HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1988-06-21 FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date
• TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk4lln
JUNE 21 , 1988
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , June 21 , 1988 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , ,
New York , at 7 : 00 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , James Baker ,
Virginia Langhans , ', David Klein , Robert Kenerson , William
Lesser , Robert Miller , 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' : Jonathan Hochberg , Dan Schaaf , Rosalind Grippi , Doria
Higgins , Florence Wrisley , Elizabeth Blackmer , Betty T .
Brown , Fred M . Brown , Lydia Hillman , Peter Hillman ,
Kinga M . Gergely , Virginia Brooks Hochberg , Ed Cobb ,
Bonnie Simpson , Myrtle J . Whitcomb , John G . Whitcomb ,
Laura Marks , Robert J . Smith , Milton Zaitlin , Athena
Grover , William A . Grover , Sr . , Isabel F . Hardy , Mary
S . ' Eldridge , Tammo Steenhuis , Louis Hsu , Gene Ball ,
Alfred Eddy , Stephen Eddy , Steven F . Sommer , Franklin
E . Sharp , Margaret S . Sharp , Salvatore Grippi , Robert
Cotts , Norman Rollins , Connie K . Schaaf , Slade Kennedy ,
Jr . , Robert Horn , Charlotte Bosworth , Edward Bosworth ,
John Bowers , Jean Brockway , Karl Niklas , Elliott
Lauderdale , Frank Eldridge , Paul Glover , Judith Cone ,
Krys Cail , Bruce Brittain , Henry Aron , Noel Desch ,
Thomas R . Bruce , Roger Sayre , Carolyn Richter , Paul
Bennett , Esq . , Albert Wright , Don Vitters , Walter J .
Wiggins , Esq . , Jim Linton , Elsie McMillin ,
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 00 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 June 13 , 1988 , and June 16 , 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 ,
as appropriate , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of
the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning ,
and upon the applicants and / or agents , as appropriate , on June 14 ,
1988 .
Chairman. May read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled ,
as required by the New York State Department of State , Office of Fire
Prevention and Control .
SOUTH HILL RESIDENTS ' GROUP DISCUSSION
• Chairman May opened the discussion on the above - noted matter at
7 : 00 p . m .
Planning Board - 2 - June 21 , 1988
Mrs . M:rytle Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road approached the Board and
stated tha. t the South Hill Residents ' Group appreciated the
opportunity to express their concerns regarding the future growth and
development in the Town of Ithaca . Mrs . Whitcomb stated that , three
short weeks ago , a group of concerned citizens met to discuss the
proliferation of high density housing developments in the Troy Road ,
King Road , and Ridgecrest Road areas of South Hill . Mrs . Whitcomb
stated that the group became a nucleus of a formal group , known as the
South Hill Community Association , Mrs . Whitcomb commented that a
petition and letter of concern was drafted and circulated among the
local residents . Mrs . Whitcomb offered that the group had planned to
present the petition to the Board at its June 7 , 1988 meeting , but due
to time constraints , the group was unable to do so . Mrs . Whitcomb
noted that it was agreed to provide members of the Board with copies
of the letter , and petition , and would be granted this opportunity to
speak to the concerns . At this point , Mrs . Whitcomb distributed to
members of the Board an updated petition that now has 255 signatures
from South Hill . [ Petition attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . ]
Continuing , Mrs . Whitcomb commented that , as word of the groups '
endeavors spread , a great number of individuals and representatives of
other neighborhood associations have contacted the group to indicate
that they shared the concerns . Mrs . Whitcomb offered that it has
become extremely obvious that a common thread of apprehension can be
found , not only on South Hill , but on East Hill , West Hill , the City
• of Ithaca , and neighboring towns , as well . Mrs . Whitcomb stated that ,
as a result , the Greater Ithaca Neighborhoods ' Association was born ,
adding , the association is a coalition of neighborhood groups , both
formal and informal . Mrs . Whitcomb noted that , while the primary
purpose of the organization is to enhance the residential environment
and quality of life in the Town of Ithaca , the immediate concern is
the rapid and seemingly uncontrolled and unplanned growth and
development in the entire Town of Ithaca . Mrs . Whitcomb stated that
at the June 13 , 1988 Ithaca Town Board Meeting , Board Member Shirley
Raffensperger introduced a resolution addressing the creation of a
Comprehensive Master Plan for the Town . Mrs . Whitcomb stated that the
Greater Ithaca Neighborhoods ' Association was fully supportive of the
resolution , commenting , the group realizes that a Comprehensive Master
Plan is an exhaustive , time - consuming exerise . Mrs . Whitcomb noted ,
however , the group is concerned that unless a way is found to slow the
present rate of development within the Town by the time a Master Plan
is created , and publicly accepted , there will be very little open
space left to plan for . Mrs . Whitcomb stated that sad stories could
be recited about communities across the country that were consumed by
unplanned overnight growth , which are now suffering the consequences .
Mrs . Whitcomb remarked that it is clear that some of the consequences ,
the result from the lack of a Master Plan are :
1 . Cost of additional services result in increased taxes .
2 . Increased traffic flow and congestion .
0 3 . Negative impact on school systems .
Planning Board - 3 - June 21 , 1988
• 4 . Disruption of stable neighborhoods by new development .
5 . Destruction of open space and natural habitat .
6 . Creation of a quasi -master plan by default through isolated
decisions and variance approvals .
Mrs . Whitcomb noted that in the original petition , the group
asked for a. moratorium on subdivision of land on South Hill until a
Comprehensive Master Plan was developed . Mrs . Whitcomb stated that ,
because it is a Townwide problem , the request is being expanded , with
the support: of the coalition , to include the entire Town . Mrs .
Whitcomb stated that , specifically , the group is asking for a
moratorium for a specified length of time on the following :
1 . A ]_ 1 subdivision approvals .
2 . All variance requests on existing subdivisions .
3w All multi - residence requests ,
4 . A]_ 1 rezoning requests .
Mrs . Whitcomb commented that during the moratorium the group
envisions the Town Planners and the residents working together as
expeditiously as possible , to create the new Comprehensive Master
Plan .
• At this; point , Mrs . Whitcomb indicated that the specifics of the
groups ' rationale would now be addressed by other members of the
Greater Ithaca Neighborhoods ' Association .
Kinga Gergely of 106 Juniper Drive appeared before the Board and
stated that she was representing the Juniper Drive Association . Mrs .
Gergely read from a prepared statement . [ Statement attached hereto as
Exhibit 2 . ]
Peter Hillman of 370 Stone Quarry Road addressed the Board and
read from a prepared statement . [ Statement attached hereto as Exhibit
3 . ]
Virginia Hochberg of 226 Troy Road addressed the Board and stated
that she has been a homeowner on Troy Road since 1955 , noting that she
and her husband built their own home , with help from their three
children . Ms . Hochberg commented that they planted a forest , with
help from the Boy Scouts , and the New York State Forestation Project .
Ms . Hochberg said that she felt very committed about the area ,
commenting , she knows that change is inevitable , but would work to see
that it is accomplished in a way that would benefit fellow homeowners
in the environment . Ms . Hochberg remarked that one of the changes
that seemed -to be taking place in an uncontrolled manner is the flow
of traffic in Ithaca . Ms . Hochberg expressed her concern with density
in the area .
• Krys Cail of 337 DuBois Road approached the Board and read from a
prepared statement . [ Statement attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . ]
Planning Board - 4 - June 21 , 1988
• Elliot Lauderdale of 381 Stone Quarry Road approached the Board
and read from a prepared statement . [ Statement attached hereto as
Exhibit 5 . 1
Dan Schaaf of 165 Ridgecrest Road addressed the Board and read
from a prepared statement . [ Statement attached hereto as Exhibit 6 . 1
Doria :Higgins of 2 Hillcrest Drive addressed the Board and read
from a prepared statement . [ Statement attached hereto as Exhibit 7 . ]
John Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road appeared before the Board and read
from a prepared statement . [ Statement attached hereto as Exhibit 8 . 1
At this point , Chairman May stated that there has been a
tremendous amount of information presented tonight , but felt it would
be inappropriate to respond to it generally , except to state that he
thought there were some gross untruths that have been expressed .
Chairman May stated that the SEQR process requires public hearings .
Chairman May noted that he has been a member of the Planning Board for
approximately 13 years , and commented that there has never been a site
plan without public hearings for many , many years . Chairman May
stated that there has not been any law , nor any variance , where the
public was not involved , for many years .
Town Supervisor , Noel Desch , read aloud to the public present , a
• memorandum addressed to the Town Planning Board , dated June 21 , 1988 ,
from Supervisor Desch . [ Memorandum attached hereto as Exhibit 9 . 1
William Lesser wondered about the reference to the Planning Board
concerning the Kyong project .
Supervisor Desch stated that the reference he made was that it
might be appropriate if the Kyong project could be considered at the
July 5 , 1988 Planning Board Meeting , as there would be more detailed
information .
At this point , Chairman May announced that a Public Hearing has
been scheduled for August 2 , 1988 concerning the Comprehensive Plan
Statement . The meeting is scheduled for 7 : 30 p . m .
Krys Cai. l of 337 DuBois Road spoke from the floor and asked about
the Request for Proposal for a consultant . Chairman May responded
that the Comprehensive Plan is the responsibility of the Planning
Board , and the Planning Board had already had a public hearing public
hearing , scheduled for 7 : 30 p . m . , and it will be continued that way .
Chairman May asked if there were any other comments . There being
none , Chairman May declared the South Hill Residents ' Group discussion
duly closed at 7 : 53 p . m .
ADJOURNED 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 NO . 1 , 1150 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF
Planning Board - 5 - June 21 , 1988
• ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 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 , 11 SAID REQUEST BEING TO PERMIT COOKING
OPERATIONS AND BEVERAGE SERVICE IN " LA TOURELLE " FOR RECEPTIONS AND
SIMILAR EVENTS , WALTER J . WIGGINS , OWNER / APPLICANT . [ ADJOURNED FROM
MAY 17 AND ;JUNE 71 19 8 8 .
Chairman May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 54 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Wiggins addressed the Board and stated that there was a
misunderstanding that the tennis court was only for the guests at La
Tourelle , Mr . Wiggins stated that , as far as the public is concerned ,
there have not been any complaints from people in the community ,
noting that it serves the purpose of those people in the community who
enjoy playing tennis throughout the year . Chairman May stated that
there were several concerns from the prior meeting , one being that
there was not an existing site map . Mr . Wiggins offered that the
parking lot ,, as shown on the plan , is not really in the accurate
place , it should be moved a bit more to the north . Mr . Wiggins noted
that the building has been turned around into a smaller " U " . Mr .
