The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 1988-09-20 ti FILED T OWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD k • SEPTEMBER 20 , 1988 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , September 20 , 1988 , in Town Hall , 126 :East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , James Baker , Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia Langhans , Robert Kenerson , David Klein , William Lesser , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Robert Flumerfelt ( Town Engineer ) , Susan Beeners ( Town Planner ) , George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner ) , ALSO PRESENT : Margot McClure , Dan McClure , Heather Robertson , Laura Marks , Celia Bowers , John Whitcomb , Myrtle Whitcomb , Bob Terry , Stewart Knowlton , Charles Hoover , Olan D . Forker , Kathryn Wolf , Fred Brown , Betty Brown , Joe Quigley , Ronald B . Crawford , Harrison Rue , Bill Gray , George C . Schlecht , R . H . Hausner , Judith Hausner , Ann L . Clarke , David A . McArdle , Jean Brockway , Amy Nettleton , Bonnie Simpson , Ron Simpson , Edward Bosworth , Charlotte Bosworth , Marty Newhart , Einar Holm , Margaret Holm , Z . R . Sawyer , I . D . Mitstifer , Carolyn Richter , Roger Sayre , David C . Auble , Anna Gebauer , Stewart Underwood , Thomas Niederkorn , Edwin Hallberg , Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . , and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September 12 , 1988 and September 15 , 1988 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion , as appropriate , upon the Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , upon the Clerk of the Town of Danby , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of the applicants and / or agent , as appropriate , on September 13 , 1988 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 19 , 1988 MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by James Baker : - _ RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the July 19 , 1988 Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . � - Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Planning Board - 2 - September 20 , 1988 • APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 2 , 1988 MOTION by Virginia Langhans , seconded by Robert Kenerson : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the August 2 , 1988 Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR LOTS NO , 1 AND 2 OF WESTWOOD HILLS SUBDIVISION , SAID LOTS BEING TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS N0 , 6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 114 AND - 11 . 115 , RESPECTIVELY , LOCATED ON WOOLF LANE , DANIEL C . MCCLURE , OWNER / APPLICANT . r Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 39 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman May invited Mr . McClure to address the Board . • Mr . McClure stated that the request was for modifications to the site plan from the original typical plan that was presented at the time of subdivision approval . Mr . McClure offered that the reason for the request was that there is a very large clump of trees on that parcel , and noted that one of the houses has to be moved four feet and the other house moved seven feet . Mr . McClure stated that the Board had a map before them that indicated the changes . Mr . McClure noted that he has a building permit that was issued June 22 , 1988 , adding that construction has been progressing , but did not realize it was an issue until he sought a survey . Chairman May wondered if the only reason for shifting the houses was the location of the trees , with Mr . McClure answering , yes . Virginia Langhans asked Mr . McClure if he knew there would be a deficiency in the side yard , etc . when the houses were moved . Mr . McClure responded that he believed he was operating under cluster zoning . Mr . McClure commented that there is in excess of 30 feet between the houses , adding that there was a question of the lot line between the houses , whether it was 15 feet either side of the lot line , or whether it was just a grand total of 30 feet between the houses . Virginia Langhans commented that , even though the 30 feet is between the house there are two deficiencies - front yard set - back and the side yard . • Susan Beeners , Town Planner , stated that on Lot # 1 ( house 132 ) , the actual front yard is 26 feert . Ms . Beeners stated that in the Planning Board - 3 - September 20 , 1988 • Cluster Regulations , and as was specifically in the subdivision approval , a 30 - foot buffer zone is required along the periphery along the east and north sides of the development . Ms . Beeners offered that there are no specific requirements in the Subdivision Regulations as far as the set -back from the road is concerned , however , a 30 - foot front yard set - back and a 15 - foot side yard set -back was approved by the Board . Ms . Beeners stated that the deficiencies are on Lot # 1 ( 20 . 6 feet instead of the 30 feet ) , and on Lot # 2 there is a 0 . 3 - foot deficiency on the rear buffer , which is 29 . 7 feet instead of the 30 feet . Ms . Beeners stated that on the southwest side of Lot # 2 there is 8 . 5 feet , instead of 15 feet : Mr . McClure stated that the reason for the 15 feet being shown on the original map was because it was required to show something . Mr . McClure stated that the Subdivision Regulations read that there simply be 30 feet between structures . Mr . McClure noted that the difficulty , at the time , was that the developers were looking at a large wooded tract , and it was not possible to plot the houses with any degree of precision . Virginia Langhans commented that when houses are situated on a lot there usually is a figure that is given for side yard , front yard and back yard . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to this issue . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 45 p . m . and turned the matter over for Board discussion . • Chairman May commented that there are changes on Lot # 1 and Lot # 2 . Mr . McClure again noted that the reason for moving the houses was the large clump of trees . Mr . McClure said that a building permit had been obtained , and noted that there have been three site inspections so far . Mr . McClure remarked that there is absolutely no advantage in moving the houses , other than to save the trees , commenting that the developer understood that maximum effort had to be made to preserve existing vegetation . William Lesser wondered how the alterations were identified . Mr . McClure responded that it was a question of interpretation . Chairman May stated that the preservation of the trees was a worthwhile project , but it should have come up before the foundations went in . David Klein commented that saving the trees was the better thing . Mr . Klein said that when a cluster subdivision is initially reviewed the developer is asked to locate the units on the site , and also the developer is asked to provide proper site information , topo information , and the location of trees , etc . , so that the Board can make that determination at the approval , noting , too often this kind of situation happens , whether it requires the developer coming back before the Board , and commenting that , hopefully , this can be avoided . Mr . Klein stated that he felt that the Board , at times , was too easy . on the developers . Continuing , Mr . Klein stated that the Board will ask for a landscape plan and the developer provides a typical , noting that sometimes the land is not typical . Mr . Klein stated that he does Planning Board - 4 - September 20 , 1988 • not like to see the developer coming back before the Board because of certain things that crop up . Mr . McClure stated that at the time of initial subdivision approval , the site was so dense with wild grapevines and wild rosebushes growing in between the trees , that the only way to do a boundary survey was to clear a path for the surveyor to enter . Mr . McClure stated that in order for the surveyor to actually plot the houses with any degree of accuracy , at that time , would have entailed that the site be cleared completely . Mr . McClure offered that everything was done in good faith . Mr . Klein wondered how many other conflicts might the Board plan on finding , with Mr . McClure responding that he needed some direction , as to whether or not this issue poses a problem . Mr . McClure noted that he has one other lot that has some very large apple and maple trees on it , commenting that the location of the house has not been plotted yet . There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Dr . William Lesser . WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Modifications to the Final Subdivision Plat for Lots No . 1 and 2 of Westwood Hills Subdivision , said Lots being Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . • 6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 114 and - 11 . 115 , respectively , located at 132 and 130 Woolf Lane . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . 3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of this Unlisted action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : • 1 . This action is the Consideration of Modifications to the Final Subdivision Plat for Lots No . 1 and 2 of Westwood Hills Planning Board - 5 - September 20 , 1988 • Subdivision , said Lots being Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 114 and - 11 . 115 , respectively , located at 132 and 130 Woolf Lane . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on September 20 , 1988 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on September 20 , 1988 , has reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form , Progress Survey Map dated September 6 , 1988 , and other application submissions . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Approval to the final plat modifications proposed which include a 20 . 