HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1988-05-17 FILED
TOWN OF ITHAcA
Date 00 Ly
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk
MAY 17 , 1988
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday ,
May 17 , 1988 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at
7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , James Baker , Carolyn Grigorov ,
Virginia Langhans , Robert Miller , David Klein , Robert Kenerson ,
John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Robert R . Flumerfelt ( Town
Engineer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , George R . Frantz
( Assistant Town Planner ) , Andrew S . Frost ( Town Building
Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Arnold Albrecht , Glen Swindle , Iska Ziver , Thomas Murray ,
Duane Gray , Kathy Gray , Sybill Phillips , Bill Steele , James
Iacovelli , Harley Steffy , Kate O ' Brien , Deborah Delgado ,
Suzanne Fullagar , David C . Auble , Sandra F . Rogers , Melissa
Robinson ( WHCU - WYXL ) , Slade Kennedy , Jr . , Attorney Robin
Masson , Joyce Wiggins . '
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and
accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of
the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on May 9 ,
1988 , and May 12 , 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 Tompkins County Commissioner
of Public Works , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and
upon the applicants and / or agents , as appropriate , on May 9 , 1988 .
At this point , Chairman May announced that if there were anyone
present , at this time , relative to either ButterField Associates - David C .
Auble , or the project on East King Road , that both of the projects have
been cancelled for tonight ' s meeting . Town Planner Susan Beeners noted
that ButterField Associates - Jones Farm , requested an adjournment , with a
tentative date of reappearing on June 7 , 1988 . Ms . Beeners stated that the
Cascioli project on East King Road has been withdrawn by the applicant .
NON -AGENDA ITEM
Andrew Frost distributed to each of the members of the Board a copy of
his April 1988 Report of Building / Zoning Activities ,
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR
COURTSIDE RACQUETBALL AND FITNESS CLUB , 16 JUDD FALLS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 62 - 1 - 5 , WITH REVISIONS PROPOSED TO INCLUDE AN OUTDOOR
BASKETBALL COURT AND AN OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL COURT , ISKA ZIVER AND THOMAS
MURRAY , APPLICANTS .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter
oduly opened at 7 : 37 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above .
Planning Board - 2 - May 17 , 1988
Mr . Thomas Murray approached the Board , appended a map to the bulletin
board , and distributed to each of the members of the Board a copy of a
letter addressed to him from John R . Lampman of the Tompkins County
Department of Public Works , dated May 17 , 1988 . [ Exhibit 1 attached
hereto . ] Mr . Murray stated that the additional information distributed was
in regard to the guardrail that is placed on the lot . Mr . Murray offered
that he had discussed the removal of that guardrail with the Tompkins
County Public Works Department and they did not see any problem with the
installation of the fence . Mr . Murray stated that he had discussed the
fire hydrant situation with the Deputy Fire Chief , and noted that the
Deputy Fire Chief ' s recommendation was that the fire hydrant be turned
around so that it faces the road , therefore , a fence can be erected that
would actually run behind the hydrant and , basically , close off that area
to prevent traffic from the store or the apartment complex . Indicating on
map , Mr . Murray stated that the fire hydrant is now pointing toward
Courtside , adding that he had wondered about the consequences if Courtside
caught on fire . Mr . Murray stated that he was informed that that was not a
problem , because that area would be covered . Mr . Murray stated that , as
far as the fence is concerned , he did not realize prior to the drawing how
to handle the fire hydrant , therefore , the fence is not drawn around the
fire hydrant , noting , of course , that would take place . Mr . Murray stated
that the Deputy Fire Chief requested that there be a four - foot area on each
side of the fire hydrant to allow access to that . Mr . Murray stated that
there are 95 parking spaces . Mr . Murray stated that , in discussions with
the Town Planner , placing the fence behind the trees on the roadside has
become the best way to handle that situation , adding that the fence would
be a 10 - foot high fence running the length of the roadside . Mr . Murray
offered that a chain link fence would probably be the most appropriate , as
suggested by the Planning Board at the last meeting . Mr . Murray remarked
that the exit area that was there would no longer be there , and a berm
would be placed there , as a landscaping feature .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone
present wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public
Hearing at 7 : 44 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for
discussion .
Virginia Langhans wondered if the chain link fence would be run along
[ indicating on map ] " here " . Mr . Murray answered , yes . Ms . Langhans asked
about a height limit on the fence . Mr . Murray noted that the concern that
was brought up was the fact that activity using a ball would be taking
place , and to prevent the ball from bouncing on the road an additional four
feet was added to that . Ms . Langhans commented that the fence would be
closest to the road , with the trees on the other side . Ms . Langhans
commented that everyone driving by would see the fence , and , in her
opinion , that would look awful . Ms . Langhans wondered if the fence could
be put on the other side , and have the trees on the outside . Mr . Murray
responded that there would be a problem with a lot of loose paper that
would blow across from the store , adding , that tree area would become a
dump , with Ms . Langhans commenting , the paper can be picked up . Mr . Murray
said that one also has to look at the aesthetics on the Courtside side .
* and
Mr . Murray said that he had no problem going down to six feet for an area ,
agreed that the fence should be 10 feet high in the volleyball area ,
noting that , perhaps , a two - tiered fence would be in order . Robert
Planning Board - 3 - May 17 , 1988
• Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , stated that , perhaps , a green vinyl coated
fabric could be used on the fence .
George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , commented that a two - tiered
fence would be in order , where in the immediate vicinity of the volleyball
court it might be 10 feet high , then bring it down to six feet on both
ends . Mr . Murray agreed with Mr . Frantz ' s comment in that it would be more
aesthetically pleasing .
Chairman May wondered if the front yard requirements were being
checked , as far as a fence 10 feet high . Attorney Barney stated that there
is a provision that says the Zoning Ordinance does not apply to fences six
feet in height or less . Mr . Frantz stated that it was sort of a quandry ,
because there is no one that can find anything on , basically , how high a
volleyball would bounce . Ms . Langhans remarked that she thought it would
be better if the ball bounced against the fence than bounce into the trees ,
adding , it would do more damage to the trees . Susan Beeners , Town Planner ,
noted that it was her interpretation that the front yard requirements had
to apply if it was over six feet .
David Klein stated that it seemed to him the location of the
basketball court and the volleyball court takes up an awful lot of space ,
and noted that one end of the basketball court faces west , which Mr . Klein
felt was not terribly desirable . Mr . Murray wondered in what respect . Mr .