Wiggins stated that he had erected a fence around the bubble so that
it could be used in the summertime , and noted , as shown on the map ,
that a duck pond had been built , adding , some grading has been done to
• improve the drainage by the pond .
Town Planner , Susan Beeners stated that it was noted at the last
meeting that Attorney Masson was to get together with Town Attorney
Barney and try to straighten everything out , which was accomplished ,
so that modifications to the Special Land Use District would not have
to be made every time . In addition , Ms . Beeners mentioned
landscaping . Ms . Beeners commented that evergreens should be placed
or rearranged to minimize the impact of the tennis bubble itself , both
from distant views , and . also from the view on Danby Road , Ms . Beeners
asked about a swimming pool , with Mr . Wiggins answering , there really
has not been a designation of where it might go , adding that he
thought it would be an appropriate addition to the development , but
commented that he does not have a specific place for it . Ms . Beeners
stated that if there is a pool , it should be labeled on the plan
before it goes to the Town Board ,
Attorney Barney stated that what is being attempted is to build
in a little more flexibility , noting that it was started as a Bed and
Breakfast , and , obviously , has evolved into something with tennis
memberships , tennis court , bubble , year - around tennis , and the need
for cooking facilities . Attorney Barney stated that the point of the
proposed local law was to try and get away from the rather limiting
connotation on it , broaden it out a little bit , but leave with the
Planning Board the responsibility , and indeed , the obligation to come
forward each time when , e . g . , Mr . Wiggins wants to put a swimming pool
• in , commenting , it would not have to go back to the Town Board to have
the swimming pool laws revised , but to the location , and where it fits
into the site plan still is going to have to be shown at that time , on
Planning Board - 6 - June 21 , 1988
• a site plan . Attorney Barney stated , in looking at what this is
evolving into , the thought was , subject to Mr . Wiggins and the Town
Board approval , it is coming into what amounts to a resort , rather
than a Bed and Breakfast .
Board Member Lesser stated that , in his opinion , it is evolving
into a resort , and it should be decided whether it is to be a resort .
Mr . Wiggins stated that the ideas evolve, it is not like it was
planned for something , and now it is different .
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 : 10 p . m . and brought the matter back to the
Board for discussion .
Mr . Wiggins stated that he thought Attorney Barney was right in
that the area does lend itself to a kind of resort facility , as long
as it does not impinge on the rights of its neighbors , noting that he
thought that: that was a good addition .
Town of Ithaca Supervisor Noel Desch wondered if there had been
any assessment of the impacts of additional traffic resulting from
whatever comes forward as far as local law changes . Ms . Beeners
responded that Danby Road has adequate capacity for the proposed
increase . Ms . Beeners commented that the existing driveway entrance
is on the narrow side , as far as two - way traffic is concerned , adding ,
there are a couple of blind spots as one goes north toward La
Tourelle , which is caused by some shrubbery , and noted that ,
occasionally , there are some pedestrian / car conflicts , as guests are
strolling along the road . Ms . Beeners stated that it might be
adequate , at this time , to- keep the pavement as it is , but certainly ,
with any additional building expansion , there would have to be a
consideration of widening that road . Mr . Wiggins stated that there is
no intention of making the restaurant at La Tourelle a full
restaurant . Supervisor Desch commented that there has been a parking
problem on Route 96B . Mr . Wiggins responded that there has been a
problem from time to time , especially when there has been a large
function . Chairman May wondered what the occupancy was at La
Tourelle , as far as a function . Mr . Wiggins offered that La Tourelle
could handle up to about 150 people in the banquet room . Mr . Wiggins
offered that there are now 30 parking spaces . Chairman May stated
that he felt 30 spaces was not anywhere near adequate , with Mr .
Wiggins in agreement , noting that occasions with that many people are
rare , but it does happen , and this problem should be addressed .
Chairman May commented that the driveway is too narrow to have cars
parked along it . Mr . Wiggins offered that there is parking down by
the tennis bubble . Attorney Barney inquired about enlarging the
parking area behind L ' Auberge and the existing barn , with Mr . Wiggins
responding , there is parking at that location now .
At this point , Chairman May stated that he felt an honest site
• plan was needed of the project .
Planning Board - 7 - June 21 , 1988
Mr . Lesser stated that he found it hard to understand that
someone as competent a businessperson as Mr . Wiggins could get
involved with the tennis issue , without ever inquiring how much it
would cost to put it up and take it down . Mr . Lesser stated that he
commented on this because he was concerned with the general concern
with the notion of gradualism . Mr . Wiggins responded that he is a
tennis player and was not a businessman when it came to the tennis
bubble , as he wanted to be able to play tennis in the wintertime ,
adding , if one is a tennis player it is understandable .
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 James Baker :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the
Adjourned Public Hearing in the matter of Site Plan Approval of an air
structure enclosing two tennis courts at La Tourelle be .and hereby is
further adjourned until July 5 , 1988 at 7 : 45 p . m . , to allow time for
completion of the site plan .
There being no further discussion , The Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Lesser .
Chairman May announced that , for everyone ' s information , the
above MOTION constituted Notice to the public that the La Tourelle
matter is adjourned until July 5 , 1988 at 7 : 45 p . m . , and there will be
no mailing of individual notices for that meeting .
Chairman May declared the La Tourelle matter duly adjourned at
8 : 23 p . m .
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR THE REZONING
OF A 3 . 4 ± ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 35 - 1 - 10 . 1 ,
LOCATED ON ELMIRA ROAD NEAR ITS INTERSECTION WITH ENFIELD FALLS ROAD ,
FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 TO BUSINESS DISTRICT " B " , FOR EXPANSION
OF EDDYDALE MARKET . ALFRED C . EDDY , OWNER ; JIM LINTON , AGENT .
[ ADJOURNED FROM JUNE 7 , 1988 . ]
Chairman. May declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 24 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Jim Linton addressed the Board and stated that the main
purpose and the main need for the proposal is for more room .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions .
• Town Supervisor Noel Desch inquired as to the size of the
expansion . Town Planner Susan Beeners answered that , according to the
Planning Board - 8 - June 21 , 1988
• site plan , there is about a 6400 - foot addition , which would consist of
office , storage , handling space for the produce , and loading dock
space for distribution of the produce . Ms . Beeners remarked that , as
was pointed out to the Board at the last meeting , with some very
specific controls placed on the site , such as a limitation of the
proposed business uses to those that are proposed and specifically in
the proposal that has been submitted , being very specific convenience
items and not to include beer , just basic items such as bread , candy ,
etc . Ms . Beeners suggested some strict limitations on the use , as a
modified " B " district to try to preserve active agricultural land ,
with the remaining portion of the property restricted as far as any
type of development that could occur . Continuing , Ms . Beeners stated
that if a site plan completed by a professional architect or engineer
was submitted that would show specific design improvements made , then
there would not be any significant adverse environmental impact to
rezoning the existing use to permit a little bit of expansion of use .
Ms . Beeners offered that , in order to do it properly , the entire
Elmira Road corridor really should be looked at . Ms . Beeners
commented it was her recommendation that , until there is further
information on the Elmira Road corridor , she would not recommend that
this be sent on to the Town Board for approval , therefore , this
proposal should be denied , without prejudice and could be considered
at a later date .
Mrs . Elsie McMillin of 812 Elmira Road spoke from the floor and
wondered about rezoning . Chairman May responded that nothing would be
done without public hearings , adding that there would be public
hearings at the Planning Board level , as well as at the Town Board
level , commenting that rezoning is a Town Board function , not a
Planning Board function . Chairman May stated that the Planning Board
acts strictly as advisor and has no authority toward rezoning .
At this time , Alfred Eddy stated that he lost a lot of crops last
year because there was no place to store them . Chairman May noted
some serious problems and suggested that the appearance of the site be
cleaned up , rioting that that would help a lot .
Mr . Linton wondered what the serious problems were that Chairman
May mentioned . Chairman May responded with , the appearance from the
road , such as the equipment , boxes , and the miscellaneous items that
are out in front .
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 : 32
p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
William Lesser wondered if it were necessary for Mr . Eddy to
receive any sort of other permission to add on to the current
structure for the purposes of storing and selling agricultural
products . Ms . Beeners stated that in order to have any expansion of
that facility , Mr . Eddy would have to go before the Zoning Board of
• Appeals . Virginia Langhans remarked that Mr . Eddy was before the
Planning Board tonight for a rezoning . Ms . Langhans noted that the
changes to the market were for the addition of milk , cheese , bread ,
Planning Board - 9 - June 21 , 1988
• butter , etc . Ms . Langhans said that a storage area for the produce
that is produced is entirely different from a zoning change with a
convenience store . Mr . Linton stated that the procedure started three
years ago , with the application for a building permit , adding that the
permit was granted . Mr . Linton stated that the construction did not
start in a year ' s time , therefore , the permit ran out , commenting that
a permit was reapplied for , which was denied . Mr . Linton noted that ,
at that time , he had come before the Planning Board , noting that he
had a letter from the Zoning Officer suggesting that , rather than
going to the Zoning Board of Appeals , to go for rezoning . Ms . Beeners
stated that there were three areas - one being the convenience items
that were asked for , the addition for storage of produce , and the
distribution of goods . Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ,
Andrew Frost noted that , basically , it was his intent that he could
not issue a building permit because he felt that the property no
longer fell within the written letter of the law , when it came to a
roadside stand .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman May asked
if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov :
WHEREAS :
1 . This Action is the Consideration of a Request for the Rezoning of
• a 3 . 4 ± acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 35 - 1 - 10 . 11
located on Elmira Road near its intersection with Enfield Falls
Road , from Residence District R- 30 to Business District " B " for
expansion of Eddydale Market .
2 . This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board
has been legislatively designated to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board , the
Tompkins County Planning Department , and the New York State
Department of Transportation are involved agencies in coordinated
review .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on June 7 and June 21 ,
1988 , has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form and
other application submissions .
4 . The Town Planner has recommended that the request for rezoning ,
as proposed , be denied .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Town Board that the request for the rezoning of a 3 . 4 ± acre
portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 35 - 1 - 10 . 1 , located on
Elmira Road near its intersection with Enfield Falls Road , from
• Residence District R- 30 to modified Business District " B " for
expansion of Eddydale Market be denied , the Planning Board having
determined the following .