6 - foot front yard on Lot No . 1 and an 8 . 5 - foot southwest setback and a 29 . 7 - foot north setback on Lot No . 2 , with the following condition : the provision of a final survey map , suitable for filing by the Tompkins County Clerk , for approval by the Town Engineer , showing the actual dimensions between the boundaries of the lots and the foundation walls on all sides of the houses on said lots . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . • Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . William Lesser wondered if there were any steps that could be taken so that something does not reach this point before it is brought to the Board . Mr . McClure stated that the building permit application showed the distance between structures , noting that it was accurate , within a foot , adding that it did not show the distance of building line , because the spacing between structures is described to be a minimum of 30 feet . Attorney Barney wondered if it would be a problem , in the future , to provide a dimension to the lot , because the Town ' s zoning is governed by lot line , not by where the other buildings are , with Mr . McClure answering that there would be no problem . Mr . McClure stated that he understood that the Cluster Zoning Ordinance was 30 feet between structures . Virginia Langhans said that this Cluster is different from other Clusters , in the fact that there is actually a lot with front , back and sides , noting that most of the other Clusters are together . David Klein stated that the approved Cluster layout shows 30 feet , 15 feet , etc . , adding that from a technecial point of view , and living with a typical , it could be a problem . Ms . Beeners noted that Lot # 1 , in a typical R- 15 situation , if • that 20 . 6 - foot area was a side yard , then 20 feet would be required . Planning Board - 6 - September 20 , 1988 Chairman May declared the matter of the Westwood Hills modifications duly closed at 8 : 00 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR A PROPOSED 11325 ± SQ . FT . ADDITION TO TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 2 - 4 , AT 149 HONNESS LANE . CHARLES F . HOOVER , ARCHITECT , APPLICANT / AGENT . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing .in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 01 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Charles Hoover addressed the Board and stated that Special Approval is requested because Trinity Lutheran Church is in an R- 15 zone . Mr . Hoover stated that the addition to the church building would include a hearthside room , two offices , and an alteration of the adjoining area for secretarial use . Board Member. Virginia Langhans inquired as to when the existing addition was constructed , with Mr . Hoover responding , 1972 . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were any questions or comments from the public . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 04 p . m . and turned the matter over for Board discussion . Chairman May stated that , without any question , there certainly appears to be plenty of land . Chairman May commented that the addition would not add any additional persons on the premises , adding that additional parking would not be needed . Chairman May stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would be the Lead Agency for Environmental Review . There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman May asked Of anyone were prepared to make a motion . MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a Request for Special Approval , pursuant to Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 3 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for a proposed 1 , 325 ± sq . ft . addition to Trinity Lutheran Church , located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 4 , at 149 Honness Lane . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals has been legislatively determined to act as Lead . Agency in coordinated review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is an involved agency in coordinated review . Planning Board - 7 - September 20 , 1988 • 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on September 20 , 1988 , has reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form and review , and other submissions related to this proposal . 4 . The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . 2 . That the Planning Board , in making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the following : a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location . b . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected . c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive • plan of development of the Town . 3 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for Special Approval of the proposed addition to the Trinity Lutheran Church be granted . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the Trinity Lutheran Church addition duly closed at 8 : 04 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED 24 - ROOM MOTEL ADDITION AND A PROPOSED LIMOUSINE GARAGE , FOR THE BEST WESTERN UNIVERSITY INN , LOCATED AT EAST HILL PLAZA , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 62 - 2 - 13 . 7 . STEWART D . KNOWLTON , AGENT . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 05 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Chairman May invited Mr . Knowlton to address the Board . • Mr . Knowlton appended maps to the bulletin board . Mr . Knowlton referred to the updated site plan , and stated that it has been Planning Board - 8 - September 20 , 1988 modified slightly . Mr . Knowlton offered that the retaining wall would stretch the entire length ( 200 feet ) of Building B . Mr . Knowlton [ indicating on map ] noted that Building A has the lower level exposed and a retaining wall is shown . Mr . Knowlton stated that a 100 - foot retaining wall section would be placed in " this " area , commenting that , this would then tie the two buildings together . Mr . Knowlton stated that there were 104 parking spaces , with three spaces in front of the proposed limousine garage , commenting that the three spaces are totally usable , because the limousine would either be inside the garage or in service . Mr . Knowlton stated that the total occupancy at the Inn , with the addition , would be 94 rooms . Continuing , Mr . Knowlton referred to the floor plans of the building . Mr . Knowlton mentioned that a standard motel room is either 121X23 ' or 121X241 . Mr . Knowlton commented that the proposed Best Western rooms would be 121X26 ' , and half of the 70 existing rooms are 121X26 ' . Mr . Knowlton offered that there would be 12 rooms in each of the units , adding that the A Unit would be an expansion of trying to give the best possible amenity to a motel room , even to the point of a whirlpool tub and a little kitchenette . Mr . Knowlton remarked that a great many people are spending a week at the Inn , and noted that a kitchenette feature is a plus , commenting that that room is 12 ' X34 ' . Mr . Knowlton stated that , as shown on the drawing , the proposed addition is fashioned after the two existing Building C units , adding , there is a complete continuity of design . Mr . Knowlton stated that it • is proposed that there will be gas fireplaces in the " mini - suites " . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak . John Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road spoke from the floor and wondered if the Cornell Campus Planning Office had been notified of said proposal , with Mr . Knowlton answering , yes . Mr . Whitcomb asked if this project would , in any way , reduce the Town ' s options in terms of siting some future road that would be a north / south connector on campus , e . g . , connecting Pine Tree Road with Caldwell Road . Chairman May responded , no . Laura Marks of 302 E . King Road spoke from the floor and voiced her objection to the thought of having fireplaces in a motel room , adding that she felt a fireplace was a fire hazard . Mr . Knowlton commented that the rooms are totally in compliance with the Sprinkler Law , Chairman May asked if anyone else present wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 10 p . m . and asked for questions or comments from the Board . David Klein inquired about the retaining wall . Mr . Knowlton indicated on the map where the wall was located , and explained same to Mr . Klein . Mr . Knowlton commented that the wall would be three feet • in height " here " and four feet " here " . Mr . Knowlton pointed out that the other wall dimension is ten feet . Planning Board - 9 - September 20 , 1988 • Carolyn Grigorov wondered if there were any problem with the State Fire Code , as to the gas fireplaces . Ms . Beeners responded that she had discussed this with Mr . Frost , BI / ZEO , and he stated that there was no problem . Mr . Knowlton mentioned that the fireplaces would have an electronically controlled pilot light , with a solid glass door front . There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion . MOTION by Mr . Robert Ken erson , seconded by Dr . William Lesser : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for a proposed 24 - room motel addition and a proposed limousine garage for the Best Western University Inn , located at East Hill Plaza , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 13 . 7 . 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 . 3 . The Assistant Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance for this action . • THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of this Unlisted action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for a proposed 24 - room motel addition and a proposed limousine garage for the Best Western University Inn , located at East Hill Plaza , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 2 - 13 . 7 . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on September 20 , 1988 , made a negative determination of . environmental significance . Planning Board - 10 - September 20 , 1988 • 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on September 20 , 1988 , has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form , site plan , and other application submissions . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant approval to the site plan as proposed , with the following condition : Approval of final working plans for stabilizing all slopes over 10 % on the project site , including landscaping plantings and retaining walls , by the Town Engineer and the Town Planner . The grant of this approval does not waive any of the conditions in any prior approvals granted by this Board or any other Town Agency for any prior Best Western University Inn development . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the Best Western University • Inn 24 - room addition and proposed limousine garage duly closed at 8 : 29 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED " CHASE FARM " SUBDIVISION , PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF 100 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 68 ACRES ON EAST KING ROAD , BACKLOTS OF RIDGECREST ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS N0 . 6 - 45 - 1 - 2 . 21 - 2 . 6 , AND 6 - 44 - 2 - 9 . 21 - 9 . 3 . BUTTERFIELD ASSOCIATES / AUBLE HOMES , APPLICANT . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 30 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . David Auble approached the Board and introduced Kathy Wolf of Trowbridge & Trowbridge , George Schlecht , Engineer for the project , Amy Nettleton of Trowbridge & Trowbridge , and Harrison Rue , Project Manager , Mr . Auble offered that the developers have met with the South Hill Community Association on several occasions . Mr . Auble also noted that the developers have met with owners of adjacent properties . Mr . Auble stated that some of the concerns that were raised were traffic and buffer issues . At this time , Kathy Wolf appended maps to the bulletin board . Ms . Wolf noted that one of the appended plans has been done since the • Sketch Plan Review , and incorporates a number of small changes . Ms . Wolf stated that the parcel consists of 68 acres , adding , there is a NYSEG right - of - way on the property . Ms . Wolf noted that the property Planning Board - 11 - September 20 , 1988 • is in an R- 15 zone . Ms . Wolf offered that the Preliminary Site Approval Plan is consistent with all the requirements of the existing zoning . Ms . Wolf stated that the site has three distinct areas , commenting that the front area was originally included , and owned by Mr . Erdman . Ms . Wolf offered that " this " area has very nice views , and noted that the middle portion of the site has regrowth vegetation . Ms . Wolf stated that there are mature woods at the rear of the property . Continuing , Ms . Wolf stated that the scheme consists of 100 single family lots that are oriented along a serpentine road that runs through the site . Ms . Wolf commented that the entrance to the site is on East King Road and exits on Ridgecrest Road , M. s . Wolf stated that the serpentine road was developed because of trying to create a residential community character , noting that the serpentine road tends to slow down traffic . Ms . Wolf stated that there are three cul de sacs off the serpentine road , with additional lots off the cul de sacs . Ms . Wolf stated that the Phase I configuration is approximately to mid - site . Ms . Wolf offered that , because there would not be a through road in Phase I , the developers are proposing a temporary access road off Ridgecrest Road , adding , the road would be maintained and secured by the Town , so that it would only be used for emergency access . Ms . Wolf said that a hammerhead turn - a - round would be provided at the end of Phase I so that no road :Length exceeds 1000 feet . Ms . Wolf stated that , after completion of Phase I . and as Phase • II was developed and the connection made to Ridgecrest Road , the temporary road would be eliminated , and would not preclude development of Lot # 17 in Phase I . Ms . Wolf commented that -the developers only want two entrances to the project . Ms . Wolf stated that the developers are seeking Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the entire project with the intent to pursue Final Site Plan Approval for Phase I only . Ms . Wolf stated that accommodations have been made for open space , and added that it is proposed to have a wider than normal road right- of - way , and that right - of -way would accommodate a pedestrian trail through the length of the project , commenting that the trail would be built and improved by the owner , and deeded over to the Town , at which time it would become a public trail . Ms . Wolf stated that the entrances are aligned so that the entrance off East King Road will align with the proposed entrance for the proposed " ButterField " development across East King Road . Ms . Wolf offered that the entrance on Ridgecrest Road is aligned in such a way that , if a development were to occur across the road on Ridgecrest Road , this would be a reasonable location to align a road at that point . Ms . Wolf stated that , in addition to the improved trail , aggregated open space has been provided . Ms . Wolf stated that a trail easement would be provided from the trail that connects out to another small piece of open space , which then connects to the pipeline right - of -way . Ms . Wolf noted that an extensive drainage study has been done , . which has been reviewed with the Town Engineer , Robert Flumerfelt . Ms . Wolf mentioned that there were two primary ways the developers are handling the storm water run - off . Indicating on map , Ms . Wolf stated Planning Board - 12 - September 20 , 1988 that the 30 acres " here " will be carried along a roadside swale , under an existing culvert , and onto the existing stream that feeds the pond on the " ButterField " property . Ms . Wolf stated that drainage on most of the rest of the project is picked up in a roadside swale and is carried to a retention pond , adding , the retention pond has been incorporated into an oversize lot . Ms . Wolf stated that there would be a deed restriction on the property that would not allow one to cut any trees that exceeded five - inches in diameter for a distance of 30 feet from the rear property line . Ms . Wolf noted that all the major utilities occur within the public road right -• of-way , Ms . Wolf commented that the sewer connection would come from the " ButterField " project , Phase II , or from the existing manhole up the road . Ms . Wolf stated that the proposed plan has been reviewed with Brian Wilbur , Deputy Fire Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , and he has made suggestions for hydrant locations . Ms . Wolf commented that there is some concern about having adequate pressure for fire protection [ pointing to map ] in " this " portion of the project . Ms . Wolf stated that , at the request of the Town , the developer is providing a 20 - foot Town right - of -way from " this " cul de sac road , to the water tower . Ms . Wolf stated that the traffic situation has been reviewed , adding that the DOT estimates 4 - 6 trips per residential unit , per day . Ms . Wolf offered that using the above number , there would be between 500 - 600 trips per day at the completion of the entire project . Ms . Wolf offered that traffic counts have been taken during rush hour to determine the existing traffic along E . King Road and Ridgecrest Road . Ms . Wolf stated that the developer anticipates that the majority of the traffic would be along Chase Lane , and then out: onto E . King Road . Ms . Wolf offered that the developer would like to build one unit in the project this Fall , and hopefully , a couple of units next Spring that would establish the character and level of quality for the project , adding that this would also help the project to proceed . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the proposed " Chase Farm " Subdivision , Marty Newhart of 171 E . King Road spoke from the floor and stated that he was very happy with the project , adding that he was also speaking on behalf of his father who lives at 173 E . King Road . Randy Hausner of 149 Ridgecrest Road spoke from the floor and stated that he felt the development was super . Myrtle Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road spoke from the floor and expressed a concern about the pond , as to the drainage , since it is going to be on private property . Kathy Wolf of Trowbridge and Trowbridge responded that that parcel would probably want to have a deed restriction that would require the owner to maintain the • drainage . Mrs . Whitcomb stated that she is Co - Chairman of the South Hill Community Association , and commented that the Association is concerned about the traffic on Ridgecrest Road . Mrs . Whitcomb stated Planning Board - 13 - September 20 , 1988 • that the Association also has a concern about the temporary emergency access road on Ridgecrest Road , adding that the Association would like some kind of assurance that that road does not become a permanent access road . Mrs . Whitcomb stated that she knew it was not part of Mr . Auble ' s plans to have that happen , but , if for instance , the project completion is elongated , would that in any way become a road , noting that there is a concern of safety . Kathy Wolf of Trowbridge and Trowbridge responded that the Town is also concerned that it not become a through road , so the Town has talked about actually securing the road themselves . Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that it was her assumption that it would be maintained by the Town , similar to the Commonland secondary access road , adding that it would be suitably barricaded , or signed , so that there would not be public use . Virginia Langhans offered that the road would be in use only during construction of the development . Ms . Wolf commented that the sole intent of the road is for a secondary access for fire trucks . Continuing , Mrs . Whitcomb stated that the Association was impressed with the willingness of the developer to work with maximum preservation of the mature trees on the parcel , and also noted that the Association was impressed with the landscaping . Mrs . Whitcomb stated that the Association has also been appreciative of the consideration for the buffer to the existing Ridgecrest Road housing . Mrs . Whitcomb stated that the Association is concerned about the lots on the front side of the development , which are on East King Road . • Ms . Wolf responded that the developer was looking , specifically , into something to address the visual impact on E . King Road . At this point , Mrs . Whitcomb raised the specter of accumulative impacts . Mrs . Whitcomb mentioned the 90 unit projected shortfall for the Town of Ithaca , commenting that she would like to remind the Board that there are now underway , or consideration of approval for , over 300 units in less than a mile from E . King Road . In conclusion , Mrs . Whitcomb stated that the South Hill Community Association offers their qualified support to the development , pending the resolution of the concerns that were raised . Jean Brockway of 166 Ridgecrest Road spoke from the floor and expressed a concern about the Town giving a right - of - way to the water tower . Ms . Brockway commented that the 20 - foot right - of-way to the water tower was on her property . Ms . Brockway suggested that the water tower be fenced in , because , from her point of view , it is a nice gathering place for children . Ms . Beeners responded that the Town has a problem with it , in that it is really not developed , adding that there is an easement , not a right - of -way . Chairman May wondered about placing a gate across the access road , with Town Engineer Robert Flumerfelt responding that he thought it would be a good idea to review the whole access issue concerning the tank , and to come to a good solution . Ms . Brockway inquired about the deed restrictions . Chairman May answered that deed restrictions , typically , are accepted by the Town Board . • Attorney Barney stated that restrictive covenants as such , through a Homeowners ' Association , are accepted by the Town Board . Planning Board - 14 - September 20 , 1988 • Mr . Harrison Rue , Project Manager , stated that there would not be a Homeowners ' Association for the project . Mr . Auble stated that the deed restrictions are primarily designed to enhance the development to make it more marketable . Laura Marks of 302 E . King Road spoke from the floor and expressed a concern about the trees . Ms . Marks voiced her approval of the development . Ron Simpson of 112 Pine View Terrace spoke from the floor and asked about the loo to be donated for open space . Attorney Barney responded that the Town can require , but they are not obliged to require , that 10 % be set aside for open space , adding that , when the 10 % is required , it is usually on unimproved land , commenting that in this instance , the developer is , basically , offering to improve the land that is being set aside , mainly the trailway , at some considerable expense to the developer . Mr . Simpson stated that he would like to remind the Board that open space and recreation space is an important amenity in any development , and added that , in his opinion , most of the open space that is being proposed here is linear , which Mr . Simpson felt has certain restrictions . Ms . Wolf responded that the majority of it is linear , but it is very usable . Mr . Simpson ' s second point was that this would be a staged development , and wondered , because of the staging , why final approval has to be given to the entire project . Ms . Wolf responded that Preliminary • Approval is being requested for the entire project , and noted that the developer would come back before the Planning Board for Final Site Plan Approval for Phase I only , with the final approval being requested for Phase II at a later time , commenting that the project ' s final approvals would be in stages . George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , commented that there would be approximately 4 % open space , instead of the 10 % , but noted that there would be approximately 4000 feet of pedestrian bikeway , which is one segment of a pedestrian link which will eventually link the South Hill neighborhood with the City of Ithaca as the area develops . Roger Sayre of 110 Ridgecrest Road spoke from the floor and stated he appreciated the atmosphere of concern and cooperation in connection with the project , noting that , in general , he approved of the whole project . Mr . Sayre voiced his concern about drainage , and with the buffer area . Mr . Sayre mentioned the fact that his home is directly adjacent to the temporary emergency access road , and noted that he was very concerned about having the road gated off for emergency access only . Chairman May responded that the Fire Department has stated that they do not want gates , but that a barricade is acceptable . John Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road spoke from the floor and expressed a concern about traffic , at the present time , on E . King Road . Ms . Wolf responded that a count was taken between 7 : 30 a . m . and 9 : 00 a . m . , • which is considered rush hour , commenting , it was 101 vehicles on E . King Road in both directions , and noted that during the same time period it was 40 vehicles on Ridgecrest Road , adding , it is assumed Planning Board - 15 - September 20 , 1988 • that 10 % of the traffic occurs at rush hour . Ms . Wolf offered that the Town has daily counts on E . King Road of between 1400 - 1500 per day . Ms . Wolf commented that , with the completion of the project , it is assumed that with the maximum trips of between 500 - 600 per day , one would be adding to the approximate 2000 trips per day , noting that 8000 is considered the capacity on E . King Road . At this point , Mr . Whitcomb commented about public hearing ' s being closed and brought back to the Board , noting that while the Board is discussing a project , the public has further input , but is not given the opportunity to comment during the Board ' s discussion . Mr . Whitcomb wondered if the opportunity for the public to speak could be reserved , after the Board has had a chance to ask questions of the developer , in case there was a concern from the public . Attorney Barney responded that the meetings could go on then until 11 : 30 p . m . or 12 : 00 midnight . Continuing , Attorney Barney stated that the Board wants the public input , as that is the reason for a public hearing , but there is no legal requirement stating that a public hearing has to become a dialogue that could go on and on for hours and hours , commenting that it just cannot go on for hours . Attorney Barney stated that there is quite a load required to be done by the Planning Board , and all the other Boards . Attorney Barney commented that it is up to the discretion of the Chairperson , if there is anything major new that comes up , that results in an adjournment of the matter , and a new public hearing is set . Attorney Barney stated that the public has • to rely on the discretion of the Board to be able to see that there are some circumstances where it is worthwhile to get more additional public input . Attorney Barney stated that the idea is to get the public input , get the developer to make a presentation , have the public make their comments relative to that presentation , and then have the Board have an opportunity to question anybody . Jean Brockway of 166 Ridgecrest Road wondered why the Board could not have their discussion before the public hearing , so that the public could hear everything . Chairman May responded that the bulk of the discussion was from the public . Anna Gebauer of 117 Ridgecrest Road spoke from the floor and stated that she had a concern with the temporary entrance , because it is right on the school bus line . Stewart Underwood of 120 Ridgecrest Road spoke from the floor and commented that the project is an asset for the area . Chairman May asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 39 p . m . and turned the matter over to the Board for discussion . Robert Kenerson inquired about the maximum grade of the road , with George Schlecht responding , the maximum grade at any one point was 7 . 