Klein noted the late afternoon sun . Mr . Klein commented that it seemed to
that , if the basketball court were rotated , and the volleyball court
, him
was moved adjacent to it , then the courts would be , basically , on the north
side of the building , adding , maybe that fence could be shortened , and
totally eliminate the one along Judd Falls Road , which he thought would be
terrible . Mr . Murray responded that one problem he has is that there would
be shopping carts , and all kinds of people walking through there . Mr .
Murray said that it is a private health club . Mr . Klein stated that he
would not accept a 10 - foot fence . Mr . Klein stated that he thought
[ pointing to map ] if the courts were rotated " this " way , and the basketball
court " here " , the other court " here " , then maybe the berm could be extended
halfway along Judd Falls Road , and put up some heavier screening , e . g . ,
Russian Olive or something like that , that people cannot get through . Mr .
Flumerfelt noted that if the basketball court was turned 90 degrees , then
the volleyball court could slide to the left on the drawing . Mr . Klein
stated that they would be sort of parallel to each other . Chairman May
mentioned putting the berm on both sides of the fire hydrant , with Mr .
Murray stating that he did not think there was enough room to do that ,
because of the right - of -way with the road . Mr . Murray stated that there
are trees already existing , and they are approximately 12 - 15 feet high .
Ms . Langhans [ pointing to map ] wondered if " this " was the existing
basketball court , with Mr . Murray answering , yes . Mr . Murray stated that
there is a lightpole being used for one support structure for the hoop ,
commenting , to move it to a north / south location , logistically , is not
possible with the current setup . Mr . Murray noted that , as far as the
space available between Courtside , the building , and the property line , the
space just is not there for a reasonable basketball court , adding that the
* of
current court is very small . Mr . Klein wondered what was immediately north
the present court , with Mr . Murray responding that there is about 10 - 15
feet of asphalt . Mr . Murray mentioned that the sun had never been a
Planning Board - 4 - May 17 , 1988
problem . Mr . Klein stated that he felt it would be a better use of space
if it were changed . Mr . Murray offered that he wanted to increase the
grass area that is available , and noted that in making that change more
parking could be added .
Mr . Klein wondered what the idea was concerning fencing off the other
parking area . Mr . Murray responded that there would not be a 10 - foot high
fence there , it would be more 4 - 6 feet . Mr . Murray stated that the fencing
was really there to cut off the traffic from the P & C Market to the
apartment complex on Maple Avenue . Mr . Klein asked about the parking on
the west side of the building , and how it related to the bowling center ,
with Mr . Murray responding , that is not our property , but we do have a
right - of -way through there , adding , at this time , there really is not any
parking in that area . Ms . Beeners mentioned that Mr . Murray has a right of
access in his deed to Mitchell Street , Ms . Beeners stated that she
understood that Mr . Murray would be supplying a letter indicating his right
to use the Judd Falls Road access on the south side . Robert Miller noted
that there would be one entry and exit on Judd Falls Road .
At this point , Attorney Barney stated that one can have a 10 - foot
fence , but it could not be in a required front yard area . Attorney Barney
stated that a fence would presumably come under the definition of
structure , except for Section 65 in the Town Zoning Ordinance which
excludes fences six feet or under , and one is not permitted to have any
structure within the front yard , or any of the yard set- backs . Attorney
Barney noted that he would hastily interpret this as a 10 - foot fence which
would not be permitted right along the front yard , it would have to be back
of the required front yard . Attorney Barney stated that one could always
seek a variance for this . Attorney Barney stated that Mr . Murray could
have a six - foot fence .
Ms . Langhans wondered about the sign , as to whether it would be the
existing sign . Mr . Murray responded , no , they want to get rid of that as
soon as possible .
Mr . Frantz stated that , from a rough measurement , it appeared that if
the court were rotated 90 degrees , there would be , at the most , 10 feet on
either end . Attorney Barney wondered about the number of feet away from
the cars on the west end . Mr . Murray answered that there was about five
feet . Ms . Beeners asked about the lightpole . Mr . Murray responded that it
was right smack dab where the end of the courtline is . Mr . Murray offered
that another thing to take into consideration is that at the time this
would be in use the club is at a low usage level , noting that people would
not be parking there , as it is far from the door . Ms . Beeners wondered if
it would be possible to rotate the court so that it is going north / south ,
and then the lightpole would not have to be relocated . Mr . Murray stated
that he did not think the space was there , as the road to the side of the
court is a gravel unpaved area . Mr . Murray stated that he was on somewhat
of a budget constraint to do the project , and have it as nice as possible .
Mr . Murray stated that he was putting most of his money into the berm ,
grass , and trees , adding that , if he could avoid changing the direction of
• the court , he could certainly put up a more aesthetically pleasing
landscape area , which would be visible from the road .
Planning Board - 5 - May 17 , 1988
Mr . Frantz stated that there are no standards for how high a ball
would bounce , adding , a volleyball does not bounce very much , and it is a
sand pit . Mr . Frantz said that the above had been discussed , and a
conclusion was made that it would be better to have the court parallel to
the road , adding , that change was made . Mr . Murray stated that if this was
found not to work , down the road , then he would not hesitate to increase
the height of the fence , if a six - foot fence was agreed upon and
acceptable . Mr . Murray said that he would be more than happy to add an
additional four feet , if it were proved necessary . Chairman May stated
that , by the Planning Board ' s present determination , if a 10 - foot fence is
required , Mr . Murray would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals .
Mr . Murray responded that he understood .
At this time , Mr . Frantz noted that another idea would be to rotate
the basketball court 30 - 45 degrees , and maintain that one light standard as
the one basketball hoop support . Mr . Frantz commented that the above idea
would sacrifice the five parking spaces at the end of the court , which is
okay , because , according to the zoning there is a requirement of 84 spaces .
Mr . Murray stated that the levelness of that area is the problem .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman May asked if
anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
• WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Approval of a Revised Site Plan
for Courtside Racquetball and Fitness Club , located at 16 Judd Falls
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 1 - 5 , with revisions proposed
to include an outdoor basketball court and an outdoor volleyball
court .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review .
3 . The Assistant Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance for this action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental
review of this Unlisted Action , make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Miller .
Nay - Klein .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . Robert Miller :
Planning Board - 6 - May 17 , 1988
WHEREAS .
1 . This action is the Consideration of Approval of a Revised Site Plan
for Courtside Racquetball and Fitness Club , located at 16 Judd Falls
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 1 - 5 , with revisions proposed
to include an outdoor basketball court and an outdoor volleyball
court .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has made a
negative determination of environmental significance on May 17 , 1988 .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 17 , 1988 , has reviewed
the Revised Site Plan , Short Environmental Assessment Form , and
proposed schedule of improvements .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant approval to the
Revised Site Plan as proposed , subject to the following conditions and
requirements :
1 . That no outdoor active recreational facilities on the site be
developed within twenty ( 20 ) feet of any road right of way line .
