HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1988-10-04 FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date� �i . _ �' . / 4 '
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk
OCTOBER 4 , 1988
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , October 4 , 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 , David Klein , Robert Miller , Robert
Kenerson , William Lesser , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) ,
George R . Frantz ( Assistant Town Planner ) , Andrew Frost
( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) , John
C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) [ arrived late ] .
ALSO PRESENT : Peter Trowbridge , Larry Fabbroni , Rocco Lucente , Myrtle
Whitcomb , John G . Whitcomb , Christina Wu , Robin
Stedinger , Ed Hallberg , Gordon Fisher , Gene Ball ,
Richard L . Atkins , ( name not legible ) , Celia Bowers ,
Tom Niederkorn , Ken Poyer , John Stebbin ( WTKO / Q104 ) ,
Mr . and Mrs . Joseph Burkhart , Einar Holm , Margaret
Holm , Charlotte Bosworth , Edward Bosworth , ( name not
legible ) , Norbert Schickel .
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 26 , 1988 , and September 29 , 1988 ,
respectively , together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail
of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties
under discussion , upon both the Clerk and the Acting Building
Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon the Clerk of the Town of
Danby , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works , upon the
Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicants
and / or agents , as appropriate , on September 26 , 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 .
AGENDA ITEM : CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SECTION 1C OF
LOCAL LAW NO . 4 , 1987 , RELATING TO PARTIAL COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS
IN PHASE III OF EASTWOOD COMMONS ,
Chairman May opened discussion . on the above - noted matter at 7 : 33
p . m .
Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that there was a discussion at
the Town Board meeting on October 3 , 1988 that resulted in the
above - noted agenda item .
• Chairman May wondered if the above should be a public hearing ,
with Ms . Beeners answering that Attorney Barney should be consulted .
Ms . Beeners noted that , in her opinion , the condition that would
be asked to be waived is that the road is only partly completed ,
adding that the Town Board actually accepted it last night ,
t ¢. . Planning Board - 2 - October 4 , 1988
• conditional upon its satisfactory completion , however , it also
involves waiving a requirement of a condition of the Local Law dealing
with the project , which is a site plan matter . Ms . Beeners commented
that it was unclear to her as to whether it really is a subdivision
matter , because the requirement that the road be completed was not
part of the subdivision approval resolution that the Planning Board
passed . Ms . Beeners stated that for site plans it is not legally
required to have a public hearing , and added that she was not sure
just what the legal requirements are for that waiver by application to
the Planning Board . Ms . Beeners offered that there is language in the
Subdivision Regulations that indicates an application has to be made
and submitted to the Planning Board at least seven days before a
Planning Board meeting is to be held . Ms . Beeners stated that there
seemed to be some urgency on the part of the applicant to have this
approved so that he could move on with closings on two units in
Building # 30 . Chairman May commented that Mr . Schickel called him and
wanted him to sign the plat . Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning
Enforcement Officer offered that Mr . Schickel cannot secure any
Certificates of Compliance until the road is completed .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 71 - 1 - 34 , 1 . 75
ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED AT 506 WARREN ROAD , INTO THREE LOTS , ROCCO P .
LUCENTE , OWNER .
• Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 36 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Lawrence Fabbroni , Engineer for the project , approached the
Board and appended maps to the bulletin board .
Mr . Fabbroni [ indicating on map ] pointed out the evergreens that
exist on the property . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the roadway back to
the lots is 15 feet in width . Pointing to map , Mr . Fabbroni indicated
where the existing house is located , and also noted the existing
vegetation along the adjacent properties . Mr . Fabbroni stated that
the only break in those property lines are at the very north end of
the property , adding , Lot # 2 would look into the very rear of the
Muraca property and noted that there is a small break in the Wu
backline vegetation . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Fishers and. other
people who actually front on Kay Street have a substantial buffer all
along the boundary of the property . Mr . Fabbroni stated that
[ indicating on map ] the sewer line comes up through the property , and
noted that the water is proposed to come in through existing water on
Warren Road to the two lots , as shown on the drawing . Mr . Fabbroni
offered that the two houses would face each other on the lots .
Virginia Langhans wondered how large the lots were , with Mr .
Fabbroni answering , 18 , 000 - 19 , 000 square feet .
• Chairman May stated that Lot # 2 was substantially larger than Lot
# 3 . Mr . Fabbroni responded that it is , but if one looks at the
� . Planning Board - 3 - October 4 , 1988
• dimensions , Lot # 3 is 203 feet on one leg of the trapezoid and 152
feet on the other leg of the trapezoid , commenting , that lot is
roughly 18 , 000 square feet . Mr . Fabbroni said that Lot # 3 is 107 feet
in width and closer to 100 feet in the back . Mr . Fabbroni offered
that Lot # 2 is 150 feet in length , 100 feet at the north end , and 170
feet at the south end . Mr . Fabbroni commented that Lot # 2 is
approaching 18 , 000 - 19 , 000 square feet and added that the primary lot
is roughly 130 ' X1551 , which is over 19 , 000 square feet .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing. and asked if
there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions .
Mr . Gordon Fisher of 418 Warren Road appeared before the board
and directed his question to Mr . Fabbroni ,
Mr . Fisher asked if the recent survey of Mr . Lucente ' s property
in any way conflicts with the current survey of his [ Fisher ] property .
Mr . Fabbroni responded that he was not aware of any .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 45
p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Ms . Langhans referred to the ZBA Meeting of June 15 , 1988
regarding the following : " WHEREAS , based upon the fact that the
• neighborhood association has now indicated its approval of the
requested variance subject to the conditions imposed by the Planning
Board . " . Ms . Langhans wondered how that approval was given . Mr .
Fabbroni responded that they were more desirous that this be a private
lane than any kind of a municipal street . Ms . Langhans stated that
she understood that one lot would be preferred , rather than two . Mr .
Fabbroni stated that the discussion was on one - family homes versus
two - family homes on Lots # 2 and # 3 . Ms . Langhans asked about a
restriction of the use of Lots # 2 and # 3 as single family dwelling use
only . Chairman May stated that there is no zoning for a
single - family , but one can put a deed restriction in for
single - family .
William Lesser wondered , as the houses are constructed on the
property , is there going to be a problem deciding what is the front
and what is the side ? Mr . Fabbroni offered that as the lots are
viewed , and are going to face each other , there would be no problem
considering the 25 - foot set -back from the common line between Lots # 2
and # 3 , and all the other rules of backyard and sideyard applying to
the respective lines that are followed . Mr . Fabbroni offered that the
front yards essentially face each other . Mr . Lesser commented that he
has no problem with Lot # 3 , but thought that the front yard on Lot # 2
might face that private drive .
Ms . Beeners wondered if the Andrus rear yard property abuts Lot
U . Mr . Fabbroni responded that the very back of the Andrus lot abuts
• Lot # 3 .
Planning Board - 4 - October 4 , 1988
• There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 71 - 1 - 34 , 1 . 75 acres total , located at 506 Warren Road , into
three lots .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed
subdivision , made a negative determination of environmental
significance and granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval , with
certain conditions , on June 7 , 1988 . The Zoning Board of
Appeals , on June 15 , 1988 , made a negative determination of
environmental significance and granted a variance to permit the
subdivision with access along a privately owned right of way ,
with certain conditions .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on October 4 , 1988 , has
reviewed the proposed final plat for this subdivision .
• THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does
grant Final Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as proposed , with
the following conditions :
a . Submission of deeds for the subject Lots 2 and 3 for approval by
the Town Attorney , along with recording fees , with the deeds to
provide that improvements on the lots will be restricted to
single family residences , and with such deeds to provide for any
necessary easements with respect to common access and maintenance
of the proposed common driveway , and submission of any necessary
easements involving Lot 1 with respect to common access and
maintenance of the proposed common driveway for approval by the
Town Attorney , along with recording fees , prior to the issuance
of any building permits for construction on Lots 2 and 3 .
b . Widening of the common driveway to 15 feet prior to the issuance
of any certificates of compliance for any development on Lots 2
and 3 .
