HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1989-05-16 r
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date
`OWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk
MAY 16 , 1989
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , May 16 , 1989 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , -"
New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Grigorov , Virginia Langhans , James Baker , Robert
Miller , Montgomery May , Stephen Smith , Robert Kenerson ,
William Lesser , Susan C . Bee ners ( Town Planner ) , George R .
Frantz ( Assistant Town Planner ) , Sally Olsen ( Town
Engineer ) , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) .
ALSO PRESENT : A . William Gallagher , Frederick Beck Jr . , Esq . , Mikel
Cary , Kinga Gergely , Tom Richard , Jim Hilker ( J & L
Builders ) , Peter Trowbridge , Rick Holt , Harrison Rue ,
Don Sweezey , George Schlecht , Sandra Rogers , David C .
Auble , Doug Wilcox , Myrtle Whitcomb , John Whitcomb ,
Karl Niklas , Ed Cobb , Shirley Raffensperger , Nancy
Ostman ( Cornell Plantations ) , Attorney Shirley K . Egan ,
Constance E . Cook , James Gulledge , Elliott Lauderdale ,
Jean Brockway , Alex Blackmer .
Chairman Grigorov. declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m .
and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on May 8 , 1989 , and May 11 , 1989 , respectively ,
together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice
upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion , -
as appropriate , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of
the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Administrator , upon the
Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicants
and / or agents , as appropriate , on May 11 , 1989 .
Chairman Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled , as required by the New York State Department of State ,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control .
SIGN REVIEW BOARD ( PLANNING BOARD ) : CONSIDERATION OF A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN RE A REQUEST FOR
VARIANCE OF SECTION 5 . 04 - 6 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW TO INCREASE
THE HEIGHT OF LETTERING ON THE LIGHTED AWNINGS FOR THE PROPOSED
" COMMERCIAL A " BUILDING AT IDE ' S BOWLING LANES , JUDD FALLS ROAD , TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO , 6 - 62 - 1 - 3 . 2 . SCOTT AND SUE HAMILTON , OWNERS ;
;R
BILL GALLAGHE , TALMAGE DESIGN , AGENT . -
Chairman Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted matter
at 7 : 35 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above .
Mr . Gallagher addressed the Board and appended maps to the
bulletin board .
Planning Board - 2 - May 16 , 1989
J
Mr . Gallagher stated that the proposal for the site is to
laminate commercial and office spaces on the front of Ide ' s Bowling
Lanes , and to act as a building block for development of the rest of
the site , and also to beautify the exterior and facade of the existing
building , commenting , in general , to upgrade the parking and beautify
the area . Mr ,. Gallagher stated that , because of the difficult aspects
of geometry :involved , and just the nature of the position of the
building , the developer is planning that the expense to build in front
of the building is considerably more than would be typical if one were
to place a structure in the middle of an open area , where one could
take advantage of all four sides of a building and structure it in
such a way that it would be economical . Mr . Gallagher stated that the
developer has chosen to go with fabric awnings , which are lighted in
the back , and will light the walkway which the awning covers . Mr .
Gallagher commented that incorporated into those awnings will be
signage panels into which the graphics for each individual storefront
will be applied . Mr . Gallagher offered that the graphics can be
changed as the occupants of the premises change . Mr . Gallagher said
that the developer decided on the awnings simply because of the
attractiveness of the awning . Mr . Gallagher noted that , according to
the Town of ]Ithaca Sign Law - Marquee and Awning Signs - 5 . 04 - 6 , -
" Awning graphics shall be a single line of lettering 6 inches maximum
height . " Mr . Gallagher stated that , because of the position of the
building and the open spaces , and the nature of the occupants being
retail , 6 inch high lettering would be a great disadvantage in terms
of advertising each one of the retail stores , adding that the
• advertising has to be viewed from the road . Mr . Gallagher remarked
that the developer is requesting that the same square footage and size
of lettering be permitted as are allowed on a wall of a retail store
front . Mr . Gallagher said that one of the reasons that signage is not
being applied to the wall is because , in an effort to keep the cost
down , the developer wants to keep the height of the building down ,
which would reduce its impact , scale -wise , on the area , therefore , the
amount of space taken up by the construction of the walkway is
limiting the wall space available when it is combined with the
necessary wall. space .