2 . That any proposed fence shall be a minimum distance of fifteen ( 15 )
feet from the proposed volleyball and basketball courts and no more
than six ( 6 ) feet in height .
3 . That access to the existing fire hydrant along Judd Falls Road be
maintained in a manner satisfactory to the Ithaca Fire Department ,
4 . The submission of evidence satisfactory to the Town Attorney that the
site has the right of access across Tax Parcels No . 6 - 62 - 1 - 1 and - 3 . 2
to Judd Falls and Ellis Hollow Roads .
5 . The approval of landscape plantings schedule by the Town Planning
Department ,
6 . The fences be constructed in accordance with the limitations of the
Zoning Ordinance ,
7 . The applicant provide proof of access to Mitchell Street and Judd
Falls Road satisfactory to the Town Attorney .
By way of discussion , David Klein stated that he did not like the
fence there , and did not think the site was really laid out as best as
could be to minimize how much fencing would be required . Carolyn Grigorov
stated that she could sympathize with the need for a fence .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
• Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Miller .
Nay - Klein .
Planning Board - 7 - May 17 , 1988
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Chairman May declared the matter of Consideration of Approval of a
Revised Site Plan for Courtside Racquetball and Fitness Club duly closed at
8 : 15 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION OF A 2 ± ACRE PARCEL FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO .
6 - 35 - 1 - 12 . 2 , 8 . 82 ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 , AT
817 ELMIRA ROAD , OPAL W . SPRAGUE , OWNER , SYBIL S . PHILLIPS , AGENT .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter
duly opened at 8 : 16 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above .
Ms . Sybill Phillips addressed the Board and stated. that Opal Sprague
was her mother .
Ms . Phillips stated that her mother wishes to subdivide in order that
one of her grandchildren could build a one - family home . Ms . Phillips
stated that that particular portion of land was chosen because it was well
drained and had the largest flat space that was suitable for building ,
without a lot of landscaping . Ms . Phillips offered that on the
right -of -way there was a driveway that the previous owner used just to
around his property , but it is flat and suitable for the piece
, drive
involved .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone
present wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public
Hearing at 8 : 18 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for
discussion .
Carolyn Grigorov wondered if any members of the Board had viewed the
site . Virginia Langhans answered , no , there is really not too much to see ,
all one can see is the 75 feet on the Elmira Road .
Susan Beeners , Town Planner , referred to the air photo xerox copy that
was enclosed in the Board members ' packets . Ms . Langhans [ pointing to air
photo ] wondered what the big white square was . Ms . Beeners responded that
it was used , at one time , as a garden . Ms . Langhans stated that ,. in her
opinion , it seemed a funny way to subdivide a big piece of property . Ms .
Beeners noted that almost one - third of the property is pretty much
inaccessible , and unusable , because there is a ravine that comes down about
like " this " . Ms . Beeners said that there is also a fairly steep bank . Ms .
Beeners noted that Ms . Sprague had indicated that it would be possible to
subdivide a lot on the north end of the property , but did not want to do
that because of the noise . Ms . Sprague stated that she lives a lot closer
to the road on the other end . Ms . Langhans inquired about the distance of
the house from the road . Ms . Sprague responded that it was about 250 - 275
feet .
• Ms . Beeners stated that there had been a discussion about having a
legal lot that would conform with frontage . Ms . Beeners [ indicating on
Planning Board - 8 - May 17 , 1988
• map ] stated that if the proposed lot as shown " here " were to have some
additional frontage , then some artificial frontage could be added onto that
lot . Ms . Beeners felt that that was not a very good idea . Ms . Beeners
stated that there would be undevelopable frontage , which , technically ,
would belong to the new proposed lot . Ms . Beeners noted that Ms . Sprague
had indicated that the above would breakup her mother ' s property . George
Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , stated that the area to the north was
totally undevelopable , as it is a wet land , adding that the south side is a
very steep 15 - foot natural embankment . Mr . Frantz offered that there is a
13 - foot embankment up to the level of Route 13 .
Robert Miller asked Ms . Sprague how far her lot would be going to the
north . Ms . Sprague responded that it goes all the way to where the
drop - off is . Mr . Miller wondered if Ms . Sprague was thinking of putting a
second house there , with Ms . Sprague answering , no .
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 . David Klein , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of a 2 ± acre parcel from Town of Ithaca Tax
• Parcel No . 6 - 35 - 1 - 12 . 2 , 8 . 82 acres total , located at 817 Elmira Road .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review of any subdivision . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review of any request for variance . The Tompkins County Planning
Department is being notified of this action .
3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED ;
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental
review related to the subdivision request , which is an unlisted action ,
make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental
significance .
There being no further . discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Miller .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
• MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson :
Planning Board - 9 - May 17 , 1988
• WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of a 2 ± acre parcel from Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 35 - 1 - 12 . 2 , 8 . 82 acres total , located at 817 Elmira Road .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting as
Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed subdivision , has ,
on May 17 , 1988 , made a negative determination of environmental
significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 17 , 1988 , has reviewed
the following material :
Short Environmental Assessment Form dated April 25 , 1988 .
Appeal to the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer
dated April 25 , 1988 .
" Map of David C . Sprague property at No . 817 Elmira Road ,
Town of Ithaca , N . Y . ( March 25 , 1961 , Carl Crandall ,
C . E . ) , Updated April 14 , 1988 , to Show Proposed
Conveyance " , by T . G . Miller Associates ,
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
• 1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval , having
determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result
in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision
control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board ,
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Subdivision
Approval to the subdivision as proposed , with the following
conditions :
a . Granting of variance of Article V , Section 23 , by the Zoning
Board of Appeals to permit a frontage of 75 feet on a public
road .
b . The provision of a final subdivision map prepared by a licensed
surveyor or engineer , suitable for filing by the Tompkins County
Clerk , for approval by the Town Engineer , to be signed by the
Chairman of the Planning Board .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Miller .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
•
Planning Board - 10 - May 17 , 1988
Chairman May declared the matter of the Consideration of Subdivision
* Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 2 ± acre parcel duly closed at
8 : 29 p . m .
At this point , Chairman May again announced that ButterField
Associates - David C . Auble - Jones Farm , has been adjourned with a
tentative date of reappearing on June 7 , 1988 . Chairman May also announced
that the Cascioli project on East King Road has been withdrawn .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED COLD
STORAGE WAREHOUSE , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ,
AT THERM , INC . , ON HUDSON STREET EXT . , TOWN OF ITHA.CA TAX PARCEL NO .