Planning Board - 100m, June 21 , 1988
• a . There is no need at present for the proposed Business zoning in
the proposed location . There exists land zoned for Business and
Light Industrial use along the Elmira Road corridor where the
proposed uses would be permitted uses .
b . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in
which the rezoning has been requested , based on current zoning
and land use , may be adversely affected , particularly the impact
on adjacent residential areas .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May . Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
Abstain - Miller .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
At this point , Chairman May stated that it was perfectly logical
that the applicant may wish to take the issue of building expansion to
the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Linton commented that he thought Ms .
Beeners did a very good job with her remarks , but wished that
something good had been said in the resolution , commenting that he
thought the resolution was somewhat different than what Ms . Beeners
actually said .
• Board Member Robert Miller stated that at the last meeting Mr .
Eddy had noted that he was not allowed to sell milk . Mr . Miller
referred to the 1981 Zoning Board of Appeals resolution in which it
states. Mr . Eddy can sell milk .
Chairman May declared the matter of the Eddydale request for
rezoning duly closed at 8 : 43 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A
PROPOSED FAC: ILITY FOR THE TOMPKINS COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ,
VISITORS AND CONVENTION BUREAU , AND TOURIST INFORMATION CENTER ,
PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT AT
904 - 906 - 910 - 912 EAST SHORE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS N0 .
6 - 18 - 2 - 8 , - 9 , AND - 10 . TOMPKINS COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ,
APPLICANT ; DOWNING - HASCUP ARCHITECTS , DESIGNER .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 44 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Steve Sommer of Downing - Hascup Architects approached the
Board and appended maps to the bulletin board .
Mr . Sommer stated that he was before the Board to seek final
approval for the Chamber of Commerce facility , which is to be located
• on East Shore Drive , just past the Ithaca Youth Bureau , and on private
property . Mr . Sommer stated that the plans have changed slightly ,
compared to the Preliminary Site Plan . Mr . Sommer noted that there is
Planning Board - 11 - June 21 , 1988
still the one -way off Route 34 into a paved parking surface , with
one -way out on the southern edge of the lot onto Route 34 . Mr . Sommer
stated that the building is located in the southwestern corner of the
lot , within the 15 and 30 foot setbacks , as per the R- 15 requirments .
Mr . Sommer :remarked that the building is a two - story structure , with a
total of 4200 square feet , commenting that there would be 24 public
parking spaces , three handicapped spaces across from the main entrance
to the building , six designated spaces for staff parking , and two
spaces for over - sized RV parking along the north edge of the site .
Mr . Sommer stated that it is proposed to put concrete paving in the
front of the building , adding that the existing vegetation would be
maintained on the north . Mr . Sommer noted that it is proposed to keep
a large number of the existing trees , adding , new plantings will be
placed along the street [ indicating on map ] . Mr . Sommer , commenting
on the drainage , and pointing to map , noted that " this " half of the
site would flow into " this " low area , out the 48 " culvert to the lake ,
and the other half flowing into the swale , which is along the property
line between the City land and the Chamber ' s property into " this "
swale and out through another 48 " culvert , underneath the railroad
tracks , then out to the lake .
Board Member Kenerson wondered about the lighting and signage .
Mr . Sommer responded that the signage is very important and would be
within a 50 mile an hour area driving any distance from Ithaca , and
commented that there would be signage on Route 13 , as well as on Route
34 . Mr . Sommer stated that there would be one major Chamber sign at
• the actual building site , and commented that the tower on the building
would also be an identifying factor . Virginia Langhans asked what was
in the tower , with Mr . Sommer responding that the tower , at the
present time , is access to the second floor . Ms . Langhans wondered
about handicapped access to the second floor , with Mr . Sommer
answering , the Chamber is proposing a small elevator .
mentioned that the building Board Member Lesser g area was built up
a little bit to help drainage . Mr . Sommer stated that there a number
of reasons why the structure itself would be built up , commenting that
391 versus 395 is the existing contour at the present time . Mr .
Sommer said that the finished grade would have to be above the floor
level of the lake .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions .
Doria H .iggins of 2 Hillcrest Drive spoke from the floor and
expressed a concern about the tower . Mr . Sommer responded that the
Chamber was not asking the Planning Board for approval or disapproval ,
per se , of the tower , as the tower lies with the Zoning Board of
Appeals . Mr . Sommer stated that the tower itself is , at most , 12X12
feet , which is less than 50 of the total footprint proper . Mr .
Sommers commented that the proposed materials for the structure are a
residential - style roof , horizontal cedar siding , with an observation
• area for the public on the first floor , and a pressure treated deck
for the conference rooms .
Planning Board - 12 - June 21 , 1988
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 : 59
p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Robert Kenerson asked that the issue of site lighting be
addressed . Mr . Sommer responded that , as of now , there are two stands
of lights in [ pointing to map ] " these " islands , with specific lighting
on the building . David Klein wondered how tall the light poles were
going to be ,, with Mr . Sommer answering , the Chamber does not know yet ,
but the proper lighting would be in place . Mr . Klein , directing his
comment to :Down Planner Susan Beeners , noted that the rear terrace is
shown on the site plan as a 30 - foot setback . Mr . Klein stated that
the rear property line is shown as a 15 - foot setback . Mr . Klein
wondered if the Zoning Board of Appeals should interpret that . Ms .
Beeners responded that it is slightly more than a 15 - foot setback ,
noting , it is probably more like 18 - 20 feet of setback . Ms . Beeners
stated that her interpretation was that , indeed , the rear of the
building is shown as 30 feet , adding , in the general orientation of
the building , one of those lines had to be considered rear yard .
Chairman May wondered about the front entrance . Mr . Sommer
responded that the front entry is under a covered roof area .
Mr . Klein wondered about the parking lot circulation , adding that
most people coming in would want to park by the building . Mr . Klein
remarked that the way the parking is oriented , 2 / 3 of the cars are
going to have to get back on East Shore Drive to get back into the
parking lot . Mr . Klein also noted that he was concerned there were
only two spaces for RV parking . Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer ,
noted that if the parking was reoriented , without the wheel stops ,
then an RV could take up two spaces .
Mr . Klein wondered if there were any plans to curb the islands .
Mr . Sommer answered that the only curbing proposed was at the front of
the building , and anything else would be open for snow removal . Mr .
Klein felt that , visually , curbing would look better . Chairman May
commented that , if the front island were curbed , it would be clearly
defined . Mr . Sommer commented that there is a limited budget at the
present time , but the matter would be looked into .
Mr . Klein commented that the building is 32 - 1 / 2 feet high above
grade . Ms . Beeners stated that the finished grade around the building
is not counted , the finished floor is counted , the floor in contact
with the ground surface , e . g . , the first floor .
At this time , Ms . Beeners referred to PART IIA - ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW - SITE PLAN , PROPOSED VISITORS AND CONVENTION BUREAU , TOMPKINS
COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE , and suggested that under the heading ,
IMPACT * ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD , there
should be an addition added to the second sentence , after plans and
goals . The following statement should be added : " The proposed
• 40 - foot stair tower , while exceeding the maximum 30 - foot height
requirment of the Zoning Ordinance does not pose any significant
adverse environmental impact when one considers the use , the design ,
Planning Board - 13 - June 21 , 1988
• the materials of the building , and the height of other buildings in
the vicinity , such as the Youth Bureau at 37 feet high , the Boat House
in Stewart Park , which is somewhat on a far western access from the
Chamber , and which is approximately 40 feet high , and when one
considers the topography of the next adjacent building across the
street on East Shore Drive , where it is raised up . A variance would be
required from the Zoning Board of Appeals . "
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 . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert
Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for
a proposed facility for the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce ,
Visitors and Convention Bureau , and Tourist Information Center ,
proposed to be located at 904 - 912 East Shore Drive , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 18 - 2 - 8 , 6 - 18 - 2 - 9 , and 6 - 18 - 2 - 10 , in
Special Land Use District No . 5 .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review . The New York State Department of
Transportation and the City of Ithaca Department of Public Works
are potentially involved agencies which have been informed of
this action .
3 . The Assistant Town Planner has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action .
THEREFORE , IAC IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for review of the
proposed site plan , make and hereby does make a negative determination
of environmental significance .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Miller :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the matter
of Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for a proposed facility
for the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce , Visitors and Convention
. Bureau , and Tourist Information Center , proposed to be located at
904 - 912 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 18 - 2 - 8 ,
6 - 18 - 2 - 9 , and 6 - 18 - 2 - 10 , in Special Land Use District No . 5 , be and
• Planning Board - 14 - June 21 , 1988
• hereby is adjourned in order for the applicant to submit a revised
final site plan detailing the location and design of proposed signs
and outdoor lighting and meeting the requirements for final site plan
approval as set forth in Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 2 - 1988 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of the Tompkins County Chamber
of Commerce Visitors and Convention Bureau , and Tourist Information
Center duly adjourned at 9 : 33 p . m .
SIGN REVIEW BOARD : CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPEAL TO CONTINUE USE OF AN
EXISTING NON - CONFORMING SIGN , 23 . 80 SQ . FT . IN SIZE , ADVERTISING
" INDIAN CREEK ANTIQUES " , LOCATED AT 1406 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 1 - 25 . 3 . CELIA BOWERS , APPELLANT .
Chairman May opened the discussion on the above - noted matter at
9 : 34 p . m . , and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Mr . John
Bowers was present , along with his Attorney , Mr . Paul Bennett .
• Attorney Bennett approached the Board and stated that Celia
Bowers was out of town , and he was before the Board to represent her .
