , and commenting that , at that point , the land had been deeded to the Eastwood Commons Residents ' Association , and adding that this would require a 2 / 3 vote of the Association , as the owner of the property , to erect a path . Attorney Mulvey was directed by the Association to state that that part of the resolution should be rescinded on the following grounds : 1 . Mr . Schickel is not in a position to locate a path in that particular area because he does not own the land , and it was constructed without the 2 / 3 vote of the Association . Chairman May , noting that this was a Public Hearing , asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak . James Orcutt of 324 Dryden Road spoke from the floor and stated that he is the son of Minnie Orcutt who owns the property where Mr . Schickel wants to put the path , adding , Mr . Schickel , historically , has always done pretty much what he wanted to do . Mr . Orcutt stated that he was informed recently that the right of way , which used to be 50 feet , and which would have connected Strawberry Hill Road with Woodcrest Avenue , was eliminated , because Mr . Schickel erected a building there . Mr . Orcutt commented that he understood Mrs . Orcutt ' s property is now virtually landlocked , unless a bridge is built across a little creek on Woodcrest Avenue over to her property , which abuts the Eastwood Commons land . Mr . Orcutt felt that a mutual compromise is needed , whereby Mrs . Orcutt can have access to her property from Strawberry Hill Road , and the Eastwood Commons residents can have access to the walkway up above . Mr . Orcutt produced a copy of a map dated February 10 , 1969 , completed by T . G . Miller Surveyors and Engineers , which shows where the reserved right of way was at one time , and also shows a proposed road , which is directly in line with what is now Strawberry Hill Road . Mr . Orcutt noted that Unit No . 20 occupies 25 feet of the right of way . Mr . Orcutt stated that Mrs . • Orcutt wants access to her property between the areas of Lots 19 and 20 . Planning Board - 5 - March 1 , 1988 Mrs . Egner of 205 Elmwood Avenue spoke from the floor and stated that she is a member of the Residents ' Association . Mrs . Egner asked for clarification regarding the rescinding of the pathway requirement . Mrs . Egner wondered if the Town Board was considering , at this time , to rescind the requirement of the pathway . Ms . Beeners said that in the original 1973 zoning amendment that established the district , and also the changes that were made at Public Hearing earlier , the intention has always been that there be adequate pedestrian connection to Eastwood Commons from other points north , e . g . , Cornell . Ms . Beeners commented that there really does not appear to be any other place except for that northeast corner to have a good connection that would serve the residents of Eastwood Commons . Ms . Beeners stated that the general northeast location is the most suitable one , and it was her opinion that that has a convenient pedestrian connection . Ms . Beeners stated that , at this time , it was her recommendation that there not be any recommendation to the Town Board that it be rescinded . Bob Allan of 19 - D Strawberry Hill Road spoke from the floor and stated that he wanted to make it quite clear that the discussion is on two rights of way . Mr . Allan noted that there is a pathway , supposedly giving the Residents ' Association access to the Town ' s bikeway , and also discussing a 15 - foot right of -way off the public road [ Strawberry Hill Road ] , which would cut across residents property again , to give Mrs . Orcutt access to her property , which is right in that corner .. Mr . Allan remarked that he had seen a letter from Mr . Schickel regarding the original right of way , noting that Mr . Schickel , subsequently , asked the Planning Board that it be rescinded . Mr . Orcutt responded that he thought the right of way that was requested to be rescinded was the one that goes through Bldg . No . 20 , which is the 50 - foot right of way , not the 15 - foot right of way . Chairman May stated that the Planning Board is not able to rescind , as this is a Town Board action , and the only thing that can come from the Planning Board is a recommendation to the Town Board . Chairman May noted that it does further seem that the intent of the Resolution is obvious , and the Eastwood Commons Residents ' Association could get together and come up with a mutually agreeable package . Bob Allan stated that the southern piece of property is actually owned by Norbert Schickel . Ms . Beeners responded that that solution does not seem to serve the residents of Eastwood Commons . Ms . Egner commented that one of the problems is the non- Eastwood Commons Residents ' use of this pathway , noting that it is a convenient walkway for people . Ms . Egner stated that the Eastwood Commons Board is very fearful of some dire consequences with the pedestrian traffic that is generated . David Klein wondered if the driveway for Lot No . 20 was basically the 50 - foot right of way , with Mrs . Orcutt answering , yes , it went over to Woodcrest Avenue . • William Lesser inquired about relocating the path along the fence . Ms . Beeners answered that her main concern was that it did not Planning Board - 6 - March 1 , 1988 seem to do much good for the Eastwood Commons development to locate the path along the southerly end , but noted that it does offer a second means for the Grandview residents to get to their development ., Ms . Beeners commented that it seemed somewhat redundant for public use to have that path there , as well as not being useful for residents at Eastwood Commons . There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion . MOTION by William Lesser , seconded by Virginia. Langhans : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the Public Hearing in the matter of the consideration of a request by the Eastwood Commons Residents ' Association that conditions related to the development of a walkway in Eastwood Commons , be and hereby is adjourned until Tuesday , March 15 , 1988 at 7 : 30 p . m . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Miller , Kenerson , Klein , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the Eastwood Commons Residents ' Association request duly adjourned at 8 : 13 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRE STATION PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 ON APPROXIMATELY ONE AND ONE - HALF ACRES OF LAND ON DANBY ROAD CURRENTLY OWNED BY ITHACA COLLEGE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 . APPLICANT : JOINT CITY OF ITHACA / TOWN OF ITHACA NEW FIRE STATIONS SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE , ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ITHACA BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS , COMMON COUNCIL , AND THE TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD , AGENT : PAMELA KINGSBURY , ANTON EGNER ASSOCIATES . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 15 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Egner approached the Board and appended a map to the bulletin board . Mr . Egner stated that the site for the Fire Station on South Hill has been donated by Ithaca College , Mr . Egner noted that the application has been been to the DOT for light control , adding that there would be a parking lot for about 22 cars . Mr . Egner [ indicating on map ] said that sewer and water lines would have to be removed from " this " area , 4ecause that is where the building is proposed to be • located . Mr . Egner offered that it was yet to be determined where the gas line comes from and where it goes to , but noted that the line is in place . Mr . Egner stated that the new storm sewer would go along Planning Board - 7 - March 1 , 1988 Danby . . Road , so that the grade will come directly to the road apron . Mr . Egner remarked that the building would house 16 bunkers , four vehicles in the apparatus bay , and the necessary supplementary kind of facilities that are needed , including a meeting room for about 20 people . Board Member William Lesser wondered if the lights were going to be used permanently , or would they only be used in an emergency . Mr . Egner responded that the lights would come on when the fire alarm is activated . Fire Chief Olmstead stated that the DOT requirement on the lights is that they have to have some sort of phasing , so that there is not an abrupt red . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone present wished to comment . Pat Ferrara of 979 Danby Road spoke from the floor and asked where the lights would be located on Danby Road . Chairman May answered that the lights would be located adjacent to the entrance and exit to the new Fire Station , which would be approximately 1000 feet up the hill , from the existing Ithaca College entrance . There appearing to be no further questions or comments from the public , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 24 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion . SDavid Klein noted that the elevations date back to July 1987 , and wondered if anything had changed . Mr . Egner responded that the elevations have not changed at all . Mr . Klein inquired about the plans for landscaping , with Mr . Egner responding , wherever we can find donations . Chief Olmstead stated that that was one of the issues that was a partial casualty that the Town requested in the budget , adding that originally the site development was $ 230 , 000 . 00 . Chief Olmstead said that there has been one person who has offered to donate some White Pine for the South Hill site . Mr . Thomas Salm , Vice President of Ithaca College , stated that a discussion has been held on some joint efforts on landscaping that area , adding that the Town , City , and Ithaca College have been working together on a plan . David Klein stated that when developers come before the Board for site plan approval , the Board is fairly adamant about having an adequate landscape plan , and noted that he felt the Town should be consistent . Mr . Egner responded that if the Town would direct the Site Selection Committee to put it back in the budget , then the Committee would be delighted to proceed with a landscape plan . There being nod further discussion from the Board , Chairman May asked if anyone cared to make a motion . • MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded . by Mr . Robert Kenerson : Planning Board - 8 - March 1 , 1988 • WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Final Site Plan Approval , with respect to the proposed construction of a Fire Station , proposed to be located in a Residence District R- 15 on approximately one and one - half acres of land on Danby Road currently owned by Ithaca College , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 . 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , made a negative determination of environmental significance on May 5 , 1987 , and further on that date , granted Special Approval for the proposed facility , subject to final site plan approval by the Planning Board , 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on March 1 , 1988 , has reviewed the site plan and schematic floor plan for the proposed facility . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Site Plan Approval for the Fire Station as proposed , with the final site working drawings to be subject to approval by the Town Engineer , and with the final landscape plan to be subject to approval by the Town • Planner . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Miller , Klein , Lesser , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the South Hill Fire Station duly closed at 8 : 30 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRE STATION PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 ON ONE -AND - ONE - HALF ACRES OF LAND ON TRUMANSBURG ROAD CURRENTLY OWNED BY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ( FORMER ODD FELLOWS FARM ) , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 24 - 4 - 5 . 2 . APPLICANT : JOINT CITY OF ITHACA / TOWN OF ITHACA NEW FIRE STATIONS SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE , ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ITHACA BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS , COMMON COUNCIL , AND THE TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD , AGENT : PAMELA KINGSBURY , ANTON EGNER ASSOCIATES . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 32 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . • Mr . Egner appended maps of the West Hill Fire Station to the bulletin board . Planning Board - 9 - March 1 , 1988 • Mr . Egner addressed the Board and stated that the site is about a 12 % uphill slope from Trumansburg Road . Indicating on the map , Mr . Egner noted that the Odd Fellows Farm is " here " . Mr . Egner remarked that there is a house located just south of the site . Mr . Egner pointed out the existing Cornell property line , and noted that there was a proposed property line at " this " location , with " this " being the proposed future Town road . Mr . Egner said that there is a 60 - foot right - of -way " here " . Mr . Egner stated that the building was oriented with the apparatus bay into the hill and the dormitory bunker spaces " here " . Mr . Egner noted that the drive - in area is also a drive - out area . Chairman May asked about traffic lights . Mr . Egner responded that traffic lights would be erected . Virginia Langhans wondered about the percentage of the grade up " these " roads . Mr . Egner [ indicating on map ] answered that " these " roads are a little less than the other side , noting that the road is 3 % down , and at the end connection there is 3 % , adding that it is about 5 - 7 % at " this " end . William Lesser wondered about the actual size of the property for the Fire Station , Mr . Egner responded that it was one and one -half acres . Mr . Lesser asked how much would be occupied as developed , and what would be the use of the remaining portion . Mr . Egner [ pointing to map ] responded that the amount which would be occupied by the Fire Station would be just about to the end of the grading line " here " . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were any questions or comments from the public . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 34 p . m . and turned the matter over for Board discussion . Robert Kenerson wondered , for the record , about the landscaping plans for the project . Mr . Egner answered that the landscaping plans would be similar to the South Hill site . William Lesser . asked about the future Town. Road , and future development of the land . Chief Olmstead responded that the function of the lights would be to stop the upstream and downstream traffic for egress from the site . Chief Olmstead said that the development of a subdivision would not be a through road for the Town , and in that respect , there would be much less traffic than at any of the existing stations in the City . Chief Olmstead noted that , because of its proximity to " that " intersection , there would not be any speed associated with those vehicles , either coming on or going off that road . There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : • WHEREAS : Planning Board - 10 - March 1 , 1988 • 1 . This action is the consideration of Final Site Plan Approval with respect to the proposed construction of a Fire Station , proposed to be located in a Residence District R - 15 on approximately one and one - half acres of land on Trumansburg Road currently owned by Cornell University , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel :No . 6 - 24 - 4 - 5 . 2 . 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , made a negative determination of environmental significance on May 5 , 1987 , and further on that date , granted Special Approval for the proposed facility , subject to final site plan approval by the Planning Board , 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on March 1 , 1988 , has reviewed the site plan and schematic floor plan for the proposed facility . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Site Plan Approval for the Fire Station as proposed , with the final site working drawings to be subject to approval by the Town Engineer , and with the final landscape plan to be subject to approval by the Town Planner . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Miller , Klein , Lesser , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the West Hill Fire Station duly closed at 8 : 36 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION 710 THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL OF A DORMITORY USE FOR A PROPOSED NEW RESIDENTIAL HALL , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 ON THE ITHACA COLLEGE CAMPUS , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 41 - 1 - 24 . ITHACA COLLEGE , PROPERTY OWNER ; ROBERT JOHN O ' BRIEN , H . O . L . T . ARCHITECTS , AGENT , Mr . Lawrence Hoffman appeared before the Board in Mr . O ' Brien ' s absence . Mr . Hoffman addressed the Board and appended maps to the bulletin board . Mr . Hoffman stated that , basically , the new dormitory is being built on an area that is either fill or scrub growth . Mr . Hoffman offered that the plan for the building was to have two wings , three • stories each , with 282 beds . Mr . Hoffman said that the rooms are for double occupancy . Mr . Hoffman noted that , in addition to the student rooms , there is a resident advisor living area , lounges , office and Planning Board - 11 - March 1 , 1988 support spaces . Mr . Hoffman stated that the College is asking for up to 306 beds , commenting that , with increased enrollment , this would give the College an additional six rooms . Mr . Hoffman commented that the proposed building view looks out over the valley and the lake . Mr . Hoffman stated that the center building is where the support facilities are located . Mr . Hoffman commented that there is a bridgelike structure that leads into the middle level of the building . Mr . Hoffman offered that the 38 - foot height of the proposed Residence Hall would exceed the 30 - foot minimum height permitted in an R- 15 zone . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak to this issue . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 45 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board . William Lesser wondered about the height of the building , excluding the stairway , with Mr . Hoffman answering , it is 30 feet . Mr . Hoffman offered that there are three places -that exceed the 30 feet - one stair tower in each wing , and on the top floor of the building there is a large lounge with an additional structure on the roof to enable more light to come in . Chairman May wondered about the height of the additional structure , with Mr . Hoffman answering , it is eight feet . ® David Klein wondered if the additional beds were coupled with the growth of the College . Mr . Thomas R . Salm , Vice President of Business Affairs , responded that it was really a combination of two things - to reduce the density , and to keep the students on campus . Mr . Klein inquired about the total student population , with Mr . Salm answering , there are roughly 5 , 500 students , 3700 Ithaca College beds , and the College leases another 200 beds . Mr . Salm stated that Ithaca College is advertised as the largest private residential institution in the State of New York . Mr . Klein stated that he had asked about growth of the College because of the impact that students would have on residential neighborhoods . Mr . Klein felt that it was very commendable for the College to increase its living quarters for the students , as it might take some of the pressures off the residential neighbors . William Lesser wondered if the expansion plans have been made known to the development community , because the Planning Board has had quite a bit of development interest for student rentals . Mr . Salm responded with , yes and no , the College has not done it in any formal sort of way , but the proposed project had been published in the Ithaca Journal