8 % . Mr . Schlecht offered that quite a lot of attention was paid • to the curves , so that they fit into the contours very well . Planning Board - 16 - September 20 , 1988 • Virginia Langhans stated that she felt the trail idea was a good idea , but wondered who would maintain it in the winter . Mr . Auble answered that it was perceived as a recreational_ path arrangement , adding , this would be something that could be worked out with the Parks Department in terms of design , so that the maintenance is minimized . Ms . Beeners noted that there had been some discussion about a limestone dust path , which might be a possible alternative to using oil and stone . Ms . Beeners offered that it. would probably be something maintained by the Town , noting , a minimum 6 - foot wide path was discussed . Mr . Auble mentioned cross - country skiing . Ms . Beeners stated that it was assumed with the 70 - foot right - of -way , and with the further design of the actual cross - section of that right-of - way , it probably would be possible to have the six - foot path plowable , and also have space there for cross - country skiing , as well as the road and the drainage . Virginia Langhans was concerned about the driveway crossings . Ms . Beeners stated that it seemed to her , in this case , that it was better to have some kind of multi - purpose trail area . David Klein stated that a trail along the street is really being turned into a sidewalk , adding , one can call it a path , but it is really a sidewalk , commenting that he thought its character would be a little bit different . William Lesser agreed that it looked like a sidewalk to him , and noted it was difficult for him to see the Board accepting , essentially , a sidewalk as a substantial contribution to open space , commenting , there is a safety factor involved . George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , offered that a sidewalk would be more • in a 60 - foot right- of -way , whereas with the additional space , there is room to create a wider area , in which there can be a trail through , and where there can be trees between the walkway and the roadway , and the walkway and the homeowners ' lawns . Ms . Beeners stated that there was not a sidewalk assessment district in that area . Robert Kenerson asked about ditches along the road , with Mr . Schlecht answering , there will be ditches two feet deep . David Klein wondered how large the one open space was that is adjacent to the right - of-way . Ms . Wolf responded that it was approximately 20 , 000 square feet . Mr . Klein commented that even though the open space is adjacent to the NYSEG right- of -way , it still seemed to him to be a little bit small . Mr . Klein wondered if the adjacent lot should be part of that , as well . Chairman May stated that the NYSEG right - of -way was being included as part of that park . Ms . Beeners noted that a play structure can be built in an area that is about 75 - 100 feet square , adding that that is adequate size for a small playground . David Klein wondered about landscaping . Ms . Wolf answered that the intent was to preserve , as much as possible , the existing vegetation . Mr . Klein inquired about the timetable for Phase I , with Mr . Auble responding that the two sites would be coordinated , because of the connection of the utilities , and also the road connections . Mr . Auble stated that the model home is under study at the present • time . Mr . Klein wondered if the Chase Lane road construction would be started prior to selling lots along E . King Road , Mr . Auble commented that his hope was to start the road perimeter work in the Fall . Mr . Planning Board - 17 - September 20 , 1988 Klein wondered how long Phase I would take . Mr . Auble stated that he would like to release the lots in groups , and control the price scheduling , adding , it would probably be three years before the last home is built in Phase I . Virginia Langhans asked what lot the model house would be built on , with Mr . Auble answering , No . 26 , Attorney Barney asked where the two houses on the Cascioli and Bettucci lots were , in relation to the proposed emergency road . Mr . Auble responded that the emergency access would go through between Lots 108 and 106 , [ indicating on map ] where the driveway is located , and the houses would remain for the time being , adding that the houses would be improved upon . Mr . Flumerfelt noted that , if there were a blockage of the main road , and an ambulance had to enter , it would have to come back out the access road . David Klein inquired about the speed limit on E . King Road , Mr . Rue answered that it was 55 mph . Attorney Barney stated that the Town Board will , upon request , pass a resolution requesting a reduction of the speed limit in a given area , and then the DOT has their criteria for setting speed limits . Mr . Schlecht suggested that a speed limit could be posted within the subdivision . William Lesser asked about the estimated vehicle trips . Mr . Frantz responded that the numbers he used came from the Institute of Transportation Engineers , and Ms . Wolf ' s numbers came from the DOT . Mr . Frantz stated that his source of information said ten trips per home , and the DOT said 4 - 6 trips per home , per day . Mr . Frantz offered that the whole South Hill area traffic was being looked into . Mr . Lesser wondered about maintaining water pressure for the area . Mr . Flumerfelt responded that there would be a problem in the upper elevations with water pressure , without a booster system of some kind . At this point , Virginia Langhans responded to a question that was handwritten to the Board , after the Public Hearing was closed , from a member of the public , and while the Board was involved in discussion . Mrs . Langhans noted that the question related to the play area , next to Lot # 100 , across the road from other designated open space , would be within the NYSEG area . The question was whether the play area would be for pre - school children , or grade school children . Ms . Beeners responded that a safe play structure would be designed that offers some multi - age things . At this time , Ms . Beeners referred to the Environmental Assessment Form , Page 4 , Part I , No . 16 , Ms . Beeners stated that the Landfill Site should be corrected to read Tompkins County Landfill location to be determined . There appearingvto be no further discussion or comments from the Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion . MOTION by Mr . Robert Ken erson , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : • WHEREAS : Planning Board - 18 - September 20 , 1988 1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed " Chase Farm " Subdivision , proposed to consist of 100 residential lots on 68 acres on East King Road , backlots of Ridgecrest Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 2 . 21 - 2 . 6 , and 6 - 44 - 2 - 9 . 2 and - 9 . 3 . 2 . This is a Type I action for which the Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . The Town of Ithaca Town Board , the Tompkins County Planning Department , and the Tompkins County Health Department are involved agencies in coordinated review . 3 . The Town Planning Department has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of this Type I action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . iThe MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed " Chase Farm " Subdivision , proposed to consist of 100 residential lots on 68 acres on East King Road , backlots of Ridgecrest Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 2 . 2 , - 2 . 6 , and 6 - 44 - 2 - 9 . 2 and - 9 . 3 . 2 . This is a Type I action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on September 20 , 1988 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on September 20 , 1988 , has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form and other application submissions . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Approval , having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board , such waiver consisting of the waiver of the Planning Board - 19 - September 20 , 1988 requirements for detailed improvement plans and specifications for preliminary plat submission . 2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as herein proposed , with the following conditions : a . Submission of improvement plans and specifications , including plans and specifications for the proposed path , for final plat consideration . b . Provision of a minimum 20 - foot -wide right of way to the Town of Ithaca for access from the interior southerly road of the site to the Town of Ithaca Ridgecrest Road water tank site . c . Construction of a minimum six - foot - wide path and related landscape development , within the proposed 70 - foot -wide . public right of way , to plan and specification approved by the Town Planner , Engineer , and Highway Superintendent , with the Phase I portion of the path to be completed , dedicated , and accepted by the Town prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for any dwellings in Phase I . In any event , any Phase II development shall include the completion of a path along the interior of the subject subdivision generally as shown on the preliminary plat • between East King Road and Ridgecrest Road , or as may be further amended . d . A temporary access road shall be constructed and approved by the Town Engineer and Highway Superintendent for use for emergency and maintenance access and for limited access related to the development and construction of the proposed subdivision , prior to the issuance of any certificates of compliance for any lots located beyond the initial 1 , 000 feet of road , said road to be designed to be one -way west . e . Submission of proposed deed restrictions as part of the final subdivision consideration by the Planning Board , with the final draft of such deed restrictions to be subject to approval by the Town Attorney prior to final subdivision approval of Phase I . f . The final subdivision plat for Phase I shall indicate a 30 - foot perimeter buffer zone within said Phase I for vegetation conservation with the exception of the frontage on East King Road . g . The final subdivision plat for Phase II shall indicate a 30 - foot perimeter buffer zone within said Phase II for vegetation conservation and shall also indicate a buffer zone for the limitation of public access to the proposed • infiltration / detention pond . Planning Board - 20 - September 20 , 1988 • h . The proposed park sites in the center of the involved lands within and adjacent to the NYSEG right of way shall be dedicated and accepted by the Town prior to the issuance of more than 15 building permits for Phase II . i . Approval of the proposed roads , open space , and other public facilities by the Town Board prior to consideration of final subdivision approval . j . Design of the drainage pond and dispersal of discharge from the pond shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Engineer prior to final subdivision approval of Phase II . k . Submission and approval of an agreement satisfactory to the Town for the creation and permanent maintenance of a drainage retention pond or dedication of the pond and adjacent areas to the Town prior to approval of any further approval of Phase II . 