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 - 5 - October 4 , 1988
Chairman May declared the matter of Consideration of Final
Subdivision Approval for the Rocco P . Lucente Three - Lot Subdivision
duly closed at 7 : 54 p . m .
FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SECTION 1C
OF LOCAL LAW N0 , 4 , 1987 , RELATING TO PARTIAL COMPLETION OF
IMPROVEMENTS IN PHASE III OF EASTWOOD COMMONS .
Chairman May stated that it looked to him that a public hearing
is needed . Attorney Barney responded that he thought it was the
Board ' s discretion and did not think it was mandated . Attorney Barney
suggested that the time be extended to the point that no further
Certificates of Occupancy be issued .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO ,
6 - 22 - 1 - 1 . 21 19 . 2 ± ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED ON DUBOIS ROAD OPPOSITE ORCHARD
HILL ROAD , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 , INTO 11 LOTS PLUS OPEN SPACE FOR
TRAIL PURPOSES , WITH SUCH LOTS RANGING FROM 30 , 000 TO 105 , 000 SQUARE
FEET AND BEING FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES . KEN POYER , APPLICANT .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 55 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
• Mr . Peter Trowbridge , Landscape Architect , addressed the Board
and appended maps to the bulletin board .
Mr . Trowbridge stated that he was presenting the final plat to
the Board .
Mr . Trowbridge offered that the project is between Orchard Hill
Road , Woolf Lane , and on the west side of DuBois Road , noting , there
are approximately 19 acres . Mr . Trowbridge offered that there is a
short 600 - foot cul de sac , and ten building lots that are all
relatively over - sized in an R- 30 zone . Mr . Trowbridge noted that it
maintains the existing vegetative buffer at the outsides of the
property . Mr . Trowbridge stated that there would be a 60 - foot road
reservation off the end of the cul de sac for any future development ,
and also there would be a potential for an extention of sewer , i . e . , a
manhole that is aligned with the 60 - foot right - of -way that allows for
sewer and water extension . Mr . Trowbridge said that there would be a
20 - foot wide recreation trail developed at the westerly edge , which
would be started at the northwest corner , and out to DuBois Road . Mr .
Trowbridge stated that there would be a designated center line on the
driveway on Lot # 11 . Mr . Trowbridge offered that an extensive surface
hydrological study had been done of the property . Mr . Trowbridge
suggested a fair share idea for the recreation trail development ,
adding , the developer would need 1 . 9 acres for recreation open space .
Mr . Trowbridge said that . 9 acres was already designated as part of
• the right - of - way . Mr . Trowbridge commented that the developer is
looking at one additional acre for a fair share . Mr . Trowbridge
Planning Board - 6 - October 4 , 1988
• stated that , since the Town Planners felt it was not necessay , nor
even desirable , to have additional open space acreage associated with
the project , the developer looked at a fair share of an average cost
of raw land in the Town , and has proposed improvements along the trail
which would basically balance that additional fair share of $ 3 , 000 . 00 ,
noting , that was submitted to the Town Planner , Susan Beeners , for her
review .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions .
Celia Bowers of 1406 Trumansburg Road spoke from the floor and
asked why it was deemed undesirable to have the parkland or playland
appropriated for the development . Town Planner Susan Beeners responded
that , in the Park and Open Space Plan a trail which was updated in
1984 , and approved in concept by the Town Board , there was mapped a
trail along the NYSEG right - of - way from the Westwood Hills area , where
a park site was shown , toward the Tompkins Community Hospital . Mr .
Trowbridge [ pointing to map ] indicated where the trail would be . Ms .
Beeners commented that when the Poyer subdivision initially came
before the Board , and given the fact a low density was proposed on the
site , it seemed to make sense to try and have an opportunity for this
project to pick up a slightly revised routing of the trail . Ms .
Beeners noted that she had suggested to the Planning Board , because it
is a little indefinite how to get between the Westwood Hills open
• space and the proposed Poyer trail , Mr . Poyer be required to dedicate
a trail right - of -way - to the northern edge of his property , and make
that trail subject to being built before four houses could be occupied
on the site , but with the opportunity for some modification if there
is some resolution of how to possibly change and make a diagonal
across the Page land .
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 : 03
p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
William Lesser asked about the value of land for financial
contribution , rather than donation of land , and wondered if $ 3 , 000 . 00
an acre was a realistic market price for this area . Assistant Town
Planner George Frantz responded that he had gone through the records
at the Tompkins County Assessment Office , which records land sales ,
and noted that the data for 1987 and the first three months of 1988
indicated that there were approximately one dozen sales of nine acres
or more tracts of undeveloped land that sold for an average of
$ 2 , 995 . 00 an acre .
Ms . Beeners commented that in the Preliminary Subdivision
Approval resolution it was required that the trail right - of -way be
improved with a path , by the developer . Ms . Beeners recommended that
the preliminary subdivision requirement be waived in this case , based
on what has been proposed .
Virginia Langhans wondered how the trail issues were handled for
prior trails . Ms . Beeners responded that it has been her experience
Planning Board - 7 - October 4 , 1988
• that the Town has actually built the trails . Ms . Beeners noted there
is a requirment in blocks over 800 feet in length that a subdivider
may be required to construct a trail to go across blocks . Ms . Beeners
recommended that this proposal would be satisfactory , in that the Park
and Open Space Plan , as far as how one establishes what a fair share
is , it does state that it would be based on the fair market value of
the land .
Mr . Trowbridge referred to the Planning Board Resolution of
August 16 , 1988 , and asked for a clarification of No . 2 ( d ) . " The
provision of an easement for potential future sewer main extension
shall be made within the above - mentioned future road right of way . "
Mr . Trowbridge stated that the developer has allowed the sewer line to
be extended in such a way that it would be easily connected with any
future road . Attorney Barney responded that , if indeed , the
contemplation that that is going to, be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca ,
then you [ Mr . Trowbridge ] are absolutely right . Attorney Barney
wondered if the discussion was about a reservation in which the title
to that land is going to remain in the two lot holders , or is the
discussion about an actual conveyance of that strip of land to the
Town of Ithaca . Attorney Barney remarked that if the discussion is
about a reservation , then the easement for the sewer is needed , but if
it is a transfer to the Town now , then , obviously , we do not need the
easement .
David Klein wondered if the set- back line on Lot # 10 should be
modified . Mr . Trowbridge answered , the way it currently exists is
that that reservation falls completely within Lot # 10 , and is not a
dedicated piece , but it could be , and will be corrected .
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 Mr . Robert Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed clustered subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 22 - 1 - 1 . 2 , 19 . 2 ± acres total , located on DuBois Road
opposite Orchard Hill Road , Residence District R- 30 , into 11 lots
plus open space for trail purposes , with such lots ranging from
30 , 000 to 105 , 000 square feet , and being for the purpose of
constructing detached single family homes .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency for environmental review , made a negative
determination of environmental significance and granted
Preliminary Subdivision Approval on August 16 , 1988 , with certain
conditions .
3 . The Town Board , on September 12 , 1988 , approved the location of
the roads , open space , and other public facilities proposed for
this subdivision .
� ., Planning Board - 8 - October 4 , 1988
. 4 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on October 4 , 1988 , has
reviewed the proposed final plat for this subdivision .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive the
requirement of the Preliminary Subdivision Approval related to
the construction of an 8 - foot trail right of way .