back in September 1987 , Robert Kenerson wondered if all the energy efficient precautions had been taken , with Mr . Hoffman answering , absolutely , and adding that the building would be air conditioned . Mr . Kenerson inquired as to the landscape plan . Mr . Salm answered that the College does a good • job in landscaping their buildings . Planning Board - 12 - March 1 , 1988 • Attorney Barney commented that the building is air conditioned , but wondered if the windows opened , with Mr . Hoffman answering , yes , the windows will open . At this point , Chairman May stated that the subject proposal involves a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , and that that Board is the Lead Agency in the Environmental :Review . There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion . MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval of a Dormitory Use for a proposed new Residential Hall , proposed to be located in a Residence District R- 15 , on the Ithaca College Campus , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 41 - 1 - 24 . , 2 . This is a Type I action for which the Zoning Board of Appeals has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . The Tompkins County Planning Department , the Tompkins County Health Department , and the New York State Dormitory Authority are potentially - involved agencies which are being notified of this action . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on March. 1 , 1988 , has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form , and the plans and other documents submitted as part of the application . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for the proposed facility , provided that additional information be provided on drainage management , subject to approval by the Town Engineer , 2 . That the Planning Board determine and hereby does determine that : 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 ; ce the proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . • 3 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for Special Approval be granted . Planning Board - 13 - March 1 , 1988 • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Miller , Klein , Lesser , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the new Residential Hall on the Ithaca College Campus duly closed at 8 : 55 p . m . AGENDA ITEM : CONSIDERATION OF A REPORT TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THE LOCATION FOR THE COMMONLAND SERVICE ROAD , Chairman May opened the discussion on the above - noted item at 8 : 58 p . m . Chairman May stated that he had recently walked the site , and added that he has all the information that was discussed over a number of years . Chairman May offered that now it is time to make a decision on the location of the road . Attorney Barney noted that the last time the matter was discussed , there was an issue as to the legality of the title that could be obtained across the Marion parcel , and a meeting was scheduled with the Weisburds and their Attorney . Attorney Barney stated that before the meeting was held , there was a fair amount of • internal discussion within the Town , adding that the Staff , the Supervisor , and the Chairman of the Planning Board , discussed the subject , and concluded that it probably would be better to go over the Clausen parcel . Attorney Barney stated that there never was a meeting in which he was going to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the title was perfectly adequate on the Marion piece , Chairman May wondered if , at this point , Attorney Barney had any problem with the Clausen right - of -way . Attorney Barney responded , legally , no , it is slightly narrower than what is required , but it is adequate for a one -way entrance way for emergency vehicles . Chairman May stated that he had viewed the two access roads , and noted that he was truly amazed at how much slope there was , at least a 25 - foot drop , off the Marion property , which is Alternate Be Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , stated that one of the main considerations was the sewer that exists down near the bottom , noting that , if nothing is done with that , then one is faced with almost a 20 % gradient right at the bottom of that proposed road through the sewer , adding , if the sewer is lowered , then with a standard type of exit area from the main road up above there would be about a 131 % maximum slope . Mr . Flumerfelt offered that if an exit was designed off Route 79 , such as was originally designed for the access road at the Clausen location , there would be about a 111 % slope , which Mr . Flumerfelt noted was not too bad , but there is still a pretty steep slope at the • bottom of that access road , as one would be coming into a " T " intersection with Penny Lane , commenting that that is where the Clausen location has a little advantage . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that Planning Board - 14 - March 1 , 1988 • if the road was built without lowering the sewer , a fairly good exit should be designed off Route 79 , because there is a steep slope at the bottom anyway . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that from an engineering standpoint , the Clausen location was far preferable . David Klein inquired about an engineering drawing on the Clausen parcel that would show the exact location for the drive , and also the landscaping . Susan Beeners , Town Planner , responded that there is a design of the road , as indicated on the map that is before the Planning Board , adding that that design was approved by the DOT . Mrs . Clausen wondered if a second access road was absolutely necessary , with Chairman May responding that it was the feeling of the Board that a second access was necessary . Mrs . Clausen wondered what determined the decision concerning the grade of the City right - of -way . Chairman May answered that it was measured . Chairman May stated that there was no question that there was a 25 - foot rise on the Marion property . David Klein noted that there would be a 12 - foot drive on the Clausen location . Mr . Weisburd [ pointing to map ] suggested that the Town acquire the deed to strips one and two , and should the land immediately to the west be developed , then that would be a very logical place to extend Penny Lane , and perhaps , at that point , abandon the road through the Clausen parcel . Chairman May wondered about strips one and two . Mr . • Weisburd answered that he owned strip number two over to the adjacent property , and that is a 50 - foot right - of -way . William Lesser commented that if the access road goes through the Clausen property that that also be reserved for pedestrian right - of-way . Mr . Lesser stated