Chairman Grigorov wondered what part of the awning was fabric .
Mr . Gallagher responded that the awning is all fabric . Chairman
Grigorov inquired as to how the awning would stand up in the weather .
Mr . Gallagher answered that the awning is extremely durable ; it could
be compared with camping equipment , adding that it is even more
durable than that . Robert Kenerson asked about underwood lighting .
Mr . Gallagher said that underwood lighting is metal . Mr . Gallagher
offered that the letters are opaque so light can come through at
night . Ms . Bee ners wondered if it was expected to use the same type
of lettering style as shown . Mr . Gallagher stated that , in general ,
they would probably have uniform graphics . Chairman Grigorov wondered
about the size of the letters on the awning . Mr . Gallagher stated
that there is 3 feet in height of space on the forward edge of the
awning , addincf , the lettering would be a maximum height of 2 feet .
• Mr . May remarked that he thought that was awful big lettering . Mr .
May commented that he purchases a major awning about every five years,
and after about 1 - 1 / 2 years there is pretty severe fading from the
Planning Board - 3 - May 16 , 1989
sun . Mr . May questioned whether the awning would look very nice after
a couple of years . Mr . Gallagher responded that one has to be careful
in considering the kinds of fabrics the subject awning is a specially
developed fabric , which is supposed to be fade - proof . Mr . Frantz
wondered if there were any comparable type signs in this area . Mr .
Gallagher answered , no , there are not any in Ithaca , commenting that
he thought Champs restaurant was made of a plastic rigid material .
Mr . May commE! nted that , in some respects , the sign becomes a copy
change sign , which is not permitted . Mr . Gallagher said that the
individual parcels could be changed . Mr . Lesser , referring to the wall
sign , stated that the maximum shall be for each linear foot of
building frontage occupied by an enterprise and the maximum area shall
be one square foot . Mr . Gallagher offered that some of the businesses
are as much as 34 feet long , and because of the building the entire
frontage cannot possibly be used for signage . Ms . Langhans wondered
if the signs came in various heights of letters , with Mr . Gallagher
responding , WE! can have the letters designed to whatever we require ,
or whatever is allowed . Mr . May wondered about the distance from the
sign to the road . Mr . Gallagher replied that it varies from between
30 - 45 feet to the curb , and the awning would turn the corner for about
another 20 - 30 feet . Mr . Lesser , referring to the Sign Law , wondered
what the justification and discussion was for limiting letters on
awnings to 611 . Mr . May responded that there were several persons
involved in its writing , but he does not specifically remember that
item .
. Attorney Barney stated that he did not think this type of awning
was contemplated . Robert Miller stated that he thought the awning was
good looking . Ms . Beeners said that these awnings are pretty shallow ,
they are 21 feet in depth , and are at the edge of a roof which covers
the walkway . Mr . Kenerson wondered about plantings along the road ,
with Mr . Gallagher responding , yes , there will be trees 16 - 18 feet .
Ms . Langhans wondered if the stores would be open in the evening . Mr .
Gallagher answered , yes , some places will , there will be a convenience
store , video rental store , dry cleaning establishment , and pizza
parlor . Mr . Smith asked if the awning would be completely lit through
most of the night . Mr . Gallagher replied , yes , to light the walkway .
Mr . Gallagher offered that the awning would be on a rigid steel frame .
Ms . Langhans mentioned that the matter has to go before the ZBA .
Chairman Grigorov wondered if there would be other signs on the
building , with Mr . Gallagher answering , only on the actual building
itself , which would be Judd Falls Plaza , adding , the parking lot would
have separate lighting on the roadside .
Ms . Beeners wondered if each store would just have the awning
sign and not E;xcerise the apparent ability for them to also have a
projecting or free - standing sign . Mr . Gallagher stated that he does
not see where :free - standing signs would be used , and projecting signs
are already , he would imagine , considered somehow to be the awnings ,
• adding , the only additional signage would be , possibly , individual
addresses on the doors , and some window signs typical to retail
Planning Board - 4 - May 16 , 1989
establishments . Mr . Gallagher said that the awning runs between
towers , it does not cross the tower .