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as herein proposed ,
subject to the following conditions :
a . Improvement of the proposed trail right of way as outlined
in the September 27 , 1988 letter from Peter Trowbridge to
Susan Beeners , with such improvements to be completed prior
to the issuance of more than four ( 4 ) certificates of
compliance for buildings on the subject lots , except as such
timeframe for construction might be further modified by the
Planning Board , with such improvements to include the
following :
i . Installation of a 12 - foot long , 20 - inch culvert to
specifications of the Tompkins County Department of
Public Works at the intersection of the trail right of
way with DuBois Road .
ii . Clearing and grubbing of the entire length of the trail
right of way , including chipping and removing
vegetation that would interrupt the trail .
iii . Grading for drainage along the trail right of way .
b . Recording of deed restrictions , prior to the issuance of any
building permits , specifying that the lots shall not be
subdivided , which restrictions shall be submitted to , and be
in form satisfactory to , the Town Attorney , before
recording .
c . Submission to and approval by the Town Attorney of an
easement for utility line purposes extending westerly from
the cul de sac to the property reputedly owned by Gombas and
Page .
d . Modification of Lot 10 to show setback lines the appropirate
distance from the reserved road right of way .
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 - 9 - October 4 , 1988
• [ SECRETARY ' S NOTE : The referenced 9 / 27 / 88 Trowbridge to Beeners
letter attached hereto as Exhibit A . ]
Chairman May declared the matter of Consideration of Final
Subdivision Approval for the Poyer Clustered Subdivision duly closed
at 8 : 16 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 . N . & J . DESCH AND M .
& E . MAY , OWNERS OF PARCEL NO , 6 - 46 - 1 - 15 . 2 ; SOUTHWOODS ASSOCIATES ,
APPLICANT ; THOMAS NIEDERKORN , AGENT . ( ADJOURNED FROM SEPTEMBER 20 ,
1988 . )
At this point , Chairman May removed himself from his seat at the
Board table during the entire discussion on the proposed " Southwoods "
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 8 : 17 p . m . and read aloud from the
• Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Thomas Niederkorn addressed the Board and presented a revised
EAF to the Board .
Mr . Niederkorn noted that one change on the EAF was the amount of
roads , buildings , and other paved surfaces . Mr . Niederkorn said that
he re - calculated and the amount is 5 . 4 acres , adding , that was
calculated on the basis of approximately 4 , 000 lineal feet of roadway ,
24 - foot wide pavement , which makes about 2 . 2 acres of land and
estimated roughly 3 , 200 square feet of impermeable surface for
driveways , parking areas , roofs , sidewalks , etc . , per lot . Mr .
Niederkorn stated that the total anticipated water usage per day is
4 , 515 gallons per day , noting , that is based on the American Water
Works Association standard . Mr . Niederkorn offered that a little of
the language was modified on the proposed Deed Restrictions , noting
that this was done , basically , in response to two concerns - one
concern was that Ms . Beeners and the staff had a little difficulty
understanding what was being said . Secondly , Mr . Niederkorn noted
that there was some concern about the buffer . Mr . Niederkorn stated
that there was a request for a buffer strip to be provided along East
King Road , and also there was a concern that the enforcement of the
deed restrictions was tied pretty directly to Joe Quigley and his
continued competence . Mr . Niederkorn remarked that a buffer strip was
added along the East King Road frontage for [ indicating on map ]
" these " four lots on East King Road , Mr . Niederkorn commented that
• the buffer was simplified along the wilderness area and made it
60 feet consistent all the way around . Mr . Niederkorn noted that it
was suggested that " Southwoods " should be the controlling agent in
Planning Board - 10 - October 4 , 1988
• terms of review of the development that took place , and commented that
a provision was added that any violation of the Deed Restrictions ,
whether it was during " Southwoods " tenure as owner , or afterwards ,
would be for the purpose of this subdivision . Mr . Niederkorn stated
that he had an opportunity to talk , again , with Town Engineer , Robert
Flumerfelt , about the drainage . Mr . Niederkorn stated that William
Albern , Engineer for the project , calculated the drainage that was
going to flow across the property , both before and after development ,
as it is divided into three sub - drainage areas . Mr . Niederkorn stated
that the County checked the six - foot diameter culvert under Coddington
Road , and they stated that there was no difficulty with any of them .
Mr . Niederkorn mentioned that Mr . Flumerfelt suggested putting in a
small detention area for [ pointing to map ] " this " drainageway and
" this " drainageway , which is shown on the map as approximately 5 , 000
cubic feet of retaining . Mr . Niederkorn offered that it would be just
a small shallow indentation in the land with a small pipe on the
outfall side , which would not allow the run - off , after development , to
exceed that which is currently on the site . Mr . Niederkorn stated
that he added the easements and the deed restrictions , those parts of
the land of the development that will not be able to be used , because
of either NYSEG easement restrictions or because of " Southwoods " deed
restrictions , and commented that it is approximately eight acres of
land that are affected by the NYSEG right - of -way , and about 4 . 3 acres
of land that are affected by the buffer . Mr . Niederkorn noted that
the buffer is divided into three areas - the green strip [ indicating
on map ] 30 feet deep where there is no cutting at all or removal of
any brush or trees , another 30 - foot strip where one cannot cut
anything over 3 " in diameter , and then there is a 20 - foot strip on the
inside of that where no permanent structure can be built . Mr .
Niederkorn offered that , excluding the 20 - foot strip , the two 30 - foot
strips come to 4 . 3 acres of land . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the
ravine area has the rim of the gorge where the 20o slope takes place ,
noting that anything south of that down into the ravine cannot be
modified in any way , in terms of topography or vegetation , adding that
that amounts to , basically , one acre . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the
buffer strip along East King Road , which is really not for the Town ' s
protection as much as it is for the protection of the people who live
here , amounts to . 9 acres . Mr . Niederkorn said that the total amount
of limited land , in terms of development on the site is 14 . 2 acres .
Vice - Chairman Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or
questions .
John Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road approached the Board and read from
a prepared statement . [ Statement attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . ]
At this point , Vice - Chairman Grigorov stated that she would leave
a time after the Board ' s discussion , and before the vote , for a little
more public comment .
Ed Hallberg of 214 E . King Road spoke from the floor and
commented that he was disappointed and dissolusioned by comments
concerning Mr . Desch and Mr . May . Mr . Hallberg , in defense of Mr .
Planning Board - 11 - October 4 , 1988
• Desch and Mr . May , stated that in the entire dealings with them , they
have been very businesslike , professional , and above board . Mr .
Hallberg offered that there would be no pesticides used on the site ,
adding , any pesticides used by the homeowner in the buffer zone
adjoining the Eldridge Wilderness would have to be approved by the
Town Zoning Officer in terms of health and / or safety . Mr . Hallberg
stated that that covenant was included at the request of the
representative of the Nature Conservancy , Mr . Hallberg remarked that
he was puzzled by a comment about why the adjoining landowner would
create a corridor when subject project does not . Mr . Hallberg stated
that , as he recalled in negotiations with the South Hill group , the
last thing they wanted was a human corridor , they wanted a corridor
for natural habitat , noting , that has been done by buffer zones and
allowing the gorge area , which serves as the main traffic corridor for
wildlife in that area , to be undisturbed . Mr . Hallberg stated that in
terms of a fair share donation , which Ms . Beeners has offered as an
alternative to raw land , first of all , in terms of dedicated green
space using the buffer along the Eldridge Wilderness along East King
Road , and along the ravine , which totals more than 100 of the land .
Mr . Hallberg stated that , in addition to that , the developers are
still open to make a cash donation directly to the Nature Conservancy
for the increased stewardship of their trails , which was at the
suggestion and request of the representative of the Nature
Conservancy , Mr . Hallberg noted that Town Planner Susan Beeners
indicated that she could understand how that donation to the Nature
Conservancy could be taken in lieu of donation to the Town .
Continuing , Mr . Hallberg said that , in terms of visual impact ,
because of the size of the lots , Mr . Whitcomb indicated that if the
project is maximized to existing zoning , the developers should be able
to get 70 building lots , adding , there are 43 building lots and buffer
zones that encompass tree caliper and several other things , noting , if
anything , the developers have really diminished as much visual impact
as possible . Mr . Hallberg mentioned that one of the things one might
notice is that Mr . Niederkorn has done a good job , especially in a
wooded development , i . e . , curvature of the roads tends to not give the
long straight racetrack effect .