that he understood that that sounds appealing , but it might have a substantial impact on the Clausens , adding that , it is one thing if there is an occasional service for an emergency vehicle , but if there is a regular stream of foot traffic , bicycle traffic , and skateboards , etc . , then it seems that is a totally different use . Mr . Lesser offered that he understood the benefit to individuals to use it , but would be hesitant to recommend it for that use , in recognition of privacy . Ms . Beeners stated that there was a problem in providing any type of recreational way or trail system . Ms . Beeners offered that the Grandview Park is across the street , which has a 20 - foot right -of - way from the first street above the park , and there is the possibility to exit out onto Slaterville Road , and cross it roughly [ indicating on map ] in " this " location , down to the roads of Commonland , commenting that the alternate is to forget about Grandview Park entirely , come down Honness Lane bikeway , and go over on the interior streets of the Grandview development , down Terraceview Drive to Slaterville Road , cross there onto the City right - of -way , and then down into the Six Mile Creek Area . Ms . Beeners stated that in discussions with the Six Mile Creek Committee , they recommended that public use of the Six Mile Creek area not be extended too far easterly , and that the City right - of -way was almost too far easterly , as far as a connection was concerned . Ms . Beeners stated that the use of the service road area " here " was fairly consistent with the park plans . Ms . Beeners stated that she personally felt that Planning Board - 15 - March 1 , 1988 • the area that could be accessed from the City right - of -way 'was the acceptable one . Virginia Langhans wondered if the pathway would be marked , with Ms . Beeners responding that there would not be a sign . 1 Mr . Weisburd stated that if it pleased the Board , he would like Ms . Beeners to view the site and discuss what trees should be cut , and what trees should be saved , adding that , obviously , the existing vegetation is much more valuable than any new plantings . William Lesser wondered if the road would be barricaded with a chain or fence , with Chairman May responding that the Fire Department does not want anything of that nature . Mr . Flumerfelt commented that minimal signage is preferred at that intersection . Attorney Barney offered that , perhaps , a one -way sign on Slaterville Road would . be in order , with the Board concurring . There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Dr . William Lesser : WHEREAS . 1 . This action is the consideration of a Report to the Town Board with respect to the location of the Commonland Service Road . • 2 . On February 1 , 1983 , the Planning Board approved the location of the access road in a strip of land owned by the developer between Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 20 and 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 3 , owned by Clausen , with the condition that such access road might be constructed at an alternate location in a manner satisfactory to the Town Engineer if the developer acquired the title to lands for such purpose . 3 . On April 21 , 1987 , the Planning Board approved the alternate location of the proposed access road , such location being within a right of way presently held by the developer through Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 24 , with certain conditions , which included. approval of the design of said access road by the Town Engineer and the New York State Department of Transportation . 6 4 . The Planning Board , on December 15 , 1987 and March 1 , 1988 , has heard the report of the Town Planner and the Town Engineer which describes the two alternative locations for such road , and which recommends that the location which was originally reviewed and approved by the Planning Board on February 1 , 1983 , between Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 20 and 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 3 , owned by Edna Clausen , is , by reason of gradient , location , and relation to existing roads , preferable to the alternate location across Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 24 , owned by Maurice Marion , and which further recommends that the negative impacts perceived by Mrs . • Clausen with respect to disruption of privacy and separation of her house and garage lots would be accompanied by benefits with respect to improved access to the laboratory on the garage lot , Planning Board - 16 - March 1 , 1988 • and were outweighed by the community need for a safe emergency access road . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board accept and hereby does accept the report of the Town Planner and the Town Engineer reviewed on December 15 , 1987 and March 1 , 1988 . 2 . That the Planning Board rescind and hereby does rescind its April 21 , 1987 conditional approval of the alternate service road location . 3 . That the Planning Board reaffirm and hereby does reaffirm its February 1 , 1983 approval of the service road proposed location between the aforementioned parcels owned by Clausen , subject to the following conditions and requirements : a . That this Resolution of the Planning Board be reported to the Town Board . b . That the service road shall be primarily used for ingress by emergency vehicles and vehicles necessary for maintenance of said road , and to ingress by the owner of Parcels No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 20 and 600058 - 1 - 33 . 3 , except as may be subsequently • amended by the Town of Ithaca . c . That the Planning Board recognizes the potential value of using this road as a pedestrian and bicycle trail , absent more appropriate trail routes at this time , and would consider a recommendation of later amendment of this resolution for this potential use unless more appropriate routes are found . d . That the service road be located in such a manner , as to be determined by the Town Engineer , as to minimize impact on the adjacent residence to the west . e . That the final design for such road , showing as - built locations of all utilities , proposed road grading and alignment , proposed signage , proposed landscaping , and proposed drainage improvements be subject to final approval by the Town Engineer and Town Planner , and that the final road entrance design be subject to the approval of the New York State Department of Transportation . f . That the service road shall be completed prior to May 31 , 1988 , and that the developer shall place in escrow any funds determined by the Town Engineer to be necessary for road construction , for release by the Town Board upon acceptance of the completed service road . • g . That the developer work with the Town Planner and Town Engineer to minimize any impact upon the adjacent Planning Board - 17 - March 1 , 1988 • properties , to maximize the restoration of grounds adjoining the service road , and minimize removal of existing vegetation . h . That the Town Board accept the location of this road . i . That the developer provide the usual abstract of proposed deed and convey the road by good and marketable title to the Town , subject to the approval of the Town Attorney . There being no further discussion , the . Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Lesser , Kenerson . Nay - None . Abstain - Miller . The MOTION was declared to be carried . Chairman May declared the matter of the Commonland Service Road duly closed at 9 : 35 p . m . DISCUSSION At this time , William Lesser asked about the use of the existing house in the Klondike Manor proposal . Andrew Frost , Building • Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , stated that the house which is known as 315 Coddington Road has been cited , in writing , with a violation . Mr . Frost commented that the basic scenario was that there is a lease with the names of four students on it . Mr . Frost noted that there have been complaints from neighbors about the number of cars parked around the house . Virginia Langhans commented that the Planning Board is just working on the subdivision of the land . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the March 1 , 1988 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9 : 50 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . • Planning Board - 1 - February 2 , 1988 ( Verbatim Transcript ) David Klein wondered about the 20 - foot right- of- way between lots No . 2 and 3 . Mr . Klein noted that the right - of -way crosses land ( the Gray parcel ) the developer does not own . Attorney Mazza stated that the developer will enter into negotiations and had a tentative agreement with Mr . Gray . May - That is an also an area I have trouble with . Lot 16 , I do not believe belongs as part of the proposal . Klein - But if that is the only way to get there it seems to me that you have to have something definitive that you control that parcel or something in writing . Mazza - I would suggest that that be a condition on a building permit for that lot . Klein - I guess you can get there going through the NYSEG right - of -way , or move it between lots 3 and 4 . Iacovelli - we have kind of a verbal agreement with the Grays . If you had requested that the last time I would have had it in writing for you tonight . Klein - I have some feelings that I kind of want to share about this thing . In sort of a perverse way the subdivision issue has kind of • boomaranged , and I guess I personally feel that we have been sort of boxed into a what I find both alternatives not being terribly attractive . Obviously , you have the right to develop land in accordance with the subdivision and zoning ordinances and I guess we as a Planning Board have to try and deal with how we interpret those regulations . I think here we have a situation that the neighbors in single family homes feel either prospect of the traditional subdivision or the cluster might , in fact , negatively affect their community , and since this is so close to Ithaca College and there is a high pattern of student housing in that area , lots of cars and big parking lots , and not too attractive buildings . I really view their concerns in terms of that ' s going to happen in their backyard . They do have nice views to the lake and the surrounding area , and I think and I mentioned this the last time , I think you didn ' t give us an alternative by showing us like an attractive cluster . You never really showed me , at least , something that would sort of sell the cluster , and kind of put us in a position , well if that is what you are going to give us for the cluster we ought to look at a traditional subdivision , which is really the reverse of , in a sense , the intent of the cluster regulations . You show us a grided subdivision and in lieu of that we might ask to look at a cluster which uses the land better and perhaps is more sensitive to the neighborhood . Still , as I go back to this thing this is reasonably literal to what we have discussed , but if you see 15 plus double potential double units with parking for 6 cars . • Fabbroni - I think really we just did away with all that because the sentiment of the Board was no rental in cluster . EXHIBIT 1 • 1 Planning Board - 2 - February 2 , 1988 ( Verbatim Transcript ) • Klein - What I am saying is we still didn ' t see a cluster layout that , other than in one of these letters that we received , they look kind of sketchy and haphazard , and I think we have others better looking . Fabbroni - Correct me if I am wrong , but that was not the sticking point , so what was the sense of another layout . Klein - As I say , I guess I am still somewhat ambivolent in terms of what might be . If we are looking at a situation and we ' re all guessing that this is still going to be rental housing . Even though Eddie is technically correct , on a subdivision we have no control , he is absolutely correct , not technically correct , we have no control over what you build there other than the zoning requirements , with set - backs and one or two family houses and whatever limits that has on 50 % dwelling units or stack dwelling units or whatever , the cluster gives us some control . Fabbroni - If the Board as a consensus said , alright we would be willing to look at 24 rental cluster units , we want you to come back with elevations , landscape plans , well thought out site plan design and all this . That is something to proceed from , that is a message to us from the Board . We never got that message . We got the message no cluster if it ' s rental . • Klein - OK , I guess maybe I am getting some mixed signals from the people that are around there . I don ' t know . We can ' t stop a development , there is every right to develop , but I think we wanted to try and hit what is the best alternative . Grigorov - There are some variances they are asking for though . Klein - Lot No . 