Mr . Frantz commented on the signs across the road at East Hill
Plaza .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals in re a request for variance of Section
5 . 04 - 6 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to increase the height of
lettering on the lighted awnings for the proposed " Commercial A "
building at Ide ' s Bowling Lanes , Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 1 - 3 . 2 .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Zoning Board of Appeals
is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review .
3 . The Planning Board , acting as the Sign Review Board , has , on May
16 , 1989 ,, reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and
• other application submissions .
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 recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for variance of
Section 5 . 04 - 6 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to increase the
height of lettering on the lighted awnings for the proposed Ide ' s
Redevelopment project be granted , subject to the following
conditions :
a . The maximum height of the lettering shall not exceed 18
inches ;
b . The awnings shall be a uniform color and the lettering a
complementary uniform color ;
c . The lettering shall be a uniform type - style unless modified
by action of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning
Board ,
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov ,, Langhans , Baker , May , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Planning Board - 5 - May 16 , 1989
• Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the consideration of
Ide ' s Redevelopment Signage duly closed at 8 : 10 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 4 . 9 ± ACRE LOT FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
N0 . 6 - 24 - 5 - 10 . 3 , 6 . 49 ± ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED ON BUNDY ROAD
APPROXIMATELY 750 FEET WEST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH HOPKINS ROAD ,
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( TOWN ) . CAROLYN B . SLAGHT AND L . E . BUNDY JR . ,
OWNERS ; FREDERICK BECK JR . , ESQ . , AGENT .
Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 11 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
At this point , Assistant Town Planner George Frantz described the
issue for those present . Mr . Frantz stated that [ indicating on map ]
there is approximately a 6 . 5 acre parcel " here " , adding that the
developers would like to subdivide off the larger portion in the rear ,
and have a 25 •- foot right - of -way down to the road , in order to allow
for the construction of a house on the larger lot " here Mr . Frantz
pointed out Bundy Road , Hopkins Road and Trumansburg Road .
• Attorney .Beck , representing the applicants , stated that the owner
of the property proposes that the 4 . 9 acre parcel , as shown on the
map , be conveyed to a family relative , in this particular case , Mr .
Mikel Cary , Attorney Beck commented that the construction is for a
single family home on the 4 . 9 acre parcel , adding , this lot will
continue to retain ownership on the smaller parcel fronting on Bundy
Road , which is 170 . 3 feet , and which is anticipated to be conveyed to
another family member for eventual construction of another single
family residence .
Chairman Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked
if anyone present . wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman Grigorov
closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 14 p . m . and brought the matter back to
the Board for discussion .
Robert Miller stated that everything looked okay to him .
William Lesser mentioned the right - of -way being 25 feet , and
wondered if it was set that way so that the other lot can meet the
150 ' frontage requirement . Attorney Beck responded that the owner
would like to retain as much frontage ( 170 . 3 feet ) along Bundy Road
for the remaining parcel as allowed by the Planning Board and the ZBA .
Mr . Lesser wondered if , at some time in the future , subdividing the
rear lot and leaving only a 25 - foot right - of -way would be acceptable ,
adding , one home he would not have a problem with . Attorney Barney
• stated that there is a problem now , because under the Zoning Ordinance
one is not supposed to have lots of less than 150 ' of frontage ,
commenting , in order to do it there has to be a variance obtained from
Planning Board - 6 - May 16 , 1989
• the ZBA , plus Section 280 - a of the Town Law requirement that there has
to be frontage on a public road .
Ms . Langhans wondered about fire equipment access . Mr . May noted
that he was also concerned about fire equipment access , adding , 25
feet in width and 300 feet in depth does not seem to be adequate , and
especially not knowing where the house is going to be located on the
parcel . Attorney Barney responded that it is a presumption that 15 '
is enough for fire equipment access according to 280 - a , but he did not
think it would be an unreasonable condition to suggest that the
developer have some kind of statement from the fire department as to
adequate acce :; s for fire and other emergency vehicles .
Mikel Cary , the party interested in the 4 . 9 ± acre lot , approached
the Board and stated that the topo is flat land . Mr . May asked Mr .