William Lesser commented that Mr . Hallberg referred to
pesticides , and wondered if he meant to say herbicides . Mr . Hallberg
answered that he meant both .
Celia Bowers of 1406 Trumansburg Road appeared before the Board
and stated that the last four developments that have been discussed by
the Planning Board , and in each that she has attended , in each case
the developer has offered money in lieu of land . Ms . Bowers commented
that the Town seems to be accepting this . Ms . Bowers mentioned
Southwoods , South Hill trail improvements , which were accepted in lieu
of land , and DuBois Road where a trail improvement is being accepted
instead of land . Ms . Bowers stated that she felt that when the Town
decided they were going to demand 10 % of the land they did this for a
• very very good reason . Ms . Bowers stated that , if this development
pays anywhere from $ 3 , 000 . 00 to $ 15 , 000 . 00 in lieu of a parcel of
land , that is fine , but the money gets spent , adding , the
Planning Board - 12 - October 4 , 1988
land , if deeded to the Town , goes on forever . Ms . Bowers commented
that she felt , especially in sites like the one being discussed where
there is an environmental impact that demands that land in the area of
high environmental stress , that would be a good idea . Ms . Bowers
offered that , in other areas of the Town , if the Town wants trails ,
why not put the little bit of money into improving them and use the
money , if the money is accepted , to buy park land that would be useful
to a community ?
Myrtle Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road spoke from the floor and stated
that she is a member of the Eldridge Wilderness Committee , and talked
at length about the Eldridge Wilderness and her family ' s enjoyment
thereof .
Ms . Whitcomb stated that the Wilderness Committee has a concern
with impact regarding the Eldridge Wilderness .
At this time , Vice - Chairman Grigorov temporarily closed the
Public Hearing at 9 : 05 p . m . , and brought it back to the Board , but
announced that it would be re - opened after the Board has had some
discussion .
Robert Miller wondered what the Sou th Hill Association
recommended that the owners do with the property ,
. Mrs . Whitcomb responded that the representative from the Nature
Conservancy said that it was a shame that we have to talk about
development at all , because , ideally , it would have been nice to have
it be an additional buffer to the Nature Preserve itself , since 87
acres is relatively small for a preserve . Vice - Chairman Grigorov
stated that the Town has to work within the law , and we do not have
the right to prevent privately owned land to have legal uses , but the
Town can try to mitigate as much as possible , adding that cooperative
developers help a lot in that respect . Ms . Whitcomb stated that the
South Hill Association requests that the proposal be done very , very
carefully so that there is a minimal impact , and hopefully no
long - term negative impact .
William Lesser asked if there were any suggestions for how much
more carefully it might reasonably be done . Mr . Lesser remarked that
he thought the developers have made an effort to mitigate the impact ,
adding , it is clear that the number of associated groups do not
consider that to be sufficient . Ms . Whitcomb said that there is a
concern about the gorge area itself . Ms . Whitcomb stated that it
appeared to the Association that there could be expanded area on both
sides of the gorge . Ms . Whitcomb stated that she understood that the
houses and / or decks could be quite close to the edge of the corridor ,
and the Association feels that that is going to be less than
satisfactory for a wildlife corridor along the gorge area . Mr . Lesser
wondered what would be considered reasonably adequate . Ms . Whitcomb
stated that Gerald Smith of the Nature Conservancy spoke about 300
• yards . Ms . Whitcomb offered that part of the problem everyone is
facing , and also with Gerald Smith , is that it costs money to bring
him down here . Ms . Whitcomb stated that Mr . Smith did say that it was
important to maintain as much of a corridor as possible .
Planning Board - 13 - October 4 , 1988
• Vice - Chairman Grigorov stated that the owners have no plans to do
anything with the other parcel , and it is extremely doubtful that
anything would be done for five years , and maybe much longer .
Virginia Langhans stated that she did not think too many houses
were going to bother the deer , adding that she thought it would be the
other way around .
Vice - Chairman Grigorov stated that there was a concern brought up
about run - off into the gorge . Mr . Niederkorn [ indicating on map ]
stated that " this " is the drainage area going down into the gorge , and
there is one swale " here " that takes care of this area , and another
one " here " . Mr . Neiderkorn noted that it is concentrated into two
places . Mr . Whitcomb stated that there is also a sometime stream that
comes out of the Eldridge Wilderness and runs right across a couple of
the lots , and wondered how that would be mitigated „ Mr . Niederkorn
responded that the specific location of all of the drainageways are
shown on the engineered topo . Mr . Niederkorn stated that each one of
the lots is shown as having a small swale between the lots .
Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked if any other Board members had any
comments or questions .
David Klein wondered how the topo was arrived at . Mr . Niederkorn
stated that that is USGS information , and noted that George Schlecht ,
• Engineer , prepared a 2 - foot topo increment . Mr . Klein wondered , as
to mitigating , the lots # 21 , 22 , 23 , and 24 are actually some of the
shallower lots , only being 200 feet deep , and even with some of the
restrictions , those lots abut the Conservancy land . Mr . Klein stated
that he felt in terms of a homeowner ' s lot , it is riot all that big ,
and wondered whether it should be considered to make the lots a little
bit deeper .
William Lesser commented that , at the same time , the concept of a
somewhat wider buffer around the continuation of the gorge sounds like
an important idea . Mr . Lesser offered that the concept of an area
becoming isolated is an important one , commenting , if that could
possibly be avoided through a somewhat wider buffer around the gorge
area , then that would be fine .
William Lesser , directing his comments to Attorney Barney , asked
about # 19 , 2nd sentence , in the proposed deed restrictions , which
states : " For purposes of this subdivision , any violation of these
deed restrictions shall be considered to be a violation of the Zoning
Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca . " Attorney Barney responded that he
has seen it occasionally that where there is a Local Law in a rezoning
where one adopts specific provisions in a Local Law , such as these ,
then it can be enforced as if it were a Zoning Ordinance , Attorney
Barney stated that he had a little difficulty with the language in a
restrictive covenants saying that it is enforced that way . Attorney
Barney suggested inserting language such as the Town of Ithaca , among
• other entities , can enforce these restrictive covenants as they choose
to do so , but that the Town is not obliged to do that .
Planning Board - 14 - October 4 , 1988
William Lesser mentioned the matter of open land. , but wondered if
he was right in feeling uncertain about leaving that clause open as it
is presently in the Draft Preliminary Subdivision Approval Resolution
which states : " This matter shall be resolved at :Dome time in the
future " . Mr . Lesser said that he felt it should not: be left at that
point . Mr . Lesser commented on the cash settlement . Attorney Barney
responded that he thought it was a question on how :far the developer
wants to go without having a resolution , because it seems it should be
brought to a head , and a determination of some sort be made . Attorney
Barney stated that the Preliminary Approval stage should be the point
to resolve the issue .
Ms . Beeners offered that it was her reading of the laws regarding
Parks and Open Space that indicate that the Planning Board would have
to decide whether or not to waive the requirement of the 100 open
space dedication . Ms . Beeners noted that the amount of money that
might be accepted in lieu of that dedication , if it were to be a
standard thing where it would be put into a fund for Town park
improvements , then the Town Board would determine the final fee . Ms .
Beeners remarked that the Planning Board would have to , in any type of
preliminary approval , make a recommendation or report , that the
proposed payment either met or did not meet what appeared to be a
reasonable replacement for the land . Attorney Barney stated that from
a legal standpoint he would much rather have these payments
characterized and , in fact , be voluntary , rather than under the
• compulsion , because there is State law that sets forth the 100
requirement . Attorney Barney commented that it is not the local Town
law that does it , it is the Town Law of the State of New York ,
Attorney Barney noted that the Town can insist upon the land .
Attorney Barney stated that he would have difficulty sustaining a
payment compelled of a developer to some third party .