Attorney Bennett stated that the subject sign was put up in May
1980 , apparently under a variance under the old sign law , noting that
he was not sure , exactly , what the old sign law said , and commenting
that he did not know what it was entitled . Attorney Bennett stated
that the sign was put up about three or four months before the current
Sign Ordinance went into effect . Attorney Bennett noted that , at that
time , the Building Inspector , Mr . Cartee , recommended the specific
location of the sign as it is now . Attorney Bennett commented that he
was not sure the Board could recall the property now , but it is the
site of Indian Creek Antiques , right around the corner from Indian
Creek Fruit .Farm . Attorney Bennett noted that the building is on a
high hill , around a curve , and Mr . Cartee recommended that rather than
putting a sign on either side of the curve so that people driving by
would see it , stop real quickly , and want to come back around into the
driveway , no matter which way they were coming , that there would be
one sign that could be clearly visible from both directions , adding
that Mr . Cartee suggested that the location of the sign be right up on
the top of the hill , so that it could be seen both ways from people
coming around the curve in either direction . Attorney Bennett stated ,
under the proposed Sign Ordinance at the time , a two - foot by two - foot
sign up on the top of the hill would not be visible by anyone , under
pretty much any circumstances , who was driving along in a car , so what
. was proposed at that time was a little bit larger sign , and Attorney
Bennett stated that he believed that the Town Board voted on this
before , under the old rules , and they recommended putting in a sign
. Planning Board - 15 - June 21 , 1988
• not to exceed 24 square feet , commenting that he thought it was a
shade under that . Attorney Bennett stated that the sign , as he
understood :it , and he has seen it , is a professionally done sign that
has been there for the last eight years . Attorney Bennett said that ,
originally , there was some kind of limitation put on the sign of five
years , noting that he was a little confused exactly what that was ,
adding that he has seen the minutes of the meeting , which say one
thing , and rioted that he has seen the exact Sign Permit which does not
have a limitation on it at all . Attorney Bennett stated that , in any
event , the ;sign has been there for the last eight years , and , at least
according to Mrs . Bowers , there has never been a complaint about the
sign . Attorney Bennett stated that some of the neighbors in the area
have offered. some support concerning the sign .
[ Letters from Doria Higgins , 2 Hillcrest Drive , John & Heather
Weiss , 105 DuBois Road , and Salvatore & Rosalind Grippi , 1296 - 8
Trumansburg Road , respectively , attached as Exhibits 10 , 11 , and 12 . 1
Attorney Bennett stated that the above persons find no objection
to the sign as it is now , and the sign is pretty well consistent with
the neighborhood . Attorney Bennett noted that in terms of the
character of the neighborhood there is also the sign for the Fruit
Farm itself right around the corner which is larger , and which
apparently has been treated as a pre - existing sign as well . Attorney
Bennett stated that the Bowers would simply like to keep the same sign
that has been in place for the last eight years , assuming that there
• is no objection from anyone , adding that as far as the Bowers know no
one has eves- voiced any objection , and that sign , while it may be
larger than a sign normally allowed in a residential area , given the
topography and the curve , as well as the height of the building , is
probably the safest kind of thing to have , especially in the kind of
narrow driveway that the Bowers have , rather than putting a sign that
may be hardly visible from the road so that people would be making
short stops and quick turns .
Chairman May stated that , as Andrew Frost , Building
Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , indicated in his letter , the
Planning Board is only empowered to deal with a sign which is four
square feet or 25 % larger , therefore , the Planning Board is making
strictly a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals .
Virginia Langhans wondered why the sign was not removed after the
time limit was up . John Bowers , speaking for Celia Bowers , spoke from
the floor and stated that they applied for a permit for the sign a few
months before the Uniform Sign Code was passed . Mr . Bowers stated
that Mr . Cart. ee said if we give you a variance for this sign , before
the new Uniform Sign Code was adopted , and then it turns out the
neighbors don ' t like it a year later or six months later it will be
grandfathered in and there will be no way that we can have any
Jurisdiction over the sign , because it was applied for before the Sign
Code was adopted . Mr . Bowers stated that Mr . Cartee said that he
• would like to put a limitation of five years on this , and basically
what he told them was that this was just to protect them so that if
the neighbors objected it could be taken down . Mr . Bowers stated that
Planning Board - 16 - June 21 , 1988
• this was sort of an informal understanding with Mr . Cartee , which he
was afraid never got into the minutes . Mr . Bowers stated that , quite
frankly , after five years they forgot there was this limitation , and
nobody ever mentioned it to them , nobody in the Town contacted them ,
nobody ever complained , and to tell the honest truth they just simply
forgot about it . Virginia Langhans commented that it was not Mr .
Cartee who gave you this , but the Town Board . Mr . Bowers responded
that he was just reporting the conversations that they had with Mr .
Cartee regarding the reasons for the time limitation , the location of
the sign , etc . Mr . Bowers remarked , if you look at the meeting of the
Town Board minutes , there is really no discussion , at all , about any
of these issues , and that was just what was said between them [ Bowers ]
and Mr . Cartee at the time .
Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that in 1980 it was proposed
that there would be landscaping done around the sign . Ms . Beeners
offered that , in her checking of that , she was not sure that that was
done . Ms . Beeners asked Mr . Bowers if that had been done . Mr . Bowers
said it depends on how close to the sign , as we keep it mowed around
there , and there is a line of small shrubs around the perimeter of the
south driveway , and there is another line of shrubs behind . Mr .
Bowers stated that he guessed , given the character of the neighboring
property , the unslightly debris around there , making a strenuous
effort to landscape seemed a little pointless to them . Mr . Bowers
stated that the other reason why they have not made stronger efforts
• to landscape is that their ultimate plan is to put in a new driveway
right along the property line next to Indian Creek Fruit Farm , and
they really would like to integrate a little landscaping to the sign
with that new driveway , which they have planned for some time . Mr .
Bowers said that there would be no problem in landscaping . Mr . Bowers
stated that if Ms . Beeners felt there should be more landscaping , they
would be happy to do it . Ms . Beeners stated that she noted it as
items that were proposed , specifically , at that time . Ms . Beeners
wondered if Mr . Bowers had looked at alternatives of maybe having two
signs that would comply and that would be visible for what purposes
they have with north and southbound traffic . Mr . Bowers stated that
that was the point they [ Bowers ] discussed specifically with Mr .
Cartee , and in fact , Mr . Cartee told them he would not allow them to
do that . Mr .. Bowers noted that Mr . Cartee ' s thought was , there is a
blind curve there , and one can ' t see anything around that curve coming
in either direction . Mr . Bowers stated that Mr . Cartee told him that
his fear was that if they put up a small sign , even if it was as close
to their property line as possible , people tend to come around this
curve pretty fast and there have been numerous accidents at that site .
Mr . Bowers noted that Mr . Car tee ' s fear was that drivers coming around
that blind curve , seeing a sign , would try to brake in order to be
able to pull into the driveway , or if they were going in the other
direction pull into the lower driveway . Mr'. Cartee felt that that
would create a traffic hazard , in fact , they discussed this with him
as to whether they could put in two signs , one on either side of the
curve , and Mr . Cartee said no , he thought it should go up on the very
• highest point of the property , so that people coming from both
directions could see it well in advance , and have time to decide
• i
Planning Board - 17 - June 21 , 1988
• whether they were going to stop or go down the road . Mr . Bowers said
that all of this was discussed informally with Mr . Cartee at the time .
George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , stated that there could be
a sign at the north entrance , oriented toward southbound traffic , and
coming south on Route 96 they would see a sign , noting there is quite
a bit of distance in which people can see a sign , identify it , and
brake . Mr . Bowers stated that that would work for the southbound
traffic running north , but the trouble is for the northbound traffic
going south , commenting that his [ Bowers ] driveway is situated such
that it is virtually impossible to make a right turn into it . Mr .
Frantz noted: that northbound traffic would be alerted by a sign at the
southern driveway , oriented toward northbound traffic , and from that
point south along Route 96 there is a very good view . Chairman May
offered that the problem is , people would not know there were two
driveways , adding that he thought the location of that sign on this
hill , and this curve is really far more of a safety concern than it is
a sign being obnoxious or undesirable . Mr . Frantz stated that the
signs would be at the driveway entrance . Chairman May responded that ,
if someone saw that first sign the tendency would be to jam on the
brakes for that driveway , noting that the second driveway could not be
seen around the curve , with Mr . Bowers agreeing . Chairman May
commented that he thought that was a very valid point as the sign , in
sitting up there on the hill , in reality probably is safer than trying
to put two small signs down by the driveway . Carolyn Grigorov stated
that the agreement was pretty clear in the resolution that the sign
was to come down in five years , commenting that this was kind of what
they were talking about before the meeting that people have a
violation and the Town lets them continue it . Chairman May stated
that , however , he thought the reason for the sign being put up there
in the beginning is still very valid . Mrs . Grigorov noted that the
sign still should have come down and then the applicant should have
reapplied . Attorney Bennett stated that the applicant is now
reapplying . William Lesser noted that the safety matter should be
paramount . Mrs . Grigorov stated that she did not think it was quite
right to just let the applicant go ahead with this . Chairman May
stated that he felt it was fairly easy to forget something in five
years . George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , clarified that the law
allows for a four square foot sign , and it does not necessarily have
to be about two feet by two feet , it can be one - foot by four feet
long , noting that it can be any dimension as long as it is four square
feet- in area , or varied by the Sign Review Board to five square feet .
Attorney Bennett commented that five square feet is not all that big ,
it is certainly smaller than " that " picture , and if for safety reasons
it is placed on the top of the hill . Mr . Frantz noted that one can
have ten - inch high letters on a five square foot sign . Mr .
Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , noted that if one wanted to consider a
smaller sign , the word Antiques is very large , and perhaps the arrow
is not needed at the bottom . Mrs . Grigorov mentioned the fact of
ignoring the .law . Mr . Bowers stated that he had spent quite a lot of
money to have this sign designed , specifically , to fit the character
• of the neighborhood , adding that the sign has posts that are designed
in a style which is consistent with the house , and it would be
extremely difficult to make a one by five sign , which fitted the
Planning Board - 18 - June 21 , 1988
• character of the neighborhood as well as the present sign . Virginia
Langhans mentioned letting someone do something illegal , which is what
everyone is complaining about . Chairman May stated that he personally
thought everything was fine . Mrs . Grigorov stated that the sign
itself does not bother her , it is just the fact that a violation was
committed .
Chairman May asked if there were any other questions . There
being no further discussion , Chairman May asked for a recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Appeals .
MOTION by Montgomery May , seconded by William Lesser :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and
hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the
presently existing non - conforming sign be granted permanent approval
in its present location .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Miller , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - Langhans , Grigorov .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
® Chairman May closed the discussion of the Bowers appeal to
continue use of an existing non - conforming sign , 23 . 80 square feet in
size , at 9 : 49 p . m .
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : PROPOSED GRADUATE STUDENT HOUSING AT THE CORNELL
QUARTERS SITE LOCATED ON MAPLE AVENUE AND MITCHELL STREET . ALBERT L .
WRIGHT , AGENT FOR CORNELL UNIVERSITY ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES .
Chairman May opened the discussion on the above - noted matter at
9 : 50 p . m . and, read aloud from the Agenda as noted above .
Mr . Albert Wright addressed the Board and appended maps to the
bulletin board .