1 . The final plat for Phase I shall show the actual current location of houses and other improvements on the parcels depicted as " Cascioli " and " Bettucci " ( Parcels No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 and - 5 . 2 , respectively ) , relative to the proposed emergency access road . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the " Chase Farm " Preliminary Subdivision Approval duly closed at 10 : 50 p . m . AGENDA ITEM : CONSIDER REAFFIRMATION OF THE AUGUST 16 , 1988 PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ELECTRIC SUBSTATION , RELATED EQUIPMENT , AND TWO NEW SERVICE LINES NEAR THE EXISTING NYSEG EAST ITHACA SUBSTATION NORTH OF MAPLE AVENUE ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 63 - 1 - 5 ( CORRECTED PARCEL NO . ) Chairman May opened the discussion on the above - noted item at 10 : 50 p . m . At this time , Chairman May announced that there had been an error on the Motion for the electric substation , noting that the Tax Parcel No . had been listed incorrectly . Chairman May stated that a reaffirmation of the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals is • needed , with a correction on the Tax Parcel No . , which is 6 - 63 - 1 - 5 . MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by William Lesser : Planning Board - 21 - September 20 , 1988 RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the Cornell University electric substation be and hereby is reaffirmed with the corrected Tax Parcel No . 6 - 63 - 1 - 5 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Klein , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the Tax Parcel No . correction for the proposed new electric substation duly closed at 10 : 51 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 51 . 75 ± ACRE PARCEL FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 46 - 1 - 15 . 2 , 122 . 9 ACRES TOTAL , AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED " SOUTHWOODS " SUBDIVISION , PROPOSED TO ' CONSIST OF 43 SINGLE - FAMILY LOTS TO BE SUBDIVIDED OUT OF SAID 51 . 75 ± ACRE PARCEL , EAST KING ROAD , BETWEEN TROY AND CODDINGTON ROADS . N . & J . DESCH AND M . & E . MAY , OWNERS OF PARCEL N0 , 6 - 46 - 1 - 15 . 2 ; SOUTHWOODS ASSOCIATES , APPLICANT ; THOMAS NIEDERKORN , AGENT . • At this point , Chairman Montgomery May removed himself from his seat at the Board table during the entire discussion on the proposed " Sou thwoods " development through the end of the Meeting , and did not participate in any way in any of the discussion of " Southwoods " . Vice -Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 10 : 52 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . At this time , Board Member William Lesser stated that he felt the Planning Board schedules were too long , and wondered if the Board would agree that the Planning Board Meetings would be discontined , perhaps , at 11 : 30 p . m . , as he was concerned that everyone was not at their best after that time . Attorney Barney responded that once the paperwork is accepted there is a timeframe . Mr . Thomas Niederkorn approached the Board and appended maps to the bulletin board . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the parcel in question is 135 acres , which runs from East King Road , has some frontage on Coddington Road , and a small amount of frontage on Updike Road . Mr . Niederkorn offered that there is a fairly large ravine and stream that comes down across the property [ indicating on map ) like " this " , which drains the Eldridge Wilderness to the south and to the west of the parcel , and goes down into the reservoir at " this " point . Mr . Niederkorn said that the proposal was to subdivide the 135 acre parcel into two parcels - one on the northwest side of the steam , and one on • the southeast side of the steam . Mr . Niederkorn offered that the developer wants to subdivide the northern parcel ( Parcel A ) into 43 single - family detached lots . Mr . Niederkorn noted that the area is Planning Board - 22 - September 20 , 1988 R- 30 zoned , with minimum lot size of 30 , 000 square feet , noting that five of the lots are 30 , 000 square feet , with the rest of the lots being larger , and the largest lot would be 84 , 000 square feet . Mr . Niederkorn said that there are 4 , 000 linear feet of roadways in the configuration , with one cul de sac going off to the west . Mr . Niederkorn said that there is a 150 - foot right - of -way owned by NYSEG , which cuts across the eastern part of the property , and takes up about eight acres of land . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the site has three drainageways . Mr . Neiderkorn offered that the developer intends to provide a water line from the Troy Road / E . King Road intersection , down E . King Road to the entrance of Southwoods Drive , and bring it on down to tie in with the existing water line . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the sanitary sewers would all be enclosed within the parcel . Mr . Niederkorn commented that the drainage on the property can be accommodated by swales , adding that a swale is proposed along each one of the property lines . Mr . Niederkorn noted that there would be , as part of the subject proposal , fairly detailed covenants on the development of the parcels . Mr . Niederkorn said. that as much as possible of the wooded characteristics would be maintained . Mr . Niederkorn stated that it is proposed that the buffer strip would be maintained along the border of the Nature Conservancy land of the wilderness area , adding , the developer is suggesting that 20 % of the depth of the lot that faces the Nature Conservancy land be maintained as a buffer zone . Mr . Niederkorn said that 30 feet of the 20 % buffer zone would remain uncut . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the proposed • buildings have to be set back at least 20 feet from the rim of the gorge . Mr . Niederkorn mentioned that 12 . 7 % of the site would not be useful for any kind of construction . Mr . Nie.derkorn stated that the developer is suggesting , since this is an area that does not really need to have any park space , that the provision in the Subdivision Regulations , which deals with the idea of park space , and suggests that cash in lieu of land might be contributed to a park fund for the Town , noting that this would be the most appropriate approach to take in this particular project , that $ 100 . 00 per lot be set aside , and given to the Town for development of parks in this area , or in some other area of the Town . Vice -Chairman Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak to this issue . Jean Brockway of 166 Ridgecrest Road approached the Board and presented a copy of a letter addressed to the South Hill Association , Greater Ithaca Neighborhood Association , from Gerry Smith , Central New York Land Steward - The Nature Conservancy , dated September 13 , 1988 . [ Letter attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . 1 Myrtle Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road spoke from the floor and stated , for the record , that she does not get paid for attending Planning Board meetings , adding that she comes to the meetings out of a concern for the Town . Mrs . Whitcomb stated that the South Hill Community Association was concerned about the future plans of the owners for the • remaining property that is left , after the Southwoods subdivision is completed . Mrs . Whitcomb also voiced the South Hill Community Association ' s concern about the effect the development , any Planning Board - 23 - September 20 , 1988 • development on the property , would have on the Nature Preserve . Mrs . Whitcomb stated that the Community Association has a very deep concern regarding protection of the gorge . Mrs . Whitcomb commented that the biggest concern , at this point , is that there is no way to address the issues with the owners of the property . Mrs . Whitcomb noted that the owners of the property are in a very peculiar position of not being able to address the concerns of the Association , because of an issue of a conflict of interest . Mrs . Whitcomb stated that the South Hill Community Association does not wish to address the issue of conflict of interest , in any manner tonight , except the awkwardness it makes , and the difficulty it presents to address this particular development . Continuing , Mrs . Whitcomb referred to 1970 - Local Law No . 2 , Section 3 , paragraph ( f ) , which states : " Investments and Conflicts with Official Duties . He shall not invest or hold any investment directly or indirectly in any financial business , commercial or other private transaction which creates a conflict with his official duties . " Mrs . Whitcomb stated that the South Hill Community Association respectfully requests that this action be tabled , until the owners can address this concern . Attorney Barney wondered what the concern was , with respect to the ownership . Attorney Barney stated that the owners do not have any interest in the proposal , and they are not having anything to do with development . Attorney Barney stated that in most of the subdivision presentations , it is the developer that makes the presentation . • Ron Simpson of 112 Pine View Terrace spoke from the floor and stated that he has a concern with the wilderness area , as it is a very unique area . Mr . Simpson stated that he felt the idea of giving $ 100 . 