Mr . Hallberg stated that there would be no problem either way the
Town wants it . Mr . Hallberg offered that Gerald Smith of the Nature
Conservancy had calculated the necessary endowment to upgrade the
trail system , adding , the approximate endowment Mr . Smith was looking
at was $ 10 , 000 . 00 . Mr . Hallberg said that there were a certain number
of adjoining lots that were going to add to the island effect , much as
the other side of the island appears to be the homes that have been
built on Troy Road , Mr . Hallberg stated that the developer would be
willing to put up the necessary endowment that would be commensurate .
Mr . Kenerson commented that the Town is supposed to put it in a fund
for park operations or improvements , if they get it . Attorney Barney
stated that the Town could elect to waive its requirement , on the
assurance that the developer would do it . Attorney Barney said that
the Planning Board ' s choice is to waive or not to waive .
Mr . Hallberg asked the Planning Board to waive that on the
personal promise that the developer would do that .
William Lesser noted that , in the Deed Restrictions , the
• Conservatory area around the gorge would appear to be substantially
narrower than as a general buffer around the Wilderness area itself .
Mr . Hallberg said that the depth of the buffer that is actually
Planning Board - 15 - October 4 , 1988
created by the topo of the gorge is deeper than the 60 feet . Mr .
Hallberg offered that the land actually rises to a rim and then drops
off . Vive - Chairman Grigorov expressed a concern about building a
deck in that 20 feet , with Mr . Lesser adding that that was his
concern , to build decks or a terrace within what sounds like the peak
of the gorge . Mr . Hallberg stated that there are restrictions that no
topography can be changed , and no foliage can be removed in that
defined area . Mr . Hallberg commented that if the concern is about an
over - hanging deck , he would be glad to exclude the over - hang .
Ms . Beeners suggested that a building permit be required for any
open decks or terraces that might be built within that area , because
she thought it might be an additional way to have some enforcement ,
that indeed , there would be no disturbance of that area beyond the
rim . Mr . Klein said that if the Board is interested in protecting
that 20 - foot strip , it should be deemed unbuildable .
Ms . Langhans asked about the lots on the gorge . Mr . Hallberg
answered , # 24 , # 25 , # 32 and # 33 . Attorney Barney wondered what the
dimension was between # 25 and # 32 , with Mr . Niederkorn answering , 250
feet . Ms . Beeners wondered if there were anything substantially
different , topography -wise , from what is shown that might be shown in
a section to show that there would not be the type of visual impact
into the gorge with the proposed deck arrangement . Mr . Hallberg
stated that he would prepare a cross - section . Assistant Town Planner ,
• George Frantz , offered that there is probably a ten to 15 - foot wide
ridge at the very edge of the gorge . Ms . Beeners suggested showing a
minimum 35 - foot set -back .
Mr . Frantz mentioned the issue of dedication of land , or in lieu
of that , some sort of voluntary payment on the part of the
developers , adding , there is the need to mitigate the impact of
development on the Eldridge Wilderness . Mr . Frantz noted that the
need for additional recreation facilities should be looked at within
the Town due to the proposed development . Mr . Frantz commented that
that is something the Board has to consider , and also it is very
important to consider the cost of , if the Planning Board is going to
waive the requirement for the 10 % dedication of open space . Mr .
Frantz wondered if it should be equivalent to fair market value of
that 10 % [ 5 . 2 acres ] . Vice - Chairman Grigorov stated that it seemed to
her that when a developer gives 10 % of his land he is getting some
benefit from it , as far as making the development more attractive .
Vice - Chairman Grigorov commented that the developer is giving a lot
more if he gives that much market value for the land , than if he is
just giving the land . Mr . Frantz noted that the 10 % is needed to
provide for the recreation needs of an expanding population due to
development . Mr . Frantz offered that in his discussions with Gerald
Smith of the Conservancy , his concern , primarily , was with the impact
of additional population on the stewardship cost of the preserve ,
which he estimated to be about $ 600 . 00 per year additional , due to the
43 new lots in the Southwoods development . Mr . Frantz remarked that
• that was how Mr . Smith came up with the $ 10 , 000 . 00 endowment , which
would yield , in the long term , about 6 % per year ,
- Planning Board - 16 - October 4 , 1988
thus providing what the Nature Conservancy would expect to be the
increased cost of the Southwoods proposal .
Ms . Langhans mentioned parks in the Town . Mr . Frantz replied
that a lot of Towns in New York State have resorted to the payment of
cash in lieu of land , simply to consolidate land to make a larger
park . Ms . Langhans remarked that the Town seems to be getting more
trails , which she thought was great , but commented that that just fits
a certain group , the little children need a play area .
Mr . Hallberg stated that he would contribute $ 10 , 000 . 00 to the
Nature Conservancy , as per Gerald Smith of the Nature Conservancy .
At this point , Vice Chairman Grigorov reopened the Public Hearing
at 10 : 06 p . m .
Celia Bowers of 1406 Trumansburg Road spoke from the floor and
expressed a concern about the dandelion kill .
Vice - Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 10 : 10 p . m .
and brought the matter back to the Board .
David Klein commented on the troublesome issue of open space .
Mr . Klein stated that he felt that $ 600 . 00 a year net income would not
help at all . Vice - Chairman Grigorov commented that , instead of a
• playground in the middle , she would prefer to get. the big buffer
protection around the Nature Conservancy area . William Lesser
wondered if a buffer could be required independently from a donation .
Attorney Barney responded that under the Zoning Ordinance one cannot
require a buffer in an R - 15 zone , adding , if there is an environmental
impact which is being minimized or mitigated by the use of a buffer ,
it is probable that the Board could probably require a buffer .
Attorney Barney noted that the Nature Conservancy property has been
pretty well demonstrated as an environmentally sensitive area . Ms .
Beeners noted that the Botanist Report that was submitted with subject
application involved the forested area in the ravine and the forested
area in lots south of Eldridge Circle . Ms . Beeners noted that on the
remaining area , such as on lots 16 - 20 , the vegetation was not
determined by the Botanist to be that significant , however , the
Eldridge Wilderness path comes very close in several points along
through there to the edge of the property . Attorney Barney said that
the 10 % open space requirement or area does not necessarily have to be
conveyed to the Town as a Town public park , it can be provision of
open space in some other fashion , e . g . , by requiring a buffer .
Mrytle Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road stated that she felt there was
going to be a great deal of surveillance needed , because the
responsibility for the diligence is going to rely mostly on the
Preserve Committee , Ms . Whitcomb commented that she thought there
would have to be educational meetings for people who move into the
development because of the Eldridge Wilderness . Vice - Chairman
Grigorov responded that that was a good idea and should be thought
about .
Planning Board - 17 - October 4 , 1988
Mr . Frantz offered that one of the reasons for not having a park
requirement is because of the relatively large lots , in fact , with the
large lots it can be anticipated that some families would have a
swing - set , etc . , that would attract the neighboring children .
Attorney Barney stated that , if the Board wants a park , then
there should be some discussion between the developer and Town staff
to come up with a proposal for a park , but , if on the other hand , the
Board is willing to live with , essentially , this plat approval , then
they should be in a postition to vote tonight .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Vice -Chairman
Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 51 . 75 ± acre parcel
from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 46 - 1 - 15 . 2 , 122 . 9 acres
total , located on East King and Coddington Roads , 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 .
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 . The Tompkins County
Highway Department has also been informed of this action .
3 . The Town Planning Department has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Town of Ithaca 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 - Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
At this point , Vice - Chairman Grigorov informally polled members
• of the Board as to requiring a park in the development , or go with the
Nature Conservancy emphasis .
3
Planning Board - 18 - October 4 , 1988
Langhans - Nature Conservancy .
Klein - Not all that strong on it , but would like to think about
a park .
Lesser - Small park , because he thought a sum of around
$ 10 , 000 . 00 in the long term is not nearly as great value
to the residents of the Town as the potential of having
a modest park for the people in that area .