Mr . Wright stated that Cornell University is proposing 170 units
for graduate students on the existing Cornell Quarters site , and other
properties contiguous to it , increasing the total site area by about
500 , adding that it would go from 12 to 17 acres . Mr . Wright offered
that the 170 units are broken down into 90 units for family graduate
students , 77 four -bedroom units for single graduate students , and
three efficiency units for single graduate students . Mr . Wright
stated that there would be 241 parking spaces provided on the site .
At this point , Mr . Wright introduced Don Vitters , Architect , from
the office of Saski Associates .
• Indicating on map , Mr . Vitters stated that the site is on the
existing Cornell Quarters site , which is located " here " between Maple
Avenue and Mitchell Street , adding that the site is abutted on one
Planning Board - 19 - June 21 , 1988
• side by the Maple Avenue Housing project , and the Fairview Heights
development is at the corner of Cornell Street , Mr . Vitters offered
that there is a fairly steep sloping topography running from the east
side to the west side . Mr . Vitters noted that there is an existing
cemetery located [ pointing to map ] " right " here , and there are two
existing buildings , in addition to the Cornell Quarters , located
adjacent to Maple Avenue , which provides storage for the Cornell
Campus Store , commenting that one of them is a concrete building , with
a double pitched roof , and the other is a quonset but type of
structure , which Cornell is proposing to remove . Mr . Vitters stated
that , prior to any construction , all of the existing Cornell Quarters
housing would be removed from the site , in addition to " this " existing
storage building . Mr . Vitters stated that the 90 units would be
located adjacent to the bikeway , adding that there would be a street
that would run through the entire length of the site . Mr . Vitters
offered that: the street would be narrowed down at Maple Avenue , and it
is proposed to construct a stone wall , and some type of formal
entrance into the complex , with some type of signage to identify the
complex . Mr . Vitters noted that Cornell is trying to preserve as much
of the natural landscaping as possible on the site . Mr . Vitters
commented that there is a heavily treed and steeply sloping area just
past the existing storage building , adding that some of the existing
trees would be relocated on the site .
Mr . Vitters stated that all of the housing units are
pre - manufactured , which are manufactured by Cardinal Industries of
• Ohio . Mr . Vitters offered that Cardinal Industries is the second
largest home manufacturer in the country . Mr . Vitters noted that
there would be a variety in roof line . Mr . Vitters offered that the
units would be clustered around small courtyards , and noted that
entrance to each one of the units would be from a courtyard . Mr .
Vitters stated that the courtyards would be landscaped in a unique
way . Mr . Vitters stated that approximately half of the existing
warehouse building would be renovated for management offices and
meeting rooms , and commented that there would be two laundry / lounge
buildings of 1000 square feet each . Mr . Vitters stated that , as to
the drainage , there would be some increased surface run - off due to the
additional density , adding that the design is for a 25 -year storm .
Mr . Vitters stated that a traffic study had been done for the project .
Mr . Vitters said that all of the units would have a. direct connection
to the bikeway . Mr . Vitters offered that in terms of lighting , it is
proposed to illuminate the drive and the bikeway going through the
site , noting that additional lighting would be in the courtyards , and
probably some accent lighting at the entrance to those courtyards .
Indicating on a map , Mr . Vitters pointed out the existing Cornell
storage building , to which Cornell plans to make improvements on the
outside .
Virginia Langhans wondered why everything was one - story , and used
up so much land , rather than having some two - story buildings where
there would be more open space . Mr . Albert Wright responded that that
• comes from the financial decision to use modular housing to provide
this housing , commenting that Cornell ' s research indicated that
commercial or institutional modular housing is by and large limited to
Planning Board - 20 - June 21 , 1988
• single story , adding , there are a few manufacturers that produce
two - story houses , but they are single family residences and they are
not adaptable for the kind of housing that Cornell wanted to provide
for graduate students .
Robert Miller wondered how wide the area was between the
sidewalks on the main drag . Mr . Vitters answered that it was 58 feet .
Mr . Miller asked about perpendicular parking with that distance , with
Mr . Vitters responding , there is enough room . Mr . Vitters noted that
the traffic circulation would be two -way . Carolyn Grigorov wondered
if there were enough play yard for the children of 90 families . Mr .
Miller asked about the 58 feet , because he was in the garage business
once and he was told that 70 feet was needed to have perpendicular
parking , adding that 60 feet used to be diagonal parking . Mr . Miller
remarked that he did not think one could back out and make a swing .
Mr . Vitters stated that the most typical dimension seen today are
18 - foot stalls and a 24 - foot driving range . Mr . Vitters stated that
Cornell did not want to do anything to make it difficult to get in and
out .
Chairman May commented about cars overhanging the sidewalk , and
he felt it would not look very nice to have a bunch of cars hanging
over the sidewalk . Ms . Langhans remarked that there would be a
maintenance problem in the winter . Mr . Vitters responded that an
alternative would be to provide a grass strip along there , and still
• allow cars to overhang the sidewalk . Mr . Vitters - stated that Cornell
was trying to economize in terms of maximizing the amount of space
around the units . Mr . Vitters said that Cornell did not want to add
any wheel stops . Carolyn Grigorov wondered if there were a fence
between the Maple Avenue apartments and the proposed project , with Mr .
Vitters responding , no .
Attorney Barney asked if the buildings would be occupied
seasonally . Mr . Vitters answered that they would be occupied
throughout the whole year . Attorney Barney wondered if the buildings
were owned by Cornell University . Mr . Vitters responded that they
were rental units for students , and were owned by Cornell University .
Mr . Wright offered that they were for dormitory use . Assistant Town
Planner , George Frantz , noted that occupancy would , basically , be
controlled through the Department of Residence Life , and rented to
registered students .
Board member William Lesser commented that , as someone who works
regularly with Cornell graduate students , this complex would be very
welcome , certainly the expansion . However , Mr . Lesser felt there
could be more accommodations made for children , as there is not any
specific place for them to go in that neighborhood . Secondly , Mr .
Lesser noted that one has to be concerned with the potential amount of
traffic that is going to be flowing through , even if it is limited to
this , to have that much traffic backing in and out of what amounts to
a major road through the property . Mr . Lesser remarked that he was
. not sure what could be done about that , but it was a concern that he
had . Mr . Vitters noted that a number of students would have a bicycle
or walk to the campus . Mr . Lesser wondered if bus service would be
Planning Board - 21 - June 21 , 1988
• provided , with Mr . Vitters answering , yes . Mr . Wright stated that one
of the reasons for a through street was the capability of bringing a
bus right through the site .
Chairman May wondered if any consideration had been given to
providing any Day Care facility in the project . Mr . Vitters responded
that there has been some discussion about that as a possible use .
David Klein , directing his question to Mr . Wright , asked what the
projected child population was ? Mr . Wright responded that it was very
difficult to predict what the child population might be . Mr . Klein
stated that he tended to agree with Mr . Lesser as to the play areas .
Town Planner Susan Beeners wondered if an improved pedestrian
connection -to East Hill Plaza had been looked at , adding , that seems
to be a big concern that she had heard recently , and noted that
historically , especially with the graduate students and their families
that would live at Cornell Quarters . Mr . Vitters responded , no , not
as part of this project , but it is part of a master plan for this
segment of the Campus .
Chairman May asked if there were any other comments . There being
none , Chairman May declared the matter of the Graduate Student Housing
at the Cornell Quarters site Sketch Plan Review duly closed at 10 : 30
p . m .
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 20 , 1987
MOTION by Virginia Langhans , seconded by Carolyn Grigorov :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of October 20 , 1987 , be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 31 , 1988
MOTION by James Baker , seconded by William Lesser :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of May 31 , 1988 , be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Planning Board - 22 - June 21 , 1988
• At this point , Chairman May wondered what the Board would like to
do with the information presented at tonight ' s meeting by the South
Hill Residents ' Group .
Town Supervisor Desch stated that it would be very helpful if a
transcript of the presentation was provided so that the Zoning Board
of Appeals , Town Board and Planning Board could have a copy .
Chairman May stated that the next action from the Planning Board
would be a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Statement .
Chairman May noted that copies of the Comprehensive Plan Statement
would be made available . Chairman May commented that , at this point ,
the Planning Board has adopted and moved to public hearing a
Comprehensive Plan Statement , noting , it was agreed that 100 copies of
the Plan were to be printed for public distribution . Town Planner
Susan Beeners stated that staff would work toward August 2 , 1988 for a
public hearing .
William Lesser stated that it appeared to him that planning
issues were getting considerable attention , commenting , he did not
know whether it was at all feasible to think about a larger place for
discussion of the Comprehensive Plan , if indeed , there were a number
of people who wanted to be in attendance at the meeting . Chairman May
responded that that would be discussed . .
• ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the June 21 , 1988 , meeting of
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 55 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•
June 7 , 1988
We the undersigned , do hereby affirm and support the formation
of the South Hill Community Association and the request of the
Executive Committee pro tem to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
attached hereto .
NAME ADDRESS
Vfi / 0
¢
lei e w T di'4 C
1 Y/
7
0 .
103 00400�
Com_
13 ,
32b Cosi 'G� -�(
( Dd
> 7 U �
0', ti e 1 acv
024 . 104 `�'h `` ✓
aFf. '`�a2 i o S�,►.�� �- p . , ty, 0P. E o nl (jf}CK
� 2Y�1 03 9UNI OL"Q. EXfIIBIT 1
3 s~ 0 ! o ��� s��.` �•� csz�
e
J,)j
EXHIBIT 1
PAGE TWO
Respectfully submitted ,
NAME ADDRESS
a
33
CLI
( 6s
r - -z s- S�
• R
lleEd
oC
I 7,rey
EXHIBIT 1
June 7 , 1988
We the undersigned , do hereby affirm and support the formation
of the South Hill Community Association and the request_ of the
Executive Committee pro tem to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
attached hereto .
NAME ADDRESS
20 7 w
Al c�
rAa
':ac-57/ pc)
WAZ
12.
117
ki"O C"r
EXHIBIT
• 1
- 1
June 7 , 1988
We the undersigned , do hereby affirm and support the formation
of the South Hill Community Association and the request of the
Executive Committee pro tem to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
attached hereto .
NAMEADDRESS
SST-rtXj ��-
G
77
1b D
GL
i
I
2
et �� h T �Ccc
EXHIBIT
• June 7 , 1988
We the undersigned , do hereby affirm and support the formation
of the South Hill Community Association and the request of the
Executive Committee pro tem to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
attached hereto .