00 per lot in lieu of land was not in order . Susan Beeners , Town Planner , noted that the potential development of the remaining 83 acres would require further consideration of open space needs , adding , there are about 19 acres in the southern remaining acreage that have a slope of over 30 % . At this point , Ms . Beeners noted an additional item that should be added to the Environmental Review as follows : " It is expected that the retention of the wildlife corridor along the ravine would also be further considered at that time . " Continuing , Ms . Beeners noted that the way the Southwoods developer was proposing to design the pump station there would be no automatic provision of sizing to support development on that remaining land , adding that there would be a utility and communication easement within which it would be possible to run sewer and water lines . The developer of the project , Edwin Hallberg , spoke from the floor and stated that he has no control or contractual relationship on the remaining lands . Mr . Hallberg remarked that he had met with the Nature Conservancy and tried to establish what they consider , and what the developer considers , adequate precedence . Vice - Chairman Grigorov wondered if the concerns of the Conservancy had been fully addressed . • Mr . Hallberg responded that the letter [ Exhibit 1 ] , basically , reviews several meetings held with the Conservancy . Mr . Hallberg stated that the cash in lieu of land donation could be made directly to the Nature Planning Board - 24 - September 20 , 1988 Conservancy to address their concerns of increased maintenance cost to the Conservancy land itself . John Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road spoke from the floor and stated that he was speaking as Co - Chairman of the South Hill Community Association . Mr . Whitcomb commented that the South Hill Community Association ' s concerns are centered , primarily , around the Environmental Impact Statement , Mr . Whitcomb stated that , in the Association ' s opinion , they feel that there are some sections of the Statement that may be incomplete or glossed over , in addressing certain concerns . Mr . Whitcomb said that the deed restrictions , while they are a step in the right direction , certainly do not adequately buffer the area . Mr . Whitcomb expressed a concern over the loss of vegetation on the site because of the development . Mr . Whitcomb wondered if clustering on the site was ever suggested , or considered , as a way to mitigate the impact on the wilderness . There appearing to be no further discussion , Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion . MOTION by William Lesser , seconded by David Klein * RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the Public Hearing in the matter of Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed " Southwoods " Subdivision be and hereby is adjourned for further discussion on October 4 , 1988 at 8 : 00 p . m . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Vice - Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed " Southwoods " Subdivision duly adjourned at 11 : 50 p . m . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : " LAKE CAYUGA ESTATES " , PROPOSED 58 - lot SUBDIVISION , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED BACKLOTS OF INDIAN CREEK ROAD AND DUBOIS ROAD ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 22 - 1 - 2 . 2 , 62 . 31 ACRES TOTAL , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 30 . DAVID McCARDLE , APPLICANT , ANN L . CLARKE , SITE PLANNER , Vice - Chairman Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted matter at 11 : 59 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Ms . Ann Clarke addressed the Board and outlined the plans for the proposal . Ms . Clarke stated that " Lake Cayuga Estates " is a 63 - acre parcel , • located between Route 89 and the cul de sac on Orchard Hill Road which is off Dubois Road , adding , it has a westerly slope toward Route 89 . Ms . Clarke remarked that this was an R- 30 District , commenting that Planning Board - 25 - September 20 , 1988 • the proposal is for 58 lots , with the typical lot size being just over 30 , 000 square feet . Ms . Clarke said that there would be 1 - 1 / 2 to 1 - 3 / 4 acre lots also available on the site . Ms . Clarke stated that the developer was proposing two means of access . Ms . Clarke said that NYSEG has concurred that they would sell a portion wide enough for a Town road , but it is yet to be determined with the DOT , and the property owner along Route 89 , as to the best location for that access road . Ms . Clarke commented that one of the concerns regarding the proposal was that two means of access be provided because of the length of Orchard Hill Road . Ms . Clarke noted that the lots and the road are laid out in conformance with the site topography , with 50 - foot rights - of -way , noting that all of the grades and the radius of the curbs will meet Town specifications . Ms . Clarke stated that the estimated peak traffic flow from the site , in the p . m . peak hour would be 58 vehicles , noting that 37 would be entering the site , and , at this point , the projections are that 95 - 100 % of the traffic would be coming home in the evening north on Route 89 . Ms . Clarke stated that the developer would be working with the DOT as to the safety and adequacy of the access road . Ms . Clarke noted that , in terms of drainage , there are , presently , a number of swales on the site , along with Indian Creek , which is on the southerly site boundary , adding that all of the swales currently have culverts under the old railroad right - of -way , which is now NYSEG property . Ms . Clarke stated that there are six drainage sub - areas on the site , noting that two of the areas would have no significant change , three of the areas would • actually have a reduction in volume of run -off , and the one area along Indian Creek may need a detention facility to control the rate of the run - off , noting that the facility would be along Lot # 23 . Ms . Clarke stated that the drainage systems that would be retained as actual swales within the development ' s management system are along side lot lines and front lot lines , and they would be protected by deed restrictions , so that maintenance of those swales would be insured . Ms . Clarke stated that , in terms of recreation , given the layout of the land and the topography of the site , a 10 % set aside or a park area did not seem to be appropriate , commenting that the developer is proposing a trail system along the old railroad right - of-way . Ms . Clarke stated that the developer would like to , with NYSEG ' s concurrence , be able to develop the segment of the trail along the property frontage , and tie that back into the site in sort of a recreationway that would have fitness stations . Ms . Clarke stated that the site has water and sewer availability . Vice -Chairman Grigorov asked who the owners of the site were . Ms . Clarke responded that the owners were David McCardle and Edward McCardle . Vice -Chairman Grigorov wondered why the developer thought open space would be unsuitable . Ms . Clarke answered that the slope is such that there really was not a flat area . David Klein offered that he would be concerned with the major • drainage running through Lots # 36 , 37 , 51 , and 52 . Ms . Clarke responded that they are oversize lots to try and accomodate the drainage . Planning Board - 26 - September 20 , 1988 • Virginia Langhans asked about the line between Lots 30 and 31 . Ms . Clarke responded that she would consult with the Engineer on that item . Town Engineer , Robert Flumerfelt , stated that there are several important engineering factors involved in the development . Mr . Flumerfelt commented that , without a connection to Taughannock Blvd . , this becomes a big long cul de sac with a lot of houses at the end of it . Mr . Flumerfelt remarked that some of the road grades within the subdivision were around 20 % , which he noted were pretty steep . Ms . Clarke responded that the grades would meet Town specifications . Mr . Flumerfelt noted that the water pressure would be extreme , adding that a pressure reducing station would be needed . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that there would be a long pump , uphill , for the sewage disposal . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that any use of the water or sewer mains that were recently installed on Taughannock Blvd . would require the approval of the City of Ithaca . Mr . Flumerfelt also mentioned the fact that crossing the ravine twice with a road looks like a significant project . Town Planner Susan Beeners noted that the entire site was wooded , adding , there should be some information provided as far as alternative development types that may have been considered , and why they were considered not to be feasible , such as , perhaps , a clustered detached single family lot . Ms . Beeners offered that there could be some impacts if there were a public road down to Route 89 , commenting that the road may get some traffic abuse from the R- 15 area near Woolf Lane , Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that there was 5800 feet of roadway proposed , excluding the connection to Route 89 . Mr . Frantz wondered if the Board would like to consider a Cluster type of development for the site . Mr . Frantz noted that this was a forested area along the lake . Mr . David McCardle stated that most of the growth in that area was scrub . Mr . Frantz mentioned the 10 % reservation of recreation area and / or open space . Robert Kenerson wondered if these would be single family lots lots with completed houses . Mr . McCardle answered that it probably would be single family sold lots . Vice -Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any other comments . There being none , Vice - Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the " Lake Cayuga Estates " Development Sketch Plan Review duly closed at 12 : 15 a . m . ADJOURNMENT Upon . Motion , Vice - Chairman Grigorov declared the September 20 , 1988 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 12 : 17 a . m . 