Mr . Frantz interjected that he saw the $ 10 , 000 . 00 toward the
Nature Conservancy really as a once opportunity to do it , adding that
he saw the Eldridge Wilderness as being , 50 years from now , a very
important asset to the Town . Mr . Frantz agreed that neighborhood
parks were important , but thought there would be opportunities in the
same area , in the coming years , to establish other neighborhood parks .
Mr . Frantz noted that $ 600 . 00 per year , from a $ 10 , 000 . 00 donation was
very modest , but added that he did not think there would be another
chance to do it .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert Miller :
WHEREAS
1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision
. Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 51 . 75 ± acre parcel
from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 46 - 1 - 15 . 2 , 122 . 9 acres
total , located on East King and Coddington Roads , and further ,
Consideratin 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 .
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Planning Board , acting as
Lead Agency for environmental review of this action , has , on
October 4 , 1988 , made a negative determination of environmental
significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on October 4 , 1988 , as
adjourned from September 20 , 1988 , has reviewed the Long
Environmental Assessment Form and other application submissions .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Town of Ithaca 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 , and with such waiver consisting of the waiver of the
requirements for detailed improvement plans and specifications
•
11 '.
Planning Board - 19 - October 4 , 1988
• for preliminary plat submission , and the waiver of the
requirement of recreational open space dedication .
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval to the Subdivisions as herein proposed , with
the following conditions :
a . Submission of improvement plans and specifications for final
plat consideration , with such improvement plans to include
design of the proposed detention areas and the revision of
the proposed swale between Lots 25 and 32 to the
satisfaction of the Town Engineer to minimize disruption of
the ravine on these Lots .
b . Approval of the proposed roads and other public facilities
by the Town Board prior to consideration of final
subdivision approval .
c . Approval of the final draft of the proposed deed
restrictions by the Town Attorney prior to final subdivision
approval , with such deed restrictions to preclude any
construction within the 20 - foot setback from the rim of the
ravine on Lots 24 , 25 , 32 , and 33 , to ensure the
minimization of disturbance to the ravine .
• d . . Any proposed buffer areas for vegetation conservation and
for the limitation of visual impact and public access to the
Eldridge Wilderness and the adjoining ravine shall be
located and noted on the final plat .
e . The rim of the ravine on Lots 24 , 25 , 32 , and 33 shall be
marked with survey pins prior to the issuance of any
building permits for construction on those Lots .
f . Submission and approval of an agreement satisfactory to the
Town Board and Town Attorney for the creation and permanent
maintenance of the proposed detention areas prior to the
issuance of any building permits within the proposed
subdivision .
g . Approval of the drainage plan by the Tompkins County Highway
Department prior to the issuance of any building permits .
h . The proposed front yard setback to be shown as 35 feet
rather than 60 feet on the final plan .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Planning Board - 20 - October 4 , 1988
• Vice - Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of Consideration of
Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed " Southwoods "
Subdivision duly closed at 10 : 43 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED
" BURKHART ' S - - A DIVISION OF JOE ' S MARINE " , BEING THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF A FACILITY FOR THE SALE OF MARINE AND RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AT 602
ELMIRA ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 31 -w3 - 4 . JOSEPH P .
BURKHART , OWNER .
Vice - Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 10 : 44 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Burkhart approached the Board and appended maps to the
bulletin board .
Mr . Burkhart stated that he owns a business in Sayre , PA , and the
proposed building would be another office and would be for marine and
recreation use . Mr . Burkhart offered that the building is 80 feet by
80 feet , with the canopies being 35 feet by 80 , feet going down full
size of the building . Mr . Burkhart said that there would be a canopy
for hoist or unloading across the back of the building , and added that
the entrance would be to the south of the lot [ indicating on map ]
• entering " here " , with parking and such to the south part of the
building . Mr . Burkhart stated that there would be four feet of
compact gravel added to the site , with a steel building built on a
slab .
Robert Miller wondered where the building would sit in relation
to the adjoining building . Mr . Burkhart commented that the adjoining
building is at least 50 - 60 feet back from the road . Ms . Beeners noted
that the developer is asking for a 40 - foot set - back , and the Zoning
Board wants some kind of indication from the Planning Board before
considering that variance . Mr . Burkhart remarked that the parking
would be in the back of the building .
William Lesser wondered if it would be feasible to leave it at
60 - feet and have the parking around the side . Mr . Burkhart responded
that he would like to utilize the back for parking . Ms . Beeners noted
that there were problems with fill . Mr . Burkhart mentioned that the
pre - existing building sat where the proposed building is presently
being shown . Mr . Burkhart offered that within ten feet of the front
of the building there would be an area for special display .
Carolyn Grigorov wondered about the color of the building , noting
that it was proposed to be quite bright . Mr . Burkhart responded that
they have always used that color because it has always been classified
as a marine color .
• Vice - Chairman Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak . No one spoke . Vice -Chairman
• Planning Board - 21 - October 4 , 1988
• Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 11 : 00 p . m . and brought the
matter back to the Board for discussion .
David Klein stated that he had problems with the 40 - foot
set -back . Mr . Klein commented about extending the landscape area all
the way to the drive , which is just west of the building , all the way
across so that there is just a drive coming in rather than providing
the wide mouth of blacktop all the way across . Mr . :Klein stated that
he would like to see the 60 - foot set- back maintained . Mr . Klein also
stated that he was disappointed to see a metal building proposed in
such a noticeable area . Mr . Klein remarked that he thought it would
be nice if the Elmira Road corridor did not get cluttered up with junk
buildings . Mr . Lesser agreed with Mr . Klein , adding that he would
like to see that the extention of that strip is minimized all the way
down to Turback ' s , adding , to do that he would like to see maintenance
of a 60 - foot set - back , and no display in front of the building .
Ms . Langhans wondered how many feet Mr . Burkhart lacked , if the
parking spots were counted . Ms . Beeners stated that , if a parking
spot is considered to be a structure , then within the interpretation
of the ZBA resolution , there is ten feet short . Mr . Burkhart said
that he would not build the storage area for about a year .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Vice - Chairman
Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
• MOTION by David Klein , seconded by William Lesser :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the Public
Hearing in the matter of Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the
proposed " Burkhart ' s - - A Division of Joe ' s Marine " , be and hereby is
adjourned sine die , with the understanding that when Mr . Burkhart
presents a plan Town Planner Susan Beeners would re - ;schedule a Public
Hearing on the next available agenda slot .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Vice - Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of " Burkhart ' s - - A
Division of Joe ' s Marine " , duly adjourned at 11 : 24 p . m .
CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SECTION 1C OF
LOCAL LAW NO , 41 1987 , RELATING TO PARTIAL COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS
IN PHASE III OF EASTWOOD COMMONS ,
Vice - Chairman Grigorov re - opened discussion on the above - noted item
at 11 : 25 p . m .
•
Planning Board - 22 - October 4 , 1988
• Attorney Barney stated that the rezoning resolution or local law
that was in effect for Phase III of the Eastwood Commons Subdivision
contained a condition that states that Harwick Road and a portion of
Sunnyhill Lane are to be completed before any Certificates of
Occupancy are issued for any of the units in Building # 30 and 31 .
Attorney Barney offered that in the course of doing the construction
Mr . Schickel is now at a point where he has at least one unit , and
perhaps several units , ready to close in Building # 30 , but Harwick
Road is not yet complete , and Sunnyhill Lane is not yet complete .
Attorney Barney commented that the road was accepted , conditionally ,
by the Town Board on October 3 , 1988 , Attorney Barney stated that the
Town Board has taken what action it needs to take , however , the Town
Board did not feel it could waive the requirement of completion of the
road before Certificates of Occupancy were granted , because the waiver
of any requirements was specifically delegated to the Planning Board .