6 - 54 - 4 - 1 . THERM , INC . , OWNER ; ROBERT R . . SPROLE , PRESIDENT ,
APPLICANT .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter
duly opened at 8 : 30 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Arnold Albrecht , representing Therm , Inc . , approached the Board .
Mr . Albrecht stated that the proposed cold storage building was a
steel Quonset type of building , which would be unheated , but would have
lights . Mr . Albrecht stated that the building would be used strictly for
storage , adding that , at the present time , a lot of the! things are stored
outside and in temporary storage . Mr . Albrecht noted that the building
would be 50 feet wide , 200 feet long , and 171 feet high , with corrugated
steel construction . Mr . Albrecht offered that . a portion of the Therm
property is fenced , and the building would be constructed in the southeast
portion , outside the fence , except for the doors , which are on the inside
of the fence . '
Board Member Klein wondered if an earlier storage building had been
approved . Mr . Albrecht responded that the moving of a storage building had
been approved .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there
were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions .
Bill Steele , 121 Kendall Avenue , spoke from the floor and stated that
he lives directly behind Therm , Inc . Mr . Steele was concerned about the
zoning . Chairman May responded that it was located in the Town and is
zoned Light Industrial .
Board Member Langhans wondered why the building was being built
outside the fence , and not inside the fence . Mr . Albrecht responded that
Therm wants the building as far back as possible , noting , there are no
homes in that immediate area .
There appearing to be no - one else from the public who wished to speak
to this matter , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 35 p . m . and
• brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Planning Board - 11 - May 17 , 1988
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 . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Approval of a. Revised Site Plan
for Therm , Inc . , located at Hudson Street Extension , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 1 - 1 , with revisions proposed being the addition of
a 50 ' x 200 ' storage structure .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review .
3 . The Assistant Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance for this action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental
review of this Unlisted Action , make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
-
Aye May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein, , Kenerson , Miller .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mrs . Virgina Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert Miller :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Approval of a Revised Site Plan
for Therm , Inc . , located at Hudson Street Extension , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 1 - 1 , with revisions proposed being the addition of
a 50 ' x 200 ' storage structure .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has made a
negative determination of environmental significance on May 17 , 1988 .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 17 , 1988 , has reviewed
the revised site plan , short environmental assessment form , and
proposed schedule of improvements .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant approval to the
Wevised site plan as proposed , subject to the approval of site revegetation
by the Town Planning Department .
Planning Board - 12 - May 17 , 1988
By way of discussion , David Klein stated , in terms of the
• revegetation , obviously Therm is doing a little bit of grading around the
building , with Mr . Albrecht responding , that is true . Mr . Klein wondered
if the intent was to restore the lawn . Mr . Albrecht answered that there is
no lawn there . Mr . Albrecht stated that there is wild growth there .
George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , offered that , right now , there is
grass and scrub , adding , the slope is being reforested naturally . Mr .
Albrecht offered that , except for right next to the building , Therm cuts a
swath along the fence on each side for security purposes , noting , this will
be done by the proposed building . Ms . Langhans wondered how high the fence
was , with Mr . Albrecht answering , six feet .
Mr . Frantz stated that , as far as revegetation , staff was thinking in
terms of seeding it to grass , with the proviso that , perhaps , ten feet from
the building , on all sides , the area be cleared . Mr . Frantz remarked that
the natural vegetation would take over , commenting , this would help ,
eventually , to screen the building even further . Mr . Klein commented that
the site should not be left raw and messy .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Miller .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of the Consideration of Site Plan
Approval for a proposed cold storage warehouse at Therm duly closed at 8 : 39
p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS
IMPOSED IN THE SEPTEMBER 15 , 1987 , PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF AN
AIR STRUCTURE ENCLOSING TWO TENNIS COURTS AT " LA TOURELLE " , SPECIAL LAND
USE DISTRICT N0 , 11 1150 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 ,
6 - 36 - 1 - 4 . 2 , AND. FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF
LOCAL LAW NO . # 3 - 1984 PERTAINING TO SAID SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO . 1 ,
SAID REQUEST BEING TO PERMIT COOKING OPERATIONS AND BEVERAGE SERVICE IN " LA
TOURELLE " FOR RECEPTIONS AND SIMILAR EVENTS , WALTER J . WIGGINS ,
OWNER /APPLICANT .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter
duly opened at 8 : 40 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above .
Attorney Robin Masson , Law Partner with the office of Walter J .
Wiggins , Esq . , addressed the Board .
Attorney Masson distributed photographs of the tennis bubble to
members of the Board .
Attorney Masson stated that , basically , the intent was to take the
bubble down in the summer , and have outdoor tennis . Attorney Masson
commented that the lawn had been graded around the court so that people
could sit on the bluff and watch people playing in the summer . Attorney
Planning Board - 13 - May 17 , 1988
• Masson stated that a fence was put up to keep the balls and tennis players
in , and other people out . Attorney Masson stated that , to take down the
air structure , fold it and put in a storage area , then to re -erect the
structure each year would cost about $ 8 , 500 . 00 , adding , that would shorten
the life of the bubble to have it folded , stored , unfolded , stretched , and
re - erected . Attorney Masson stated that Mr . Wiggins is seeking permission
to allow the , bubble to remain up throughout the summer , commenting that it
is the only facility available for indoor play in the summer , as the
Cornell tennis bubble closes in the summer . Attorney Masson stated that
the bubble is really not all that visible from the road , noting that the
landscaping " La Tourelle " promised that it would do is underway , but it
probably would not be finished by the May 31 , 1988 deadline that the
Planning Board had set , adding that Mr . Wiggins would like another month ' s
extension to finish the landscaping . Attorney Masson noted that the bubble
can only be seen from the northeast corner , adding that , by the time one is
in front of " La Tourelle " itself , the bubble is completely hidden by the
building , and as one moves south there is the L ' Auberge building and the
house on the other side of the pond .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there
were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions .
Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , noted
that he has not formally finalized the tennis bubble , because there were no
exit signs placed inside the bubble . Mr . Frost stated that he had written
a letter to Mr . Wiggins , and Mr . Wiggins has not , as of this date , notified
• him that the signs have been installed , nor has he called for a final
inspection . Continuing , Mr . Frost offered that in terms of the building
permit issued for the bubble , that has not been finalized . Mr . Frost
stated that he had a complaint in terms of a tennis tournament that was
advertised in the newspaper . Mr . Frost commented that the advertisement
appeared as though the use of the tennis bubble was being opened up to the
general public . Mr . Frost referred to the September 15 , 1988 Planning
Board Minutes , in which it was noted that Mr . Wiggins indicated that the
court was for the patrons of " La Tourelle " . Mr . Frost mentioned a
potential violation in this matter .