0 . Planning Board - 27 - September 20 , 1988 Respectfully submitted , Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . • • CENTRAL NEW YORK CHAPTER '11 - . : r . m6MUKANUUM TO4801) til Hill HaS �i1_: l. ;� Cll� rl , l, reater Ithaca Nelgnaorno0a Association Fromouerry smitn , Central New York Land Steward - The Nature Conservancy 1 � Lith box yeti Mexico N . Y . 1s114 , ke e. Southwoocts :, uD (l i v 1 . Date : 13 SepL.rriibrr i 'itits -' Arter meot . ingci wi r . n mem ►:) ers of the Sough Hill association and developers or Lne soucnwoods .6ubdivision , 1 was asked to send a memo to the you reicerrttln (4 our concerns as discussed at these meetings . Our pximary concerns regarding the impacts of the proposed subdivision on cne r.; ldridge widerness are . Increase a uncontroiled access to the wilderness from the subdivision , 1' hi. s is beinq addressed by the developers deed restricr. ions , nowever , crie proximity of 43 houses will result in substantial increasea use . • - lncreasru 6zewarosrlln costs to the ' Conservancy ,, , . ., . . . - a5 a result of the close proximty or. 1a rna ) or aeveiooment . Tnese costs include increasea statr ti. rne ana travel relatea to a greater need . l 'rE, ,' `• for site monitoring ansa management ettorts.. at. the preserve as well as increasea matari. als coats ( signs , traii materials etc ) associated with more human use . basea on the Conservancv ' s : 5 years of experience in :r preserve managernent , mere i:s no question that development in the - vicinity or any preserve increases manaqement needs and costs . Since stewarasnip costs are an ongoinq commitment , the best way to meet these needs i. s uhrou-gn an endowment . My calculations indicate the interest trorn a $ j. 0 , uuu contribution to the Central New York Chapter Stewardship en ,aowment rung would be adequate to help defray these increasea costs and assure preserve needs are met . - Loss of aesthetic values for visitors as a resuP\\t of close proximity or Houses and associated activities ("dogs , radios , power - .tool operation etc ) . While the sma-1-1-,-30 - 50 toot limited- cut no imited- cutno cut zone deea restriction will reduce these impacts , much of the " Wilderness experience ' s reelinq ofisolation in a natural setting will be gone . Maiiagenient options such as relocatinq trails to interior areas can resto- re this benefit to preserve visitors to a degree nut on an area or only a "/ acres options are limited . Mitigation measures canoe costly ana at best can only oe partilally successru .l in r. nis siT: uation . intrusion 1r, L0 `Cr, e preserve by alien piants and domestic animals . `rnese incrusions can seriousiy impact on the natural communities aria wiiniire . T11E NATURL CONSERVANCY 1800 NORTH KENT STREET ARLINGTON . VIRGINIA 2209 L�MIBIT y EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE 294 WASHINGTON STREET BOSTON . MASSACHUSETTS 02108 1JAL11IJ1 �. .L A N . Y . S. FIELD OFFICE 1736 WESTERN AVENUE ALBANY . NEW YORK 12203 r . ' 1; Deed restrictions proposed by the developers will help reduce these problems , nowever , these restrictions will require periodic monitoring and if neccessary appropriate authorities will need to take legal action enforce these restrictions . From our perspective these restrictions are most aesiranie ana we appreciate the developers includinq tnem , nowever , we are concerned with our increased needs . . and associated costs for monitoring . in addition we are concerned that a well deiineo monitorinq and enforcement mecnanisim involving all interesr. ed parties w ]. 11 be essential to assure the long - term value or . tnese deea restrictions for neipinq protect Eldridge Wilderness . The lncreasi. nq ISO .lation or Eldridge Wiidernes resulting from this and otner oevt'lopments in the immeadiate area . In essence the prdserve is rapinly r.) ecom . nq an isolated 'habitat island . Small habitat islanas are often less viable as natural systems than larger tracts . Aiso wilaiire values are often reduced as some species cannotmexist in small isolated tracts . The proposed deed restriction ' on development lots aLonq the " gorge " will help provide a habitat corridor that should reduce the isolation of Eldridqe Wilderness somewhat . It is important in the long - term that this corridor be maintained by cooperation with landowners on the other side of the gorge if this area is to be of any long - term value in reducing the isolation of 81. ar idge Wi i. aerness , Practical considerations of maintenance of the ' no' CUttattaalimited cut deed restriction , in order for these restrictions to be enforceable a full survey or the boundries of affected lots and markinq with permanent metal stakes is needed. In this wooded terrain exact, bounari. es or the aeea restricted zone could be difficult to determine without permanent markers if flagging were removedo based on my experience a staxe every fifty feet would be ideal . 1" � the preceaina represent our primary concerns at this time , Several other concerns notea in the meetings , ie off - road vehicles , have been adequately aaaressed by the oeveiopers through deed restrictions . L appreciate the wiiiingness of the developers . to meet with me ana discuss the concerns of the Conservancy . particulariy want to express my thanks orf behalf of the Nature Conservancy for the efforts of preserve neighbors through ri iw. 1i •" �P' � a a . the South Hili Association in working to assure the long - term viability of the preserve . All of your efforts and concern have been responsible for much of the progress made to date in discussions with the developers . `mese discussions have resulted in development > _ , of mechanisims , such as Beed restrictions , that will help ` . ` Eldridqe Wilderness ana reduce some of the impacts of tprotect - ., . heSouthwoods Subdivision on the preserve . Hopefully ongoinq efforts on all • of our parts will assure . znar impacts from this development and other pressures can • be • minimized . and thus assure Eldridge Wilderness remains a vian .ie natural area resource in the town of Ithaca . Best wishes ana tnanks again for all your efforts . EXHIBIT 1 AIFIDAVIT OF W10CATJON JOURNAL TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING9 rI`�-iE IT � ACA BOARD, NOTICE , PUBLIC :HEARINGS, TUESDAY, SEPTEM- BER 20, 1988 tion By direction of :he Chairman .; of the Planning Board , NOTICE ; IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public Hearings will be held,. by the ' : 1 t Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca 1 on Tuesday,y, S pt mber 20 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, .. . .. . .-. . .. . .- . .. . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . being duly S-Nvo n , depp ses N . Y . , at the following times ` and on the following matters : 7 : 30 P. M. Consideration of and szys , that be resides ato ides in Ithaca , Count), nd state leforesaid Lnd Approval of Modifications the Final Subdivision Plot for I Lots No. l and 2 of Westwood t}] it bt L .�Ql '. k_ . Hill Subdivision , said Lots be- �� KJ. _ . ._ ing Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels ' ' No . 6- 23 - 1 - 11 . 114 and - 1 O'f T� ITxwGt7P &, JoxA.L, a public Dew pap£r printed and pubonn respectively, located lished ; Woolf lane. Daniel C. Mc- Clure, Owner/Applicant. t, Repo P. M. Consideration of o in Ithaca •afortmid, and that s notice , of %ciiich the annexed is a true Report to the Zoning Board of t Appeals with respect to a Re- quest for Special approval , Copy, Nims publishe-d in said pope? S�o a pursuant r Article I the Section .. . . .. . . . . . . .l . _ ._ _._. . . .. .. .. ...._ ... .... . 11 ,- Paragraph 3, of the Town _ ' of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for proposed 1 , 325 plus or ; ..._ ..... ... . . .. . . .. ............ . . ...... .... . . . . ..-. ..... . . . ....... . .. .. . ... .... .... . .. . .. . .. minus sq. ft. addition to Trinity Lutheran Church located on . I Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. _. ..... . .. . . . . . . ...... .. .... . . . . ...... . ... .._ . 6.58-2-4, at 149 Honness Lane . _ . ._. Charles F. Hoover, Architect, Applicant/Agent. el 7 : 50 P. M. Consideration of � d tit the first publicat oa of said novee x'a< OII the . . . . . . . . . . .. . . Site Plan Approval for a pro- posed 24-room motel addition and a proposed limousine dfiy of . .. _ . . .. .. .. rage , for the Best Western University Inn , located at East Hill Plaza , Town of Ithaca Tax . . . . . ... . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . Parcel No . 6-62-2- 13. 7. Stew- i art K . Knowlton, Agent. 8 :00 P. M. Consideration of : Subscribed and SAvorn to before me , this . .... ... � ' Preliminary Subdivision Ap -• ••— •-• - • - � } proval for the proposed "Chose Farm " Subdivision , proposed osed to consist of 100 resi- { - - — ---- q - dermal lots on 68 acres on East King Road , bocklots of ?•a _ . . Rdgecrest Road, Town of Itho- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i • • - • • • co Tax Parcels No. 6-45- 1 -2. 2, Nolx'j y Ftlf7lk j -2. 6, and 6-44-2-9. 2, -9. 3. But- terfield Associates/Auble -_ FORD i Homes, Applicant. 8 : 30 P. M. Consideration of Notary Public, S1d ; I N Preliminary Subdivision Ap- ew York proval for the proposed subdi- lus or NO. vision of a 505 acre parcel from Town of Ithominus • ; Qualified in ToinoUnS COUnty ca Tax Parcel No. 6-46- 1 . 15. 2, Ad 122. 9 acres total , and further, Commission expires May 31 19 Consideration of Preliminary :r 1 i e._s Subdivision A;: ;, roval for the y proposed "Sc ir, .voods" Sub- division, proposed to consist � of 43 single family lots to be _ subdivided out of said 51 . 75 pins or minus acre parcel . N . : 8 J . Desch and M. 8 E. May, Owners of Parcel No. 6-46- 1 - 15. 2; Southwoods Associates, Applicant; Thomas Nieder- • - j korn , Agent. Said Planning Board will at j said times and said place hear oil persons in support of such matters or objections. thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Jean H . Swartwood Town Clerk f 273- 1721 September 15, 1988 21, 012 -