Continuing , Attorney Barney stated that the issue tonight was
whether the Planning Board is willing to waive the requirement that is
presently in effect , that the roads must be completed before
Certificates of Occupancy can be issued . Attorney Barney noted that ,
at the moment , Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement
Officer , has taken the position that he cannot issue them because of
that requirement .
Mr . Schickel added that the Town does have a Letter of Credit
• that the completion of subject roads was required before the issuance
of the building p.ermit . Mr . Schickel stated that the road , according
to Town Engineer , Robert Flumerfelt , is about 65 % complete . Mr .
Schickel stated that the urgency is created by two factors - one being
that people need to get in , and the other pertains to mortgage
commitments . Mr . Schickel offered that the road would be completed
within the next few weeks , but the only thing that might hold up the
actual final completion would be the availablity of the tar truck .
Mr . Schickel offered that he would expect the road to be completed by
the end of October 1988 ,
Attorney Barney , directing his comment to Mr . Schickel , wondered
if the immediacy was for filling the six units in Building # 30 , with
Mr . Schickel answering , yes .
William Lesser wondered why the road was not completed on time ,
as specified in the law that was passed some time ago . Mr . Schickel
responded that it could have been completed , but in pushing
construction there were a lot of delays , and lot of things that
happened along the way , commenting that he [ Mr . Schickel ] was probably
remiss in that he misunderstood when the Letter of Credit was required
for the completion of the road and utilities he took that as really
being it , not realizing that there would actually be a requirement for
the road to be completed before occupancy began . Mr . Lesser stated
that , in most cases , there would be no question in his mind to approve
it immediately , however , with Mr . Schickel it seemed to him that there
• is variance , and waiver after waiver after waiver . Mr . Lesser
wondered if it has come to a point where the Board has to inform him
that the Board really means what it states in the regulations , and
. Planning Board - 23 - October 4 , 1988
• insist that that is followed . Mr . Lesser commented that there have
been numerous occasions where the Board has been through the same
individual on the same area .
Attorney Barney stated that , in the past , with most of the units
at Eastwood Commons , they have been occupied before the roads were
completed . Attorney Barney stated that what prompted this requirement
was the concern about having a lot of traffic for Phase III going up
on Wildflower Drive , noting that the object was to put an incentive to
get Harwick Road completed so the traffic could traverse that so that
it would minimize the construction traffic running through the rest of
the subdivision .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Vice - Chairman
Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board waive and hereby
does waive only that specific requirement , of the requirements of
Section 1C of Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 4 - 1987 amending the Zoning
Ordinance requirements for the Eastwood Commons Multiple Residence
Zone , which states that " No certificate of occupancy and no more than
the building permits necessary for the construction of Buildings 30
and 31 and the Pavilion shall be issued for any structures in Phase
• III of Eastwood Commons until Harwick Road and the road presently
identified as Sunnsylope Lane are constructed to Town specifications
in the locations and for the distances set forth above . " , as the same
relates to Building 30 of Eastwood Commons , in order to permit the
issuance of certificates of occupancy for those units located in
Building 30 only prior to completion of Harwick Road and Sunnyhill
Lane ( formerly called Sunnyslope Lane ) .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of Consideration of a
Request for Waiver of Section 1C , Phase III of Eastwood Commons , duly
closed at 11 : 40 p . m .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 5 , 1988
MOTION by Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by David Klein :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of January 5 , 1988 , be and hereby are approved as written .
• There being no further discussion , the Vice -Chair called for a
vote .
Planning Board - 24 - October 4 , 1988
• Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 1 , 1988
MOTION by Virginia Langhans , seconded by Robert Kenerson :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of March 1 , 1988 , be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Vice - Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Vice - Chairman Grigorov declared the October 4 , 1988 ,
• meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 45
p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
TROWBRIDGE • TROWBRIDGE ASLA \
Emlronnanw! Designem, Londscape Plamwe
• and Landwapa Arctdtwu
September 27 , 1988
Ms . Susan 8eeners , Planner
Town of Ithaca .
Town Hall
East Seneca Street
Ithaca , N . V . 14850
RE : POYER SUBDIVISION / RECREATION TRAIL R . O . W .
? ear Susan -
-at
:
Ti iii :_ le + i- a � . _� Y:n ►+ '_ til i , { .J , Qyf� i ! ; ! u : . 0 = ' . � � : . , ._ ; i1 (I .l • f? - do e ,_
R . 0 . W . The 11 ! 9 . �! '� ! 1� i
�' I .. i ! l :i ii= l1 saace i Uf"ilritJn $ flt of thi �
project 'v'r' �ii_! ld ; e : '� �` acreg. : a1 'v' en tll > 101"' s� iildt? llrl ? . The current20 � wide
R . O . W . as ' i"i ?! 'S'i� il =! �'i 3 plat k o 'D ltULU . $ � ;: : rem , 1Navinc; a ualarice Of 1 . 05
acres t I � J :1 ' shate + os %. oimponei , _47 + � . �i !� are proposing ' he f ,� l ; owing as a
f aif r Son3re coInn pioi ; er at. s31ft the pro i ect :
1 . instal ': 12 ' long 2088 culvert DuBois Road ( culvert size as
recommended by John Lampman , Tompkins County Engi neer) . Curb
cut ; culvert size . and permit would be required by Tompkins County .
Grade to match shoulder grade of DuBois Road .
Cost : $ 765 . 00
� ' Gar and grub full length of trail including chipping and
removing vegetation that would interrupt trail .
Cost : $ 21500. Or Acre OR $ 1871 . 00
3 . Grade for drainage along R . O . W .
lost : $ 300 . 00
TOTAL FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION : $2 , 935 . 50
Say , $3000 . 00 ( equivalent to raw land costs for 1 acre )
We hope this proposal meets your approval .
Sincerely ,
f11�aaaaaaaa V*40�
1345
Ithaca,Aral_ 50
607 277- 1400
EXHIBIT A
5vn � 1 eA
• MEMORANDUM
TO : Town of Ithaca Planning Board and Staff
FROM : South Hill Community Association
SUBJECT : Southwoods Subdivision
DATE : September 27 , 1988
The South Hill Community Association considers the Eldridge
Wilderness to be an extremely important local natural resource .
In an area experiencing extremely high development pressure , it is
important to preserve the integrity of this natural area .
Containing only 87 acres , the Wilderness is small by Nature
Conservancy standards . Nevertheless , it does contain a surprising
diversity of life including at least 130 bird species , 50 tree
species 75 wildflower species and many other plants and animals .
While none of these species is currently on any rare or endangered
list , there are other issues to consider . As wildlife habitat , the
proposed " Southwoods " site is an extension of the Preserve . Mature
stands of trees and an abundance of ground cover create an ideal
home for many species . South Hill residents deeply resent intrusion
• into this parcel by development . Efforts to preserve its natural
state by zoning or conservation measures should have been a Town
priority years ago . It is a local tragedy for this land to be
exploited by developers interested primarily in profiting from the
recent housing boom on South Hill . There are other sites that
could be used for housing without destroying this prime natural
area .
When the owners of the land , Mr . Desch and Mr . May , agreed to sell
to developers last spring , local residents realized that it was
probably too late to conserve the site as a natural area . The
South Hill Community Association arranged a meeting between the
developers , the neighborhood , Mr . Gerald Smith , the Nature
Conservancy steward , and Susan Beeners , the Town of Ithaca Town
Planner . In this manner the neighborhood hoped to be able to
influence the final configuration of the development and minimize
its impact .
In the initial meeting , Mr . Smith admitted that he certainly had
no leverage from which to bargain , but appealed instead to the
developer ' s sense of fair play and concern for the area . He
proposed a number of restrictive deed covenants which , after some
discussion , were essentially accepted by the developers .
Mr . Smith , outlined several concerns in his letter of 9 - 13 - 88 .
• These include :
EXHIBIT 1
LA • /.
'a
• 2
1 . Isolation of the Eldridge Wilderness by developments ,
creating an island effect . Many species do not adapt well to
small tracts and need free access to surrounding natural
areas . For example , several species of migratory song birds
such as Warblers and Thrushes have diminished markedly in
recent years due to fragmentation of their habitat in the
Northern Hemisphere .