Attorney Masson stated that she could not address the issue of the
exit signs , as she did not know whether or not they are in place . Attorney
Masson remarked that , as far as opening up the courts to the general
public , one can only play on the courts if one becomes a member of the
Tennis Club , which requires the filing of an application and payment of the
membership fee . Attorney Masson also noted that an overnight guest of " La
Tourelle " could use the courts , and added that anyone who is a member of
" La Tourelle " could use the facilities .
Attorney Barney wondered if anyone could become a member by offering
the requisite amount of money . Attorney Masson responded that she would
guess that would be true , but one would have to become a member , and abide
by the rules of the club with regard to behavior and dress . Attorney
Barney stated that he felt Mr . Frost was noting the impression , whether
• correct or not , when the discussion was about patrons of " La Tourelle " ,
that it was overnight guests .
Planning Board - 14 - May 17 , 1988
Chairman May wondered if there was anything in the advertisement that
related to membership requirements . Mrs . Langhans wondered about bathroom
and changing facilities for a club member , adding that there is a need for
those facilities , as one would not want want a club member using the " La
Tourelle " facilities . Attorney Masson offered that the rules for the court
now state that the only people who can be inside the bubble are people who
are playing , adding that family members cannot be present .
Robert Kenerson noted that , in earlier discussions , Mr . Wiggins had
indicated that , if this were made a permanent installation , there would be
facilities for showers , lockers , and a place to change clothes . Mr .
Kenerson inquired as to whether this was in the plans, Attorney Masson
responded that that was not part of the presented plan , and that she was
not aware of any plans to do that . Mrs . Wiggins stated that Mr . Wiggins
had talked about putting another small building off the side , for changing
and bathroom - facilities . Mrs . Wiggins noted that there is a small lounge
now , with a screen in it , which can be used for changing , commenting that
there are no bathroom facilities . Mrs . Wiggins mentioned that there is a
phone available .
Mrs . Langhans stated that she felt , in her opinion , the project was
mushrooming from what the original intent was in the very beginning , and
what the Board had voted on .
Ms . Beeners stated that , in completing the landscaping , she would like
to see plantings put on the western side , as well as the northern end near
• the Country Inn , roughly where trees were proposed in the original site
plan , and then also completion of trees along the Danby Road edge and the
northern boundary . Ms . Beeners noted that the tennis courts went in
without receiving any site plan approval .
Attorney Barney asked what the distance was between the bubble and the
Country Inn . Ms . Beeners answered that it was approximately 70 feet .
Chairman May mentioned that a site plan should be submitted before the
Board considers the issue . Attorney Barney stated that it seemed to him
that the Board does not know exactly where the tennis courts are , in terms
of site plan . Attorney Barney stated that there has never been anything
presented to the Board for formal approval of the tennis courts , adding ,
the Board has gone to the next step and approved the bubble on a temporary
basis , now the Board is being asked to approve the bubble on a permanent
basis . Attorney Barney stated that it seemed to him that if the Board was
going to approve something on a permanent basis , then a :site plan should be
submitted . Ms . Beeners stated that the site plan should also show the
proposed landscaping and noted that , perhaps , a decision. should be made on
whether that quonset but is going to remain .
At this point , George Frantz wondered if it would be possible to paint
the structure other than white . Attorney Masson responded that it is
translucent to allow sunlight to come through . Mr . Frantz stated that the
structure is not visible from Danby Road , but is highly visible from West
Hill .
• There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman May asked if
anyone were prepared to make a motion .
Planning Board - 15 - May 17 , 1988
• MOTION by Chairman Montgomery May , seconded by Robert Kenerson :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the Public
Hearing in the matter of an air structure enclosing two tennis courts at
" La Tourelle " be and hereby is adjourned until June 7 , 1988 at 7 : 30 p . m . ,
to allow time for the applicant to prepare a site plan as to what it is
now , and a site plan , if different , to what it is the applicant wants .
Also , the applicant should submit a document concerning the rules and
regulations of the tennis courts .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Miller , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Klein .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
At this time , the Board turned to the matter of a recommendation to
the Town Board pertaining to the Consideration of Modification of L . L . No .
3 - 1984 relating to Cooking Facilities and Beverage Service at " La
Tourelle " .
Attorney Masson addressed the Board and stated that " La Tourelle "
would like to be able to offer a guest a glass of sherry , noting that it
would be no big scale operation . Attorney Masson remarked that the Liquor
• Board got very upset about that , because it is not a licensed liquor
premises . Attorney Masson noted that " La Tourelle " hopes to satisfy the
requirements of the Liquor Board by serving only lunch and breakfast at " La
Tourelle " itself , and have the guests served their dinner at L ' Auberge ,
which is nearby . Attorney Masson stated that " La Tourelle " is already
serving a Continental Breakfast to its guests , and added that the Inn does
not intend to change that . Continuing , Attorney Masson stated that the Inn
is adding the ability to serve lunch , noting that the Inn does not intend
to do any advertising , nor aggressively go after the lunch market in Town .
Virginia Langhans asked , if someone comes in , would it be open to the
public ? Attorney Masson responded that if someone came in they would have
to be open , commenting , " La Tourelle " could certainly provide that meals
would only be served by reservation . Mrs . Langhans mentioned that it would
be very quickly known in Town that " La Tourelle " was serving lunch .
Attorney Masson stated that , in order for the Inn to have a liquor
license , it has to be a hotel , and added that there are Bed and Breakfast
places in the area that have a liquor license .
Chairman May wondered about a kitchen , with Attorney Masson responding
that there is a small kitchen in the facility .
Robert Miller asked if the present variance was just for a Bed and
Breakfast , or is it for a hotel ? Attorney Barney responded that it started
as a Bed and Breakfast . Attorney Barney referred to Local Law No . 3 - 1984
• which specifies that it would be used as a Bed and Breakfast Inn , and noted
that they would be permitted to serve a Continental Breakfast solely for
guests of the hotel . Continuing , Attorney Barney noted that no cooking
Planning Board - 16 - May 17 , 1988
• operations or facilities were permitted in the hotel , except that a
Continental Breakfast may be served . Mr . Miller wondered if the applicant
should apply for a variance for a hotel . Attorney Barney commented that he
wondered why Mr . Wiggins does not make an application to elimimate the Bed
and Breakfast designation altogether , and come in for a full - fledged motel
and hotel . Attorney Barney remarked that the project started out as a Bed
and Breakfast , adding , when it was constructed it became the largest Bed
and Breakfast that anyone had ever seen . Ms . Beeners stated that it was
approved as a hotel or motel , to be used as a Bed and Breakfast Inn ,
commenting that the conditions in the Local Law No . 3 - 1984 modified it
into a " hotel " . Attorney Barney felt that the project has evolved into
something considerably more than a Bed and Breakfast .