NAME ADDRESS
Li
•
•
EXHIBIT 1
C
• June 7 , 1988
We the undersigned , do hereby affirm and support the formation
of the South Hill Community Association and the request of the
Executive Committee pro tem to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
attached hereto .
NAME ADDRESS
(AD
r aa4.)( Pj
S .a 13o
r res
D�� :
•
EKRIBIT 1
June 7 , 1988
We the undersigned , do hereby affirm and support the formation
of the South Hill Community Association and the request of the
Executive Committee pro tem to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
attached hereto ,
NAME .� ADDRESS
D
t
Ve
coot
i
Al eillmri rL.�
EXHIBIT 1
• Ir
The residents of the Town of Ithaca have gone from a feeling of complacency
and blind trust to. increasing frustration and no confidence in our local
government .
How did we get here?
Perhaps it is the constant threat of litigation from developers that
influences the Town Boards , The Town has taken the posture that the
developer has the right to develop , and recently, the developers have been
calling all the shots. The residents have been forced into playing the role of
the adversary . We end up fighting for rights that ought to be inherent in our
Ordinances . It should not be necessary for us to hire an attorney, when we
have a Town attorney or to hire an engineer, when there is a Town engineer.
Most of us feel threatened by the sudden escalation of developments that
can ' t be justified and will irreversibly change the character of our
neighborhoods. We are disturbed by the ad hoc and reactive manner in which
the Town conducts business and the lack of firm criteria , consistent plan
• and vision , that should be considered when making major decisions.
There is the danger that our neighborhoods , where people bought homes to
raise children or to retire , will much too easily be made into rentals . This
increases the density to full capacity and beyond , adds traffic , noise ,
changes the character of a neighborhood from a community to a transient ,
poorly maintained hostile environment . Clever developers take advantage of
every loophole 'to maximize their profits . The character of a good
neighborhood for example , can not be defined merely in terms of lot sizes !
Many of us are concerned about the ease with which rezoning has been
considered. Precedent plays a large role in the decision making process .
Decisions should be made carefully, so that a developer can not use bad
precedent to his advantage.
Our zoning map is a form of a guaranty : if you bought a home in a single
family neighborhood it would stay such . Any changes would be well
justified , predictable , with the consent of the majority and in the clear
interest of the entire community .
• It is unrealistic to ask that no changes be made , ever. The Town will
EXHIBIT 2
inevitably grow. But , the Town and the residents need to stop and re-
evaluate this expected growth with the help of unbiased individuals, We
need to determine what the most likely needs are and where the necessary
changes will be least destructive to existing neighborhoods . Progress should
be deliberate predictable. If we err, let 's do it on the conservative side.
Mistakes in community development can not be undone and generations will
pay for them. (Just remember the nationally featured horrid example of
Boulder! )
EXHIBIT 2
► l
P2 / er Ho �1✓r� av`
• QUESTION : ARE PRE- EXISTING RESIDENTS PAYING ADDITIONAL TAXES
TO COVER THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT ?
There are many "myths of growth" which are given to the public by local politicians and planners
in order to justify their persistent push for new development. Several studies have demonstrated
that the most common myth of growth or development is that "New development increases a
community 's tax base, spreads the tax burden among more people, and lowers everyone 's
individual tax rates. " In reality, however, "development does not pay its way with respect to the
costs of public services and must be subsidized by pre-existing residents through higher taxes.
The costs of new schools, roads, police and fire protection, water and sewer lines and other
services far exceed the tax income generated by the new housing development. " (Quotes from
Balance Data, No. 24, August 1987 , a newsletter of the Population-Environment Balance, 1325
G. Street, N.W. , Suite 1003 , Washington, D .C. 20005.)
For example, it was found that the taxes generated by new construction in Loudoun County,
Virginia only covered 70% of the cost of services for the new housing. The pre-existing residents
• had to pay the remaining 30% through increased taxes Balance Data, No. 24, August 1987).
What about the taxes levied upon the residents of the Town of Ithaca over the past few years?
Let's just consider our town/county tax bill, and exclude for the moment, taxes for fire protection,
water, and sewer. We are lumping our town and county tax bill rate together, because it is very
difficult to understand how our taxes are actually distributed between the Town of Ithaca and
Tompkins County. Regardless how the money is divided between the town and county, it is
money out of our pockets for the same services, for which our Town officials have considerable
control. Did you know that our town/county tax bills have increased 262 percent over the last 10
years? This translates to an increase (not including fire protection, water or sewer) from about
$ 83 in 1979 to $300 in 1988 for a house assessed for $50,000. Over the last 5 years the increase
has been 148 .9 percent! Last year alone it was a whopping 57 . 6 percent increase ! Obviously,
these increases, especially recently, greatly exceed inflation. We believe that much of this increase
is needed to provide services for new developments, because inadequate tax revenues are generated
by new developments.
In our neighboring village of Lansing, home owners are facing a 62 percent tax increase because of
• $ 8 million dollars in capitol improvements, mostly in road improvements to handle the increased
EXHIBIT 3
traffic generated by new business and high-density developments. The high-density developments
were not contained in a small area,forcing capital improvements to be made in a much larger area
(Seymour and Rita Smidt, Letter to the Editor of Ithaca Journal April 9, 1988 and James C.
Showacre, Letter to the Editor of Ithaca Journal April 21, 1988).
Studies have shown that if a community adapts a growth management plan that tax increases can be
minimized,and housing and land costs can be stabilized instead of being subject to inflation
through speculation Balance Data, No.24,August 1987).
Again to quote from the Balance Data newsletter, "Choice is an essential ingredient in growth
management programs. Politicians,planners and the public must make hard choices about the
type, number and density of housing units to be built in their community;the capacity of school
facilities,commercial enclaves and industrial parks;the size and location of highways;and the
limits to which the community will go to protect its environment."
We the people of the Greater Ithaca Neighborhood Association feel that the escalation in our local
taxes,is used to subsidize services for new developments in this town. This only adds insult to
injury because,in return for an unfair tax increase, we end up with traffic congestion,crowded
schools,and an unattractive,unhealthy,noisy environment.
A moratorium on new development is needed now,until we can get a rational growth management
program in place. Such a"Master Plan" will result in a smaller bite taken out of our hard-eamed
dollars while still allowing for growth in a community that will continue to be worth preserving
and living in for generations to come.
--- ------ ----- ---_ --_
Peter E. Hillman, 370 Stone Quarry Road,Ithaca,NY 14850
21 June 1988
EXHIBIT 3
r Y 5
e. -
Statement to Ithaca Town Planning Board , 6 / 21 / 88
• '� �n�ti�.nc1C�
I ' ve been asked by TherCreater Ithaca Association to address the issue of
school and youth services capacities as a component of effective , democratic
planning . Since children are not voters in the neighborhoods in which they
reside , they depend on advocates to state their case . While the parents of
young children may advocate on their behalf , the demands of parenthood in the
1980s makes it difficult for the average parent to become well- informed on the
issues that effect their children : School Board decisions , proposed changes
or expansions of ;youth services delivery , and the undermet need for day care
services provisions . As a human service worker in the area of youth services
and day care , I have attempted to keep current on issues effecting children .
I hope you will consider the needs of our youngest citizens when you review _ the
proposal you are t_iresented tonight .
The opening of a new school , Cayuga Heights Elementary School_ , has helped
ease overcrowded conditions in The Ithaca City School District elementfl ^. y schools .
UThen redistricting was kinder dis.cussion in planning for opening this school ,
the principals were asked to estimate an optimum capacity for their buildings .
• Only one school , Fall . Creek , had a capacity morn than 10 students above their
number of students enrolled. . Opening the new school may allow the District to
gracefully accomodate an increase in numbers of students in certain areas--- the
developments in the South Hill area that are currently underway may , however ,
take up a great deal of that slack . However , the 167 " extra" elementary stu-
dent spots may not be located close enough to the proposed developments on the
West Hill to be of use to accomodate more students . The Enfield. Elementary
School , which ser- yes the Town of Ithaca in the West Hill area , will have two
'mobile units " -- trailer classrooms - - installed to allow it to . continue operation
next year , while plans for more classrooms are drafted and approved . Let ' s
slow down and let classroom space catch up . The school district has no more
schools held in reserve , and building new schools is neither a fast nor an in-
expensive process .
The local show-down over youth services is coming belatedly to the attention
of parents of those who are in need. , as they f < ce much steeper fees for the ser-
vices provided by The Ithaca City 4' olth. Bureau than they have paid in the past .
The way in which servJ_ ces are of f �_. red is an. important component of program plan-
ning , and should be consistent from year to ,year so that parents and youth k».ow
what to expect from a program . Tc have severed the contractual relationship with
the k` ..- ad. itional provider of sery -ces for The Town in a dispute over program fun.d -
EXHIBIT 4
}
ing and program costs , without making any effort to assure the delivery of services ,
represents exceedingly poor planning . The current policy of offering refunds to
families for 50 % of the costs of Ithaca Youth Bureau Camps works to deny the most
of The Town access to these programs , and is
financially disadvantaged families
a complete abdication of municipal responsibility for ensuring program quality
A contractor can negotiate-- a refund to a parent leaves the responsibility in the
individual parent ' s lap . I was interested to read your draft Master Plan , and
noted that , while the need for youth services and day care of acceptable quality
ecific plans for provision were offered whatso-
were noted in your preamble, no sp
ever . There is the disturbing feeling that services for youth-- an established and
ordinary municipal_ function--- are expected to somehow materialize and operate
without significant Town help or support , while large- scale developments-- typically
considered self -supporting at worst and highly profitable at best-- are expected
to need significant staff and Board time and attention . Perhaps this moratorium
proposed will allow you to turn your attention to the crisis in youth services
delivery , which should be solved before more - families are invited to settle here ,
Day care services are in short supply throughout the area : A recent visit
by NYS . Departi'ient of Social . Services Commiss :loner Ceasar Perales to offer the
Day Care and Child Development Council $ 135 , 000 . to address the need gave cor -
roboration to the. intensity of the need . He stated that the need for day care cen-
ters in Tompkins County was shown to be greater than ; ,.anywhere else in New York ,
excluding New York City . What proposals do you have under consideration ? What
plans are you making ?
It is clear that you have significant planning left to do .,in the area of
le under 18 to live in . Please address these
providing a good community for peop
urgent needs , and establish policy which serves the young people who already
reside here , before entertaining any more proposals to increase housing- stock
by a substantial percentage .
e
•
EXHIBIT 4
r L
J C o l zw� .c, ,t
• Question : Is the " letter and spirit of zoning regulations " being
enforced or has the spirit of variance and reactive planning come
to predominate ?