16 . The subdivision , our subdividing the parcel did not create the configuration . It always had a very small neck at the back of the Gray parcel . I can see it being part of the park space . We can treat it as part of lot 4 - that is where it is contiguous . How else do you deal with it ? What are the requirements for open space ? May - 10 % . Miller - 10 % . Klein - Lot 16 and the park land , if it is a separately mapped lot it could be withdrawn from the subdivision . Is that correct ? May - Oh sure . Lesser - But then they have no parkland . Klein - Then park land could be found somewhere else in the southern • part of the site . EXHIBIT 1 Planning Board - 3 - February 2 , 1988 ( Verbatim Transcript ) • Fabbroni - If you don ' t approve , we go to the ZBA and quite openly discuss with them what we would like to do with that parcel in the way of a building lot and we could come back with a recommendation from them that we are entitled to a variance on that parcel , and yes they recognize it as going to be split and the balance given as open space . At least it gives us an opportunity to speak to that hardship which noboby wants to hear about . But . . . Barney - This Planning Board as a matter of policy has to sort of determine whether they are going to accept the subdivision of those two lots assuming you get the variance , lets assume anyway you are gonna get the variance in order to get the access to get up there , and I sense some hesitation here . Fabbroni - The alternative of coming back here would be either way . Barney - Supposing they give you the variance . You get your shot at the ZBA and they give you the variance and say fine , we don ' t care , subdivide . But the actual subdivision is governed by this Board , so you have to come back to this Board , so you come back with a variance . Of course , right now we are assuming you are gonna get the variance in the first place , but I think we are going through an excerise here that does not make any sense . Fabbroni - My understanding here is that Monty does not want to • prejudice it by saying he is in favor of it or the Board , they don ' t want to send it with a recommendation to the Board of Appeals . They don ' t want to deal with hardship which you don ' t usaully deal with . Mazza - The issue with hardship with the whole parcel exists now , and what we are doing is , that issue is still gonna remain , except that we are taking part of the land that would be a portion of that hardship , and creating open space to the Town contiguous to this linear green space that the Town hopes to have . We are not creating a new issue , that issue is there now . The only difference being , we are trying to take part of that and dedicate it as open space in an area which I understood from the Board last time they thought that was a nice place to have some green space next to the linear green space . May - I think somebody is misinterpreting my concern . No . 1 , it does not seem to fit the subdivision , but most importantly there is not decent access to it . The access is really very poor , and therefore , it is not a good lot . Langhans - I should think the Fire Dept . would have problems with it also . May - I guess I could live with a recommendation to the ZBA that it not be granted a variance for reasons of 280 - a , and they decide they want to grant it . • Barney - If they grant it over your objection Monty then it is going to come back here and you are going to have to make a determination at EXHIBIT 1 Planning Board - 4 - February 2 , 1988 ( Verbatim Transcript ) • that point whether you are going to approve it or not . I find this kind of going around the barn . May - At this point , I don ' t see much of an alternative , I guess is my problem . Just taking it out of the subdivision is somewhat difficult to do . Barney - By doing that you also remove your parkland . Miller - Couldn ' t this property be developed so there are not variances , Couldn ' t a plan come up so you would not have to ask for all the variances . Fabbroni - Not on the piece we are talking about , Bob . May - There is just no way . Fabbroni - I guess what we are trying to say is , there would be more if one owner did not consolidate the four parcels . Miller - Right now you couldn ' t go up and build a house on it , May - Could not get a building permit . Klein - I know we have not resolved the issue of Lot 16 , but in terms • of the other 2 , 6 , and 7 , I guess I could live with 2 and 6 , but actually I have a real problem with 7 , because that lot is only 90 feet deep . If I ' m reading the reduction right . It seems that the house on that lot is gonna be 60 feet closer to the person behind it , than if it were a 150 foot lot . May - Gimme the dimensions again , and I . . . Klein - Even though it ' s 18 , 000 feet , looks like the boundary the depth of the lot between 7 and 8 is only 90 feet . And a house built on that meeting the front yard set -backs is gonna have an extremely shallow rear ya. rd and be , in essence , 60 feet closer to the lot just south of that , the border lot , and that ' s one of those things that you may not think about until that ' s built and realize that that ' s , you know , really made a 60 foot encroachment in terms of the open space . Beeners - There is a house position shown on that lot on 7 , and the plan that ' s up on the board , and that ' s , I scaled out by imagining the house to be tilted so it was straight up and down , lets say on there that we would have 100 x 120 foot lot on that lot , I mean where is the front yard , I guess is the big problem we are trying to calculate this . Fabbroni - If you look at that top map on the board , again that 90 feet comes from moving the road to be opposite Spruce Way . If you • look at that top map you don ' t have the problem with the four lots that fall in the alternative , for what it ' s worth , Beyond that , again , I keep harping on it , there are 15 lots in traditional EXHIBIT 1 ` Planning Board - 5 - February 2 , 1988 ( Verbatim Transcript ) • subdivision that over the years , different strokes for different folks , I guess were approved as part of the subdivision . Lesser - Just because some modifications have been accepted does not mean all of them are . May - I think we need to made a final determination here . Klein - Well , can they withdraw 16 in the open space , and accept 7 as open space ? May - Is that what we are hearing from them . Mazza - If he makes it as part of his proposal that that not be a building lot . Langhans - Then it would be open space . Mazza - Not necessarily . If he conveys it to somebody else , he does not have to give it to the Town , maybe he can sell it to one of the neighbors and pick up some of his investment . That ' s not the only alternative . Lesser - You ' re saying , you don ' t want the option to go to the ZBA , is that what your saying ? • Iacovelli - That would suit me . Lesser - But suppose one of the neighbors didn ' t want to buy it . Iacovelli - But it doesn ' t hurt to sit there , in other words I can ' t build on it and will be back here for an option . I won ' t go to the BZA to ask for a separation of that lot . I just don ' t want an open space at