Virginia Langhans wondered if receptions held at the Inn were
sometimes held outdoors . Attorney Masson answered , yes , there is a tent
and flagstone area . Attorney Masson stated that the applicant was seeking
to have No . 5d in Local Law No . 3 - 1984 removed , which refers to the fact
that " no cooking operations or facilities shall be permitted in the hotel ,
except that a Continental Breakfast solely for guests of the hotel , may be
served daily . "
Robert Miller stated that he had no objection to putting in facilities
for cooking , but objected to the structure being called a Bed and
Breakfast . Carolyn Grigorov agreed with Mr . Miller . Mrs . Wiggins
commented that the intent was to be a Bed and Breakfast at that site .
However , Mrs . Wiggins stated that a guest cannot have a drink in their
• room , adding that a guest may like to have a drink in their room .
At this time , Attorney Barney suggested changing the whole Local Law
to eliminate a lot of the restrictions , then it makes it much more
palatable to talk about tennis courts , adding that he thought Bed and
Breakfast , and tennis courts were a little inconsistent . Attorney Masson
responded that she would not object to that suggestion . The Board
concurred with Attorney Barney ' s suggestion .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman May asked if
anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Chairman Montgomery May , seconded by Robert Miller :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the Special Land
Use District request to permit cooking facilities at " La Tourelle " be and
hereby is adjourned until June 7 , 1988 at 7 : 30 p . m . , to allow time for Town
Attorney Barney and Attorney Masson to get together to rework the original
Local Law No . 3 - 1984 .
By way of discussion , at this point , Ms . Beeners commented that she
hoped this was not getting into a second restaurant on the premises , open
and advertised to the public . Ms . Beeners stated that more parking would
be needed for a second restaurant . Attorney Barney offered that no matter
what they do , there would have to be a site plan review process . Mrs .
• Wiggins stated that she could almost assure the Board that there would be
no advertising as a restaurant , as that is not the purpose or intent . Mrs .
Wiggins mentioned the traffic factor for another restaurant . Attorney
Planning Board - 17 - May 17 , 1988
• Barney noted that there would be another site plan anyway , so parking
accommodations should be shown . Chairman May noted that that would be part
of the site plan .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Miller , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Klein .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Chairman May declared the matter of Approval of an air structure
enclosing two tennis courts and the Special Land Use District request to
permit cooking operations and beverage service at " La Tourelle " duly
adjourned at 9 : 50 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR JONES
FARM RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY , PROPOSED AS A CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION TO CONSIST
OF 43 SINGLE -FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS AND 79 PAIRED DWELLING UNITS ,
TO BE LOCATED AT 250 TROY ROAD , BACKLOTS OF EAST KING ROAD AND TROY ROAD ,
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 45 - 2 - 14 , 66 . 5 ACRES TOTAL , RESIDENCE
DISTRICT R - 30 . BUTTERFIELD ASSOCIATES , APPLICANT ; DAVID C . AUBLE , AGENT ;
HOLMES JOHNSON ASSOCIATES , LAND PLANNER .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter
• duly opened at 9 : 51 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above .
Chairman May stated that the Applicant had requested that the Public
Hearing in the above - noted matter be adjourned to June 7 , 1988 .
MOTION by Chairman Montgomery May , seconded by James Baker :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adjourn and hereby
does adjourn the " Jones Farm " Public Hearing until June 7 , 1988 , at 8 : 00
p . m .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Miller , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 1 . 98 ±
ACRE PARCEL AND A . 79 ± ACRE RIGHT OF WAY FOR FUTURE HIGHWAY ACCESS FROM
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 45 - 1 - 2 . 2 , 16 . 74 ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED
BACKLOTS OF EAST KING ROAD AND RIDGECREST ROAD . GRACE CASCIOLI , OWNER ,
Chairman May stated that the request for consideration of the
• above - noted matter has been withdrawn at this time , at the request of the
owner .
STAFF REPORT
• Planning Board - 18 - May 17 , 1988
At this time , Town Planner Susan Beeners mentioned Eastwood Commons .
Ms . Beeners offered that she had thought the Orcutts and the Residents '
Association were on some kind of friendly terms so that Mr . Orcutt would
give some land for the walkway to be relocated , and in turn the Residents '
Association would give access to the Orcutt lands , however , that seems to
have fallen through as an opportunity . Ms . Beeners stated that the
Attorney for the Residents ' Association had informed her and Town Attorney
John Barney that they insist the pathway be removed by May 27th or May
28th , 1988 , and if it is not removed , the Association would remove it after
that time . Ms . Beeners stated that she had asked Attorney Barney , because
she felt there was a legal basis to do it , to write Mr . Schickel and inform
him that the walkway was built in the wrong place , with no real legal
authority to build it there , and to instruct Mr . Schickel to please remove
it and build a new walkway along the southern end of the development , which
would actually be on Mr . Schickel ' s vacant land .
Attorney Barney stated that , in reviewing the documents , the Orcutts
seemed to be proceeding under some assumption that they had a right - of -way ,
and noted that he did not find it in any of their deeds or reservations on
Eastwood Commons property . Chairman May wondered if the old subdivision
plot had been looked at , with Attorney Barney responding , yes . Chairman
May asked Attorney Barney if he felt that the old subdivision plot had . any
legal basis , with Attorney Barney answering , no , a completely different
subdivision had been approved . Ms . Beeners said that there were several
places where a mapped street was shown , but when the deeds were looked at
the Orcutts did not have the right of access . Attorney Barney stated that ,
indeed , they were not conveyed with reference to that subdivision map , they
were conveyed by reference to metes and bounds . Chairman May remarked that
he had a rather formal subdivision map of that land , with 30 - foot lots .
Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , noted that Mrs . Orcutt had shown him a
map , but there were no titles on it . Attorney Barney stated that the
question was whether it was ever properly followed through , dedicated and
approved , commenting , since that time , a great portion of it , if not the
lion ' s share , has been eaten up by Eastwood Commons subdivision , and noted
that the road went all the way to the northern edge of the Eastwood Commons
property , and the road that has been approved on the Eastwood Commons
subdivision was the one that went south . Attorney Barney stated that he
did not see a legal basis for the Orcutts to claim right - of -way . Attorney
Barney felt that it was between the Orcutts and the Residents ' Association
to solve their differences .