2 . Increased intrusions of people and pets will adversely
effect the integrity of the Wilderness . The Wilderness
is intended for passive- human pursuits such as walking and
studying . It is not intended to be an active recreational
area . Increased noise , loss of pristine views and other
disturbances will decrease the aesthetic value of the
wilderness .
3 . Stewardship costs incurred by the Nature Conservancy will
increase as additional monitoring and maintenance is required .
Since the developers had not included a dedication of the
customary ten percent open space to the Town in their plans ,
it was suggested they contribute a dollar equivalent to the
Nature Conservancy . A figure of $ 100 per building lot was
offered by the developers . Mr . Smith , Ms . Beeners and the
• residents all felt that this figure was far too modest . $ 300
- $ 400 per lot seemed much more appropriate . At this point ,
negotiations broke off and have not resumed .
After reviewing the environmental impact statement and having
- attended the preliminary subdivision hearing on Sept . 20 , the
neighborhood still has a number of concerns :
1 . Many of the deed covenants designed to partially protect
the Wilderness , while well intentioned , are vague and
unenforceable .
2 . The entire Environmental Impact Statement minimizes the
potentially serious effects of this project . Major points
that should receive considerable additional study are :
a . The effects on the Eldridge Wilderness , as previously dis -
cussed . While the developers have held the density below that
allowed by the zoning regulations , perhaps it is still to
high for a parcel bordering an environmentally sensitive area .
b . The removal or disturbance of up to 1 / 3 of the vegetation
on the site and its effect on erosion and siltation of the
adjoining tributaries of Six Mile Creek both during and after
. construction . Drainage to Town waterways will be monitored by
the Town ; who will decide if runoff and drainage into the
creek and gorge are adequately controlled ?
EXHIBIT 1
• 3
C . The visual impact , both from the Wilderness and from
� !a distance . A " Visual E . A . F . " should be submitted .
d . What are the cumulative impacts of traffic and
demands for Town Services . How will they be mitigated ?
e . What is the effect of the NYSEG high voltage line on
human beings living in close proximity ?
f . Neighbors on King Road would like the following
additional assurances from the developer :
1 . No pesticides or herbicides to be used anywhere
in the development .
2 . No driveways exiting on King Road .
3 . All efforts be made to preserve the vegetative
barrier between the development and King Road .
3 . The $ 4300 offered by the developers in lieu of open space
dedication is inadequate . The developers certainly are aware
of the value of using the adjacent " forever wild " area as a
marketing strategy , but are unwilling to pay for the
privilege . A sum of $ 15 , 000 is closer to the value of the
land that should be dedicated . If this is not agreeable to
• the developers , then the Town should insist on a donation of
at least 10 % of the land in the parcel to be used as a buffer
for the Eldridge Wilderness .
4 . Future development of adjacent lands owned by Desch and May
will have additional adverse impact on the Eldridge Wilder-
ness . Certainly it seems unfair to require future developers ,
south of the ravine , to provide a " corridor " to the Wilderness
when Southwoods has done nothing in this regard .
The South Hill Community Association urges the Planning Board and
staff to require additional information from the developers before
any further consideration of the " Southwoods " project can occur .
The developers need to specifically detail how they plan to
mitigate all the impacts of their project . If answers that are
factual , complete , and candid cannot be obtained , a Draft Environ -
mental Impact Statement should be required .
•
EXHIBIT 1 °
Al Ft [)A %'1T Of PMUCAVOA'
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING
TTy.� ITHACA
JOURN
BOARD, NOTICE OF PUBLICH �( T
HEARINGS, TUESDAY, OCTO= j
L BER 4, 1988
TBy direction of the Chairman ,
of the Planning Board, NOTICE'
IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public
Hearings will be held by tQ
rf tfL" aTk, Tan k=u C==TfV , Si_ Planning Board of the Town• ofa
Ithaca on Tuesday, October.4,1
1988, in Town Hall, 126 Easti
Ga i 1 Sullins Seneca Street, Ithaca, N. Y. ; -at
. ___. . .. . . .. . . _ . .__ ..-. . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .. . . . . . . . _ .. . . . . . being dioy rswom, deposes the following times and on thel
he
and
following matters: •• L�
" Nil t t wide: in IthJacs, Countyand state afort�id and 7:30 P. M. Consideration of Fi-
nal Subdivision Approval foi
fi= t 2S 0 IC - 'r the proposed subdivision-; o
... .-_,-- Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel N_ o:
6-71 - 1 -34, 1 .75 acres total, lo'
dated at 506 Warren Road;
Of1 into three lots. Rocco P. Lu
�
ZITRAC.1� JOt .T)UNA s pvi
public ne -spaper printed and pub,isbed dente, Owner.
::Ia
7:45 P. M. Consideration. of Fii
in Ith8ca LtQresaid, and th,: t 4 DOtice , Of MI!Cb the annexed is A true nal_,Subdiyisiom /lpprovalJor
the proposed clustered subdi- `,i
OOP'} w� ublished is said vision of Town 6f Ithaca Tax
, p paps _.._ ...... . _._ . ._.._..–.__»»_»»... ..__........ Parcel No. 6-22- 1 -1 . 21 19. 2 )
plus/minus acres total,. , to- i
�1 j• 2 G� r — toted on DuBois Road oppo-..1
( / f1j » .r.._..._. »... site Orchard Hill Road, Resi- 'j
dente District R-30, into 11 lots
plus open space for trail Pur-`1
poses, with such lots ranging
• – — –.•_. ._........... . .. ........ ...» . ... ....... .. .^ .... ...... ........– _ _- •••-.�..--•. .. . ._». from 30,000 to 105,000 square
feet and being for the purpose '
st the $rst of constructing detached sin-'
and th
publicztion of said' notice was on the �... . _.–__.. . gle family homes. Ken Poyer, '
/,, Applicant.
& YOf ....._. ._'-f .. . . ... . ... . . . I91 . . . 8:00 P. M. Consideration ofl
Preliminary Subdivision A�-i
l 1 n vison i_!
Pionfor the proposed suint-
i
– _ .._ .. ..— . . – •............... .............. acre parcel from T. 75 owln of Itho
ca Tax Parcel No. 6-46- 1 - 15. 2, 1
Subs 'bed and sti•orn to before me, this __._.._ _. l 122. 9 acres total, and further,
-"� – –•- -•-•- ••• dei' Consideration of Preliminoiy;
- Subdivision Approval for the!
�r proposed "Southwoods" Sub-I
-•• ----•----- ---••• I9.. ._.. ._0.1 division, . proposed to consist
of 43 single-family lots to bel
subdivided out of said 51 .751
. plus/minus acre parcel. N. & {
_..__.. .. ...•••.. . ....... .. .. . ..._ J. Desch and M. & E. May,
lvQ'tary F(ybuc , Owners of Parcel No. 6-46- 1 -
15. 2; Southwoods Associates, j
JEAN FORD Applicant; Thomas Nieder- t
korn, Agent.', (Adjourned from t
September 20; 1988. )
Notary Public, State of New York
8: 30 P.M. Consideration of
No. 4654410 Site Plan Approval for the pro-
posed "Burkhart's — A Divi-
Qualified in Topp, tins County ! sion of Joe's Morine", being
)v( the proposed construction of a 1
'�'2YI Jrr!l:zkY . expiTes May 31 , 19 . • facility for the sale of marine
and recreational vehicles, ,
proposed to be located in a 1
Light Industrial District at 602 '
Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca '
Tax Parcel No. 6.31 =3-4. Jo.
seph P.. Burkhart, Owner.
Said Planning Board will at ,
said times and said place hear
all persons in support of .such
matters or objections thereto:
Persons may appear by agent '
or in person.
Jean H. Swartwood '
Town Clerk
273- 1721
September 29, 1988