This section of the presentation of the Greater Ithaca
Neighborhood Association proposes that there is inadequate
respect for zoning regulation in the Town of Ithaca among certain
developers and landlords . The legal reasons for variances are to
overcome rigidity in the regulations and to relieve serious
injustice or hardship . In violation of this principle , it has
become the expectation of some developers that variances will be
granted either before or after construction . Indeed , contrary to
what one might expect , it is those who have greater resources and
experience with zoning regulations , those who are best able to
comply with the regulations , who most frequently consume the time
and resources of our town with requests for variances .
A variance to zoning is intended to overcome " unique and
particular " circumstances . Individual citizens are expected to
and do follow code and zoning regulations . Variances are to
overcome unpredictable hindrances or unforeseen hardship . It is
directly contrary to this principle to plan variances . It is
therefore wrong for some developers to be allowed to plan
variances into their projects .
For example , if the zoning specifies a maximum height of
thirty feet , why should Deer Run developers plan and build
• structures which exceed this reasonable standard by one inch not
to mention eight feet . They were rewarded for violating zoning
with their illegal construction by being granted a variance after
the fact not only for the building constructed but for future
construction .
One with even limited experience attending planning board or
zoning board of appeals meeting or reading the legal
advertisements will recognize the expectation among certain
developers that variances can be properly planned or granted
after construction . Another example is the quadra -plex built at
229 Coddington without permission .
Citizens have a right to expect the enforcement of simple
law and order when it comes to the zoning that protects their
neighborhood . One more example in our neighborhood shows the
disrespect shown our Town officials . A good deal of time was
spent at the zoning board of appeals denying a variance for the
" midnight construction " of a third dwelling unit at the
intersection of Stone Quarry Road and West King Road . Even
though the variance was denied the owner ' s agent advertized the
property as a triplex . Mr . Frost has told us a letter might be
sent out and that the procedure for enforcement will take some
time . Later he said that the door between the two units was
unlocked therefore it was not being rented as a triplex . Again
the rule is straightforward , three unrelated individuals in R9 .
It is being violated .
• Imagine the results if this approach were allowed to
continue as it has in the past . Why should some builders be
allowed to operate in this manner while others follow the rules .
EXIIBIT 5
'-s
• This is an unfair and unjustified use of our officials time and
resources .
How has this disrespect for regulation grown and why ? The
principles working against the principled enforcement of our
zoning regulations are fairly simple . A quadra -plex or a triplex
are assumed to make more money than a duplex . This is not
clearly true because the character of a building and its
neighborhood influence its rent and occupancy . Nevertheless
there is a great deal of time and energy spent by our officials
dealing with efforts to stretch the maximum occupancy limits .
Consistent enforcement would free up a lot of our planning
officials time .
The disrespect for the " letter and spirit of zoning and
planning regulation " has been engendered by some actions of
planning board members . For example , why did Ms . Schultz build a
multiple residence for students on Pennsylvania Avenue '".#,
Mr . Mazza provided an absurd example of planned variance by
claiming hardship to force the moving of a grandfathered multiple
residence because it blocked a planned road in his Cayuga Vista
development . He and Mr Grover drew the road directly over their
house . Not only did he want to move the variances or non -
conforming uses with the house but he planned to add a further
residence unit . Not only does hopping variances around the map
not make sense it has not been permitted by the courts . " A non
conforming use on one portion of a lot may not be moved to
another portion of such lot in violation of zoning restrictions . "
• Section 96 , Change in Use of non conforming use , Zoning and
Planning Law , p . 662 , Vol . 67 NY Jurisprudence ( Lawyers
Cooperative PUblishers , Baker Voorhis & Co , 1969 ) . Fortunately
Mazza an Grove dropped their appeal but is this the appropriate
use of a knowledge of zoning regulations by a Planing Board
member?
The present failure to uphold the principles of zoning
regulations and variance for unforeseen circumstances against the
contagion of planned variance and spot zoning is why we are
calling for a moratorium and a plan for rational development . It
is essential to stop planned variances , to insist on complete
plans which conform to zoning and building regulations be
approved before construction , and to use our officials time to
enforce the " letter and spirit " of a zoning plan which will
permit rational development and growth in the Town of Ithaca .
•
EXHIBIT 5
Qi4N SC � aOL
• There are three related issues that must be publicly acknowledged .
Each raises its own concerns , but all three need to be dealt with collect -
ively since they affect local neighborhoods .
First , there is a pressing need to require from devlopers complete
and detailed plans for all phases of a site ' s devlopment before construc-
tion is permitted . We have seen examples of devlopments planned in
two or more phases . This is not a problem except in the all too prevalent
case where " phase one " is planned and presented to the public but "phase
two " is not . How can any rational decision be made concerning the appro-
priateness or inappropriateness of a plan to a community when a devloper ' s
" phases " are not planned in advance ? The Town Planning Board ought
to strictly require complete project plans before a spade full of earth
is moved at a site .
Second , because complete site plans are often unavailable or vague
beyond redemption , variances are often hastily applied for and unfortun -
ately granted . We have heard of examples where a devloper ' s initial
buildings do not meet zoning requirements , a variance is granted , and
remarkably , it is all to extend to new , as of yet , unbuilt structures .
This suggests that mistakes are not - only forgiven , they are encouraged
Encouraged because when mistakes are profitable they will be made by
the unscrupulous .
Therefore , a strict policy against variances must be enforced .
If we are to have a Master Plan then exceptions to the rule - -which
variances are , after all- - are not acceptable . They can only lead to
poor overall planning .
Third and last , the Town Planning Board must make it a strict policy
that all devlopments be evaluated with regard to their effects on traffic
flow , drainage , sewage , noise /enviornmental pollution , and maintenance .
•
EXHIBIT 6
-4
1
• Rental properties have a tendency to be seen as immediately advantageous
and therefore to be encouraged . Although this may be true , we feel
that a burden of proof must be placed on the devloper not the neighborhood
in which the devloper intends to build . Traffic , sewage , and school
systems of long standing and tenuous safety margins can be imperiled
by hasty site plan approval . In the long run , unrestricted growth and
devlopment can endanger a municipalitiy ' s tax base , service systems ,
and tourist trade .
A policy which place the " burden of proof " on the devloper will
encourage each prospective builder to do his or her homework before
a site plan .is presented . This policy must be placed in tandem with
one requiring complete site plans , and one discouraging variances .
•
•
EXHIBIT 6
I am Doria Hi , - I live at 2 Hillcrest Drive ,
and I am part of a recently formed group on West Hill and also '
further out which is in support of the South Hill group in its
request that you declare a moratorium on all subdivision
developments in the Town of - Ithaca until such time as a
Comprehensive Master Plan has not only been approved by the Town
Board , but until it has also been presented to the community and
the community has been given the opportunity to study and
evaluate such plan and to then work with the Town Board or
Planning Board to refine or change such plan until it is
acceptable to the community .
We would like to clarify our support by adding
that it is our understanding that the South Hill petition does not
refer to individual homeowners or to landowners who plan to build
their own residences . The petition is for a moratorium on all
subdivision development and on all granting of variances , and
all rezoning and on all designation of Special Land Use Districts
and of so •- called " floating zones " pertaining to subdivision
development , commercial or residential , and a moratorium on
all types of interruptions of our established zoning laws and
ordinances for subdivision development and which are not for the
purpose of the individual homeowner .
We think it imperative for the present and future
welfare of the Town of Ithaca that all further development be
done within the context of a Comprehensive Master Plan approved
by the community .
•
EIIBIT 7
t
• lel/ �n . "T C
We can see flow u n p I anncd . UnCOntrol I ed deve .I opnrerIt Ciir.rses nrrj .ior
problems for municipalities . Upen space is rapidly converted to
• residential and commercial use . A haphazard , piecemeal approach
to development , Using the go _. lss of private developers as it ' s
gU :i. d (2 can destroy the vr� r ) qualities that attr ,-�icted us to the
Gr eater- Ittiac:_ a area to bt=rgin wi. ttI . W thor_rt proper p F.irrninc; .
i . Road =_ , sejwcjr- s ? rid other s -, - stems that worked well with
the numbers for which they were designed become badly over Ioaded
�� nd nay cease to fL; flCtl On at alt .
I es rise to pay for building and repairing overused
hir � hways and roads , and for increased costs of schools and other
facilities and services . ra. rbage disposal alone becomes a
monumental pr' obI ern tic twe c ,-an sec al ready i n TcrnpIfiris Co .
_ . AS numbers Of cars i ncrea. =, E , tr a. f f i c becomes heavier ;
par- firing becomes nei? rly irr; possible ; life q_ roags more hectic as
gettin _; to wort- gettil g to sCtlool , getting anywhere becomes a
has = le . - - - - - - -
4 . As long standing neighborhoods are disrupted by new
development , homeowner confidence is destroyed as people -fear
similar ill - conceived developments in their own neighborhoods ,
In the absence of a master plan , variances become the rule rather
that; the exception , often benef i ti no_ the developer rather than
the public interest .
Fu gr_rot (r.� titin Ho f f nrarr , I t= haCa Ci t. y Counc i 1 nran , " -1 he transf or mat i on
from meadow and fa:r- mland to suburban Shopping centers and condos
iS !ESIEal1 }' not c? COnSC1Ok_is , democratic Choice hL! t ct Series of
small steps that eventually add up to a. radically different
cornmUnit. y . The essential gUEstiOnS =_. houId be : WTI at Bind of
Community do -; e want : 114' h .a. t kind of change is desirable ? Then :
I-10W can we e :: ert Lhe control and management that is necessary to
get or preserve wh =. t we want . There are al terrrati vE> s . . . "
Tt: _ r- e is con =_. iderable prec = der: t for n? r_Encipalities to impose
moratoria on development . We diSSCU = Ed the matter with Mr . James
tien >, ers �; c y , an attorney for the Division of Codes , r%ly l) r2pt . of
SLate . Mr . Hennessey insisted that towns have a legal right to
declare moratoria . He has written a memo to the legislature
= p _ c _' fically addr e = = in ` the i SSue of tow-in rin_ hts in the control
nr .development . moratoria ha -,.ie consistently b _cri Upheld in
COUrt , The cities of Utica. , Nyack , Ncw Rochrel l " , tC' ami i l u ly
Stoney Point and Ramapo have all deC1tired mor- atonia in orae fr, rrn
or another for concerns Similiar to oUFS . In 1984 , New Jersey
had .Tcr cities with mor acoria in place .