At this time , Ms . Beeners stated that Paul Jacobs [ College View Park ]
has been installing more double -wides than he was approved for . Ms .
Beeners remarked that this particularly becomes a concern when one looks at
just the logistics of the whole layout of the non - conforming portion of the
park where there were no lots defined , as there were in the new part . Ms .
Beeners suggested informing Mr . Jacobs to come in for consideration of a
revised site plan to see exactly what he does intend to do through the
whole site . Ms . Beeners noted that she wanted to be assured that there
would be no increase in the water demand . Continuing , Ms . Beeners
mentioned that there is an older woman in the park that has an existing
• trailer within the buffer zone , adding that she [ Ms . Beeners ] felt that Mr .
Jacobs would be requesting that the buffer zone requirement be waived for
Planning Board - 19 - May 17 , 1988
• two or three years . Ms . Beeners offered that the Jacobs issue would be
coming before the Board in a few weeks .
Ms . Beeners mentioned that some complaints have been received , noting
that one woman has written to Town Supervisor Desch asking for help ,
because she was being served with an eviction notice by Mr . Jacobs , Ms .
Beeners stated that the woman lives in an older , tiny little trailer that
is in the existing park . Ms . Beeners commented that the woman has no
lease , adding that Mr . Jacobs has , in his rules and regulations , leases
available to any tenants , but has apparently been pursuing a policy of
giving leases to people in the new lots , but trying to eliminate some of
the older , but cherished by some people , trailers in the old part .
Virginia Langhans wondered what the Planning Board could do about the
matter . Ms . Beeners stated that she had suggested , because the trailers
were in the non- conforming park , that , perhaps , there was some leverage in
that , that trailer No . 13 is , indeed , to be trailer No . 13 , unless approved
by the Planning Board . Ms . Beeners stated that there were some
miscellaneous conditions , such as the relocation of two trailers from the
existing park into the new park , which was half fulfilled .
Chairman May stated that he would like the feeling of the Board as to
a change from a single -wide to a double -wide , and understanding that it is
still a mobile home and that a double -wide may take up less area than a
single -wide . Chairman May noted that one peculiar situation was that the
Health Department requires a bigger septic system for a. double -wide , than
they do a single -wide , regardless of the number of bathrooms that may be
• involved . Chairman May commented that it seemed to him that if it is a
single family mobile home , and meets the constraints of sideyard , backyard ,
frontyard , etc . , he did not care if it was a single - wide or a double -wide .
David Klein wondered about the size of each lot . Virginia Langhans
wondered if some were approved that were double -wide and. single -wide , with
Ms . Beeners answering , yes , a specific number of double -wides because it
was related to water impact . Chairman May noted that Mr . Jacobs had a
certain number of them listed as double -wides and singles . Chairman May
offered that he was not sure if there had been an issue made of singles and
doubles .
Attorney Barney suggested adopting a kind of policy that states , if
the proposed trailer exceeds , in square footage , the existing trailer , then
the Board might want to look at it . Virginia Langhans stated that if all
the requirements were met , then she did not see a difference between a
single -wide or double -wide . Attorney Barney offered that each mobile home
lot should have a minimum gross area of 5 , 000 square feet . Attorney Barney
stated that he would tend to agree that it does not make much sense to make
Mr . Jacobs come before the Board every time he wants to install a
double -wide as opposed to single - wide , adding , if he is moving things
around from the old park , then that might be a little bit different .
Attorney Barney offered that , indeed , it was agreed that the old park would
deviate in some respects from the R- 5 requirements , because there were
smaller lots . Attorney Barney suggested that , if Mr . Jacobs is replacing
* mobile homes on the old part of the lot , and if the square footage is
greater than the existing trailer being removed , it should come before the
Board for site plan approval .
• Planning Board - 20 - May 17 , 1988
David Klein commented , if the site plan was specific in terms of its
• lots , and if it indicated doubles and singles , then Mr . Jacobs should
follow that .
Chairman May asked about trailer No . 14 . Ms . Beeners responded that
No . 14 was moved north into the land that was shown as future development .
Ms . Beeners noted that Mr . Jacobs has gone beyond the northern boundary of
the existing park . Chairman May stated that the No . 14 trailer issue
should come before the Board . Mr . Klein wondered if there had been any
complaints from the neighbors concerning their wells , with Chairman May
responding that he did not think so .
At this point , Mr . Frantz stated that at the Town Board meeting of May
9 , 1988 , the Board gave their approval to apply for a grant through the New
York State Environmental Quality Bond Act Program , which provides 50 %
matching funds for recreation development projects . Mr . Frantz noted that
the Town would be applying for a grant to develop the South Hill Recreation
Way , Continuing , Mr . Frantz offered that the Recreation Way would be from
the corner of Aurora Street and Hillview Place , east , past Hudson Street
where it will connect with the old Delaware - Lackawanna -Western railroad
right - of -way , down almost to the end of the lower switchback , cut up to the
upper switchback in the vicinity of the end of Juniper Drive , then continue
east to Burns Road , noting that the possibility is still being considered
to extend to Coddington Road Community Center . Mr . Frantz commented that
the project was approximately 2 - 3 / 4 miles in length . Carolyn Grigorov
wondered about the reaction from the City of Ithaca regarding the project .
• Susan Beeners , Town Planner , responded that the City was very pleased . Mr .
Frantz noted that one of the concepts discussed was the fact that the trail
would serve as the borderline between a developed area uphill from the
trail , and undeveloped areas . Mrs . Grigorov wondered if it would preclude
any development below it , with Mr . Frantz responding that it depends , as
the City is interested in actually acquiring the land , or at least keeping
parcels between the right - of -way and the existing City watershed lands .
Mr . Frantz stated that the trail would not prevent development . Mr . Frantz
offered that a " spur " would connect with the Ithaca College Campus .
Indicating on a map , Mr . Frantz noted that the old railroad bed [ trail ] is ,
at the present time , heavily used by joggers . Mr . Frantz noted that he had
viewed the trail , and did not find any evidence of the trail being used by
motorized vehicles . Mr . Frantz commented that , hopefully , the City would
pay for half the cost , from Aurora Street to the City line . Mr . Frantz
offered that the entire project would cost approximately $ 70 , 000 . 00 ,
$ 35 , 000 . 00 would come from the State , and roughly $ 6 , 000 . 00 - $ 7 , 000 . 00 from
the City for their share .