this time . Lesser - Would you like perhaps a another postponement and come back at some time in the future with a statement that a neighbor is interested in buying that property , and that could be part of the condition ? Iacovelli - At the present time there is a house that is encroaching on that lot . My first option would be go to that neighbor and see if he would buy that lot . Lesser - You put yourself in an odd position because if he knows you said you can ' t build on it you can ' t do anything else . Orlando - It doesn ' t hurt to sit there either . Barney - There has to be an explicit condition that something is going • to happen to that lot , Mr . Iacovelli . I don ' t want to put you in a box , but today you gotta say I ' m gonna sell to my next door neighbor because . . . EXHIBIT 1 Planning Board - 6 - February 2 , 1988 ( Verbatim Transcript ) Iacovelli - I can ' t say that . Iacovelli - I don ' t want to build on it . I think that at some point in time one of the neighbors would buy it , yes , and there are 2 or 3 people that abut against it , . and I don ' t have that answer for you tonight Barney - What kind of time frame would you feel comfortable in making some sort of determination on that ? May - Really only one neighbor Iacovelli - No , 2 or 3 neighbors . Barney - What time frame ? Mazza - I don ' t know the answer to that . Make it a fairly long period of time , to give him an opportunity . Fabronni - I mentioned , there is a 96 year old lady who lives in that house . Things could change very quickly or they could be 10 years from now . Iacovelli - There is a very stong possibility that if Mrs . Benninger • were to pass away and they were to sell her land , I have talked with one of the owners of that , that I would purchase that property , and then I could put a decent house in there and redo that lot . Now that would be my idea of what should happen to that lot . Now whether it ' s me doing it or someone else that ' s what should happen . May - read the draft resolution . Klein - My only objection is the inclusion of lot 7 . I can see the BZA going for 2 and 6 , but 7 I still have a lot of problems with . I guess I would rather see it as part of a buffer . Grigorov - Then there would be normal access to that . Iacovelli - There is already a house there so I assume there is already access there . You can put on the deed that I will not ask for a building permit or that that ' s restricted so there would be no building allowed on that lot unless it ' s combined in some way with another parcel of land . May . - Are we pretty much in agreement with all of the other changes with this addition ? Klein - I ' m not in agreement with lot 7 . EXHIBIT 1 A FI DAVIT Of PEnWCATION w THE ITHACA JOURNAL _.. . ..__ _..._ . ._..... - ._-.--.. :gins dul's Worn, deposes and says , that he raider in Ithaca, County and state aforesaid and that he is ., clerk _._ __�.... of TMX IrsACA JOLT&NAL a public newspaper printed and published In Ithaca aforesaid, and that a notioe , of which the annexed is a true Copy, WLs published in s.ud paper -.._.._o? 5._ .......: ....._..... . cel No. 6-66-4-22, 2. 8 acres to- . 8 :05 P. M. Consideration of a ..._.._.» ._.__.._»_... . ......... . _._ _ tale located at 145 Forest request for Final Site Plan Ap- '•"'`"""' Home Drive, to Town of Ithaca proval with respect tot the pro- Tax Parcel No. 6.66-4-23, 0. 37 posed construction of a Fire I plus or minus acres total , lo- Station proposed to be located ; and that the first publication of said notice was on the . ...,. _..__. .. . cated at 131 Judd Falls Road . in a Residence District R- 15' on 271 Irving Lazar, Owner of Parcel ane-and-one- half acres of • No. 6-66-4-22; Andrew W. 8 c�rrentlnd n owned :bur Cornea da } of ---•• • -••--._ .. .. ..... ... ..._. . .._. . . .. I9 , , Barbara C. McElwee, Owners Y Y . ..... . .. . . .. .... of Parcel No. 6-66-4-23. University (former Odd Fel- 7 : 40 P. M. Consideration of a lows Farm ), Town of Ithaca __. .. . _ e ... request q Y P- ' ' •""-"" ' mons Residents' Association plicant: Joint City of Ithoca- � that conditions related to the /Town of Ithaca New Fire Sta- • developmentofawalkwa in tions Site Selection Su 0 sworn to bleu a aye, this - "-• ^'• •• •-•-•-^ ••-•-•• •• da}� Eastwod Commons, as walkway Committee, on behalf of the forth in the February 26, 1973, City of Ithaca Board of Fire Town Board Resolution estab- Commissioners , Common "- —•'- •--•-- •-_--• I9-• - lishing the Eastwood Com- . Council, and the Town of Itho- mons Multiple Residence Dis- co Town Board. Agent: Pame- trict, and as amended by the la Kingsbury, Anton Egner As JTown Board on February 90 sociates. . 1987, be rescinded, and fur- 8: 15 P. M. Consideration o a jvpjQ-y public, thee, Consideration of the pro- Recommendation to the Zon- JEAN FORD vision of uttilitpy easements to ing Board of Appeals with re the Orcutt ro ert specs to a request for Special 7 : 55 P. M. Consideration of a Approval of a Dormitory Use Notary PUbIiC ICI O{ 1� 2N TOWN OF ITHACA request for Final Site Plan Ap- for a proposed new Resi- ' York dentia) Hall , ro osed to be PLANNING BOARD proval with respect to the pro- P PUBLIC HEARINGS posed construction of a Fire located in a Residence District No. 4 � t =! NOTICE OF R- 15 on the Ithaca College -TUESDAY, MARCH 1 , 1988 Station proposed t t be located Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax � QU311 {IE(j Il> TC;;; lpki ,-. 5 �CU;; t, � gy direction of the Chairman in a Residence District R- 15 on P of the Planning Board, NOTICE aPproximotely one and one Parcel No . 6-41 - 1 -24. Ithaca COMT11tSSiCi� eXp ; rBi ;y�� 31 � I Colle e, Property Owner; y r 9 • • . IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public hat acres on land on Danby 9 P Y . Hearings will be held by the Road currently owned by Itho- Robert John O'Brien, H. O. I.T. Planning Board of the Town of ca College, Town of Ithaca Architects, Agent. Ithaca on Tuesday, March 1 , Tax Parcel No. 6-41 - 1 -30. 2. Said Planning Board will at 1988, in Town Hall, 126 East Applicant: Joint City of Ithaca- said times and said place hear Seneca Street, Ithaca, N. Y. , at /Town of Ithaca New Fire Sta- all persons . in support of such the following times and on the tions Site Selection Commit. matters Psor objections thereto en. Persons a following matters: tee, on behalf of the City of or erspp tiY g 7 :30 P. M. Consideration of a Ithaca Board of Fire Commis- P request for Subdivision A ro. sioners, Common Council , Jean H. Swartwood q PP Town Clerk vat for the proposed transfer and the Town of Ithaca Town 273- 1721 of 0.05 , plus or minus acres Board. Agent: Pamela Kings- fromFebruary Town of Ithaca Tax Par. bury, Anton Egner Associates. Y s • Q •