!{ M realise that development of a mastertan is
p an exh " Usti: ve
Pr tCocct.104 ? e ': er , t0 pre -vent cna. 4.: inq it- r eversible ml St at-: ES , rJ =
must =, top , CatCh our- breath , observe wt1Er- e He a. re nolo and assess
• where we rrj .:Yr; t to bE . p1 a 8 r
E _ h an _ haCEld be dc_ veloped joir, tl ;
between Town officials aril repres � n ` ati : es from the Community at
1 _ r- tie . F, do ;at i on
or this n = w pI _gin sho _r ? d ocr c.: r on1 after seel _ i r; c
EXHIBIxT 81
1i:7ci?. l input and dol ng C ; : haustivei research on d (� rnrjgraj-.) i .ics ,
environmental concerns , t ;- affic patterns and the quality of life
• desired by the current residents .
You the mr= tubers of the Planning Board have 1 ong stood al one on
r ern L I i nes . Yuu he-kVP brf:rii er i t: i r : i (A by ci L i errs rtror_rt � � nt.t
developers alike . Using the tools and information that have been
available to you , we have no do ! 1. bt that you have made the best
decisions you could for the good of the Town . However times have
changed . Development is increasing at an accelerated pace . For
thm good of the whole Town , we need to stop and plan ahead so
that future generations can enjoy the Ithaca that we are taping
for granted . The Greater Ithaca Neighborhoods Association is
asking for your support for the moritorium . We represent a
tremendous human resource for the Board . Together we can create a
Master Plan to Guide the development of the Town for years to
com2 .
•
•
EKHIBIT 8y
MEMORANDUM
T0 : Montgomery May , Chairman
Town Planning Board
FROM : oel Desch , Town Supervisor
RE : Comprehensive Planning - Town of Ithaca
DATE : June 21 , 1988
Thanks for the opportunity to present my views on recent concerns
about the state of comprehensive planning in the Town of Ithaca .
As you know , there has been vigorous public participation on two
development proposals in the Town over the past two to three
months , one on South Hill and one on West Hill .
There is one clear message that has came through to me loud and
clear , once you cut through the rhetoric that has been prevalent at
the recent Town Board meetings . That message is effectively
expressed in the petition of the South Hill Community Association .
• On West Hill the message takes the form of concern about the
location as well as amount of commercial development to be
permitted there .
I support the intent of the South Hill petition and the West Hill
concerns although a moratorium is neither technically nor legally
defensible . I , therefore , present the elements of a proposal that
will come before the Town Board on July 11 pending Planning Board
review at your July 5 meeting . The proposal attempts to provide
both short and long term solutions to our comprehensive planning
needs . The proposal is also , I believe , consistent with the intent
of the resolution adopted by the Town Board on June 13 wherein the
Town staff has been directed to prepare requests for proposals to
retain a consultant to assist in the updating of our comprehensive
plan .
I propose that we hire Mr . Thomas Niederkorn on a retainer to work
for the Planning Board to assist the staff and Board in providing
the services outlined in the Town Board resolution .
This would mean that Mr . Neiderkorn could be authorized to begin
work as soon as practicable after the Town Board meeting in July if
we are successful in formalizing this proposal . If this were
possible , I believe it might be appropriate to provide an overview
of the current comprehensive planning process at your initial
public hearing on the new guidelines scheduled for August 2 . A
purpose of this would be to help overcame the public perception
that our comprehensive plan is the best kept secret in Tompkins
County .
EXHIBIT 9
�40"
i
2
• Once the review of the preamble has been completed I believe that
our comprehensive planning efforts should start with West Hill
including the -assessment of the need for commercial services and
the specific merit of the Kyong Project .
However , the subdivision pressure on South Hill suggests the need
for concurrent support by Mr . Neiderkorn to work with the Town
staff to develop integrated area plans to thoroughly answer the
questions delineated under Article V , Section 32 , paragraph 4 of
the Town Subdivision Regulations .
I will also recommend to the Town Board on July 11 that we refer
the Kyong project back to the Planning Board for your further
consideration in relation to the information that will result from
the comprehensive planning effort in accordance with the provisions
of Article IX of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . The Planning
Board would determine when the Kyong zoning proposal would be ready
for referral back to the Town Board .
During the coning year all requests to amend the Zoning Map , in my
judgement , should be required to stand a most rigorous test of need
and conformity with the Town comprehensive plan including all of
our current regulations and those that we may adopt over the next
several months as the comprehensive planning process moves forward .
• While I .realize that this proposal is only in outline form , I
believe the timetable is achievable and I hope you will agree that
the need is urgent as dictated by both the level of public interest
and the level of growth pressure we have in the Town of Ithaca .
Thank you for listening . I would be pleased to answer any
questions the Planning Board might have with regard to this
proposal .
ND/ js
EXHIBIT 9
ti
w
Tuna 20 , 1988
2 Hillcrest -Drive
Ithaca , 111 . Y . 14850
The =town of Ithaca Planning Board
Town Hall
Ithaca , N . Y . 14850
Dear Planning Board Members *
I understand that the sign for the Bowers Antique Shop
which they run from their home on the Truman. sburg Road ,
is to be reviewed by you at your June 21 meeting . As
a neighbor who passes the sign fra , uentl_ y I can assure
you that the sign is not at all objectionable .
It is a simple , unobtrusive sign which reads " Indian
Creel( -antiques " in thin black letters on a white back-
ground . It has clearly been professionally and well
designed and professionally executed . It is in quiet
good tastcand blends pleasantly into the neighborhood .
I do not know of any reason why you should not approve
continuation of this sign .
. All best wishes ,
.�'
H15S
Doria Higgins
- cc
EXHIBIT 10
or
°O
105 Dubois Road
Ithaca , New YorK 14850
• 19 July 1958
To Whom ; t May Concern :
As the closest neighbors to the property of Celia and John Bowers , we
hereby declare that we have absolutely no objection to their present sign
advertising the presence of their antiques business .
o _
LnJg . Weissr B . Weiss
cc . Sign Review Board , Town of Ithaca
EXHIBIT 11
4,
June 20 , 1988
To : Sign Review Board Consideration Planning Board
( Attention - George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner )
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca , New York
Dear Mr . Frantz ,
We own property on West Hill ( at Hayts and Trumansburg Roads ) and , for many
years now , have used Route 96 actively , passing by the Bowers property ,
We find no objection to Mrs . Bowers ' sign for her antique shop ; and , in no
way , do we find the sign offensive . We hope the Sign Review Board will act
favorably to Mrs . Bowers ' continued use of the sign .
Thank you . S/G� e re�'��
Rosalind Grippe
• �4 �
lV
Salvatore Gripp
Owners : 1296- 8 Trumansburg Road
•
EXHIBIT 12
� � � xa !lila JOURN
TOWN , ITHACA PLANNING
wp••-{� BOARD, NOTICE OF PUBLIC +
kL HEARINGS, TUESDAY. ' JUNE
21 , 1988
By direction of the Chairman
of the Planning Board, NOTICE , `
IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public
! VIL" Ot � k, i . =37kQv Hearings will be held by the ',
i. �'� `+'+t' � Planning Board of the Town of :
Ithaca on Tuesday, June 21 , ''
1988, in Town Hall, 126 East `
Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y. , at .,
_ . _. . YJ. . . keon. : 1StF tjtlI \ TM�7'D , 4� it3
�" "' �O the following times and on the
following matters:
� ( �� � ( ,] 7 : 30 P. M. Consideration of a�' h ILDd 1CC>zt � a o7GLJa and Request for Modification of
conditions imposed in - the
tlLtt be ii e 1 e rk September 15, 1987, Planning
" — ^ "– - - - Board Site Plan Approval of an 'i
1 air structure enclosing two ,
�� I2SAGI OL?N /.L• i ,:bJC neVTpapc7 F Pv
tennis courts at "la Tourelle",
rM and bl�sbe3 Special Land Use District No.
1 , 1150 Danby Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-36- 1
�1 I e= =L a.'XT&Ii c, an d t2:: t t Uoed= , m-1 w� C1 •Lhe awn e= c3 b a tru e
. 4. 2. and further; Consider-'
ation of a Requi0 for Modifi- i
s cation of Local Low'No. 3-1984 :
;'r �R'tS �*JbI1S�C3 SL jA c �1IpC* ��v _, _ •�"� pertaining to said Special 't
Land Use District No. 1 , said
request being to permit cook-;,
ing operations and beverage ;
---- —._.._ service in "La Tourelle" for re-
ceptions and similar events.
Walter J. Wiggins, Owner/Ap- I
�� . .. _ . plicant. (Adjourned from May
17 and June 7; .1988. ) "
8:00 P. M. Consideration of a
pub?ic: t_ on ' O .' sac notilx �•&S Or, the request far the rezoning of a �
- • 3. 4 plus or minus acre portion
of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel ]
\• � ! __-_ T No. 6-35- 1 - 10. 1 , located on El-
mira Road near its intersection
with Enfield Falls •Road, from
Residence District. R-30 to Busi-
ness District "B"; :for expan-
sion of Eddydafe' Market. AI- ,
fred C. Eddy,J140wner; Jim
EUbc=:beZ3 arid r't1 t'D bo!�,fo �e meLJ � - 11 __ Linton , Agent"=`{Adjourned ,
,
4F �' from June 7; 19t3 ?; _ -
8: 30 P. M. Cons'163titxlwn of Fi
QJ
not Site Plori;: . oval for, a '•
---- --- -- -•– � Q ..�,w proposed faef F ;for the (
Tompkins Counhamber of
• Commerce, Vis• . 011, Con-
Is
vention Bur eouf;.a.pnd,-: Tourists
" ' - - ----• ---- - ---- –
Information . Cen _ �.°proposed
Fu U to be located "rrra'SSppeecal Land `
Y Use District ot:904; 06 910-9121
East Shore Drive,'TbSrn of Itho- )
ca Tax ParcelsAAii`b 8 2-8, - �
9, and - 10. Tb_ ins County j
Chamber of .Cdtnrlterce,
,: ....
plica t; Down _ Hoscup Ar- -
., .
chitects, Desii3 �:�" .
Said Planningg --;73aarzf - will of
said times andsplace hear
all persons in sepport of such
' t matters or objet ct3.thereto.
Persons moy -oppear;by agent j
I
or in person .
Jeari ----------httwartwood
±7own Clerk ;
Y^ate •- 273- 1221
. June 16, 1988 '
t