Mr . Frantz stated that , eventually , the trail would be connected with
the Buttermilk Falls State Park , noting that the ultimate goal is for a
connection with Robert H . Treman State Park . Carolyn Grigorov wondered if
the railroad track that crosses Aurora Street continues on down to
Buttermilk Falls State Park , with Mr . Frantz answering , yes . Susan Beeners
stated that most of the project would be done by easement , and there would
be no precluding the uses of rights - of-way for road purposes , utilities ,
• or drainage , and also the " Klondike " area .
• Planning Board - 21 - May 17 , 1988
Mr . Frantz asked for a resolution from the Planning Board in support
• of the application . Ms . Beeners noted that the Town Board authorized
application , and also a funding level .
Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion .
MOTION by Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Virginia Langhans :
RESOLVED , that the Planning Board supports the application by the Town
of Ithaca for matching funds from the State of New York through the State
Environmental Quality Bond Act , for the development of the recreation trail
to serve South Hill .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Miller , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 6 , 1986
MOTION by Virginia Langhans , seconded by James Baker :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
• Meeting of May 6 , 1986 , be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Miller , Grigorov ,
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the May 17 , 1988 , meeting of the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 30 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
}HIGHWAYS & g , < BUILDINGS
• �� ,y: , u , � � As . ; �.� �
I r4
PUBLI sV1� 0A S
Bostwick Road
Ithaba; :N;. Y" 14850
AIRPORT FACILITIES Telephone ( 607 ) 273- 4262 SOLID WASTES
May 17 , 1988
Mr . Tom Murray
% Courtside Racquet and Fitness Club
16 Judd Falls Road
Ithaca , NY 14850
w
Re : Roadside redevelopm6nt at racquet club , Judd Falls Rd ( cr120 )
Dear Mr . Murray ,
After reviewing the proposed redevelopment plan for the Courtside
Racquet and Fitness Club the County Highway Department grants
approval for the removal of the existing guide rail system . The
• elimination of the existing entry drive is � especially welcomed to
promote traffic safety at this location .
The County will be responsible for the removal of the existing
guide rail . Any fence that is constructed to replace it must . be.
installed outside the highway right of way . A highway work permit
will be required for any other work that would be performed in the
right of way .
If you have any further questions , don ' t hesitate to call me at
273 - 4262 .
Sincerely ohn R . Lampman �
Junior Civil Engineer
JRL 88 : 038
0
EXHIBIT 1
A FI DAVIT CW PURUCATiON
THE ITHACA JOURNAL :TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING' �.
BOARD, NOTICE OF PUBLIC-
., .HEARINGS,
UBLIC
.. HEARINGS, TUESDAY, MAY,
• 17, 1988 By direction of the Chairman
at the Planning Board, NOTICE
IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public
Hearings will be held by the
Planning Board of the Town of .
. Ithaca on Tuesday, May 17, '
J 1988, in Town Hall, 126 East `
--- being dION. Morn, deposes Seneca Street, Ithaca, N. Y. , at
+ the following times and on the
following matters:
and says , that he resides in Ithaca , County and state aforesaid and 7 : 30 P. M. Consideration of
. .-Approval of a Revised Site '
.Plan for Courtside Racquetball "
that 1* iS Clerk and Fitness Club, 16 Judd Falls '•.
...r._ ..—. ._ ... .�..—... .. .— .. . --^ -•_ — - -... ._ .._..... .._. _..... .� .._..._ . .; Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- ,:
cel No. 6-62- 1 -5, with re_
is vi
of TITHACA JOLriuiAL a public Dem'rpaper printed and published Bions proposed to include
outdoor basketball court and
an outdoor volleyball court. '"
Iska Ziver and Thomas Mur-
In Ithaca aforesaid, and that a notice , of whicb the aanexed is a trueray, Appliconts.
. 67.45 P. M. Consideration of ,
'Subdivision Approval for the'
Copy, ®vas publish-ed in said paper proposed subdivision of a 2 ,
-•plus/minus acre parcel from
'Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
6-35- 1 - 12. 2, 8. 82 acres total,
.Y_.—..—... ._ ._..............—.... ....:� — - -. ._._.... .. . _. . _.._.._. . . ... :.- located in a Residence District
R-30, at 817 Elmira Road. Opol
" W. Sprague, Owner; Sybil S.
...—.__ �.._ . ._..—....... . . .. .._ —..—.__. ^ Phillips, Agent.
'8:00 P. M. Consideration of
'Site Plan Approval for a pro-
and that the first publication of said notice was on the . __• .. .. N posed cold storage ware-
Ouse, proposed to be located
J in a Light Industrial District, at
� ! 19 'Therm, Inc. , on Hudson Street
day of _._. ... .... . — . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ r Ext. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
. Owner; herm, Inc
Robert RTSprole, Pres
— `^ ;... ._. .... .. " Ident, Applicant.
' 8 :20 P. M. Consideration of a
• ' Request for Modification of
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this , da , ;conditions imposed in the
" ^ ' - September 15, 1987, Planning
$oard Site Plan Approval of an
air structure enclosing two
"'— 18 • -• • len courts at "Lo Tourelle",
Special Land Use District No.
IthacaOTax oParDonbycel No TRoad 6-36- 1f
. .. ... .......... ..... ..... ........._. .... -. ..__- 4. 2, and further, Consider- .
NWwr7—Y pubes , ation of a Request for Modifi.
JEAN FORD cation of Local law No: 3.1984
pertaining to said Special 1
Notary Publ ; c, State cf New York Lancs District No. 1 , said Notary
reqs to permit cook- ,
No. 46541410 1 '0 ing and beverage
sery ourelle" for re-
Qualified in Tompkins County Jay Val similar events. j
O j ins, Owner/A II
Commission expires May 31 , 19 pplic. P
8:4G insiderotion of
Preliminary Subdivision Ap-
proval for Jones Form Resi- j
• dential Community, proposed
as a clustered subdivision to
consist of 43 single-family de-
tached dwelling units and 79
Paired dwelling units, to be
located at 250 Troy Road,
backlots of East King Road and (
Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6-45-2- 14, 66. 5 ,
acres total, Residence District
R30. ButterField Associates,
Applicant; David C. Auble, -
Agent; Holmes Johnson Asso-
ciates, Land Planner.
Said Planning Board will at
said times and said place hear
all persons in support of such
matters or objections thereto. t
Persons may appear by agent
or in person.
Jean H. Swartwood
Town Clerk
91ay 12, 1988 273- 1721