Cary where he expected to build the house . Mr . Cary responded that
right now , with all the brush , he could not honestly say , but it would
be in the center of the lot . Mr . Frantz offered that in the State of
Pennaylvania parcels of this similar concept are called " pan- handle "
lots , whereby the land that is not good agricultural land inevitably
is away from the road frontage , thus , in order to preserve the road
frontage " pan - handle " lots are being allowed where there is a 201 - 25 '
width strip to accommodate a driveway which is 500 ' feet long to a
home which is set back behind the agricultural land . Mr . Miller
stated that he felt a 25 - foot right- of -way was plenty big enough .
William Lesser responded that he thought the 25 - foot right - of -way was
enough , if , indeed , this was only going to be a single residence
there , but to build more houses on that land , then 25 feet becomes
much too small . Ms . Beeners said that a variance would be required to
bring it up to the minimum 49 . 5 feet legal public right - of -way size .
Attorney :Barney , directing his comment to Attorney Beck , wondered
if his client would accept a restrictive covenant that the parcel
cannot be further subdivided . Attorney Beck answered that he would
have to talk to the potential owner of that parcel , but it was his
understanding •that there would be no problem . Mr . Cary , the potential
owner , responded that there would be no problem at all . Ms . Beeners
noted that there would be no further subdivision of the parcel , unless
there were some access provided from an adjacent property . Mr . Cary
stated that the reason for wanting the 4 . 9 ± acres was because he wants
to live there until he retires , and he does not want people right next
door . Mr . Cary remarked that he would just as soon have a document
stating that there would be no further sudivision of the parcel .
Attorney Barney offered that , in going before the ZBA , one has to
establish it is less than the minimum frontage because of a practical
difficulty or unnecessary hardship , and he was not quite sure whether
that was going to be able to be demonstrated or not , because the
desire is an effort to subdivide . Attorney Beck offered that it is
basically a desire to accommodate the members of the owner ' s family .
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
• Board , Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion .
Planning Board - 7 - May 16 , 1989
MOTION by Mr . Robert Miller , seconded by Mr . Montgomery May :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of a 4 . 9 ± acre lot from Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 5 - 10 . 3 , 6 . 49 ± acres total , located on the north
side of Bundy Road approximately 750 feet west of its
intersection with Hopkins Road ,
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 of the proposed subdivision . The Town of
Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act
as Lead Agency for environmental review of any required zoning
variances .
3 . The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for this
action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental
review of the proposed subdivision , make and hereby does make a
negative determination of environmental significance for this action .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , May , Ken erson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . Stephen Smith , seconded by Dr . William Lesser :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed :subdivision of a 4 . 9 ± acre lot from Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 5 - 10 . 3 , 6 . 49 ± acres total , located on the north
side of Bundy Road approximately 750 feet west of its
intersection with Hopkins Road .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the
proposed subdivision , has , on May 16 , 1989 , made a negative
determination of environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 16 , 1989 , has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form , Subdivision
• Plan , and other application submissions .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
Planning Board - 8 - May 16 , 1989
• 1 . That the! Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval ,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board ,
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as shown on map entitled
" Map to show Parcel to be Conveyed by Charles D . Slaght and L . E .
Bundy , Bundy Road , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York " ,
dated March 2 , 1989 , by Kenneth L . Jones , signed and sealed by
Howard R . Schlieder , L . S . , with the following conditions :
a . The grant of any necessary variances by the Zoning Board of
Appeals ;
b . Approval of on - lot water and sewer facilities by the
Tompkins County Health Department ;
c . That no further subdivision of the land take place without
access , in accordance with Town of Ithaca Highway
Specifications , being provided to the lot ;
d . Revisions to the subdivision plat showing lot widths at
• street right of way line ;
e . That the applicants provide evidence satisfactory to the
Town Engineer that there is adequate access for fire and
other emergency vehicles ;
f . That the requirements of paragraph " c . " , above , be
implemented by a restrictive covenant to be recorded and
referenced to any transfer of the 4 . 9 acre lot ; to be
approved by the Town Attorney prior to issuance of any
building permit for such lot .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov ,. Langhans , Baker , May , Ken erson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of Consideration of Final
Subdivision Approval for Carolyn Be Slaght & L . E . Bundy Jr . , two - lot
subdivision duly closed at 8 : 30 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR
THE PROPOSED 11HACKBERRY LANE SUBDIVISION " , PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF FIVE
SINGLE - FAMILY LOTS ON A 6 . 43 ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
N0 . 6 - 31 - 1 - 3 . 101 44 . 05 ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED AT 144 COY GLEN ROAD , NEAR
THE CORNER OF FIVE MILE DRIVE , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THOMAS
Planning Board - 9 - May 16 , 1989
• RICHARD AND CLARE HINRICHS , OWNERS ; THOMAS RICHARD / COY GLEN
ASSOCIATES , APPLICANT .
Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 31 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Richard approached the Board and appended maps to the
bulletin board .
Mr . Richard stated that he and his wife are the current owners of
the property in question . Mr . Richard [ indicating on map ] noted that
the parcel is about seven acres , and is located in the southeastern
portion of the total of 44 acres of property . Mr . Richard offered
that he had purchased the parcel from Cornell Plantations five years
ago with a number of restrictive covenants . Mr . Richard said that
this is a five lot subdivision request with conservation easements
provided to protect existing vegetation . Pointing to the map , Mr .
Richard noted that five lots are shown , as well as a new Town road
approximately 300 feet in , coming off Coy Glen Road . Mr . Richard said
that one of the issues of concern was that , in working with Cornell
Plantations , it was noted that there are a number of Hackberry trees
located on the site , adding , Hackberry trees are relatively rare
locally , commenting that there are not a lot of the Hackberry trees
located in the southern Finger Lakes area . Mr . Richard said that the
• boundary easements would be expanded to include the Hackberry trees ,
which would be! 150 feet in " this " corner to 120 feet , and 100 ' feet
along " here " . Mr . Richard remarked that there would be no cutting of
trees greater than 6 inches in diameter , or Hackberry trees , will be
permitted , except in the case of dead or diseased trees or limbs ,
which would pose a hazard to primary structures on the property . Mr .
Richard stated that he was proposing a 25 - foot wide road access to
Cornell for the purpose of access to their currently isolated
property .
Chairman Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked
if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or
questions .
Jim Hilke:r of 255 Burns Road spoke from the floor and inquired
about the water and sewer . Mr . Richard responded that his plan was to
bring in public: water and sewer .
Constance Cook of 209 Coy Glen Road spoke from the floor and
stated that she had no objection to the proposed subdivision .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at
8 : 39 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
William Lesser wondered about a plan to bridge the tributary , as
• it looked pretty deep . Mr . Richard replied that two culverts are
proposed , which are 42 " wide and 29 " high . Mr . Lesser asked how deep
Planning Board - 10 - May 16 , 1989
• the stream is ,, Mr . Richard answered that the road at the center line
would be approximately 5 ' above the stream .
Chairman Grigorov stated , for the record , that she , Virginia
Langhans and Robert Kenerson had visited the subject site in the
afternoon of May 16 , 1989 .
Ms . Langhans commented that , when visiting the site they had
followed the path that opens up into quite a large meadow - type area .
Mr . Richard [ indicating on map ] said that it is right " here " .
Mr . Kenerson wondered if the lots would be " For Sale " , or would
the dwellings be already built on the lot . Mr . Richard responded that
he plans to construct the dwellings on the lots .
Town Planner Susan Beeners asked Mr . Richard to explain briefly
what the essence of the deed restrictions were that occurred , as far
as possible future development when the property was purchased from
Cornell .
Mr . Richard stated that ten residences was the maximum total
number of residences allowed on the entire 44 acres . Mr . Richard
stated that , in addition , there is a buffer zone where no buildings
are permitted within 150 ' of [ indicating on map ] " this " boundary ,
which is shared with Cornell . Mr . Richard offered that there would be
• some re - plantings within that zone , to blend the undisturbed area with
the highly disturbed area .
Ms . Langhans commented that on previous projects the cutting of
trees was limited to 3 " - 4 " , and wondered if that would be a problem .
Mr . Richard responded that he had mentioned there were some grapevines
in that range which he would like to remove . Mr . Richard said that he
would be comfortable with 4 " .
Ms . Beeners wondered if woodstoves were going to be used as a
primary source of heat , and whether there might be some inversion
situations where there might be some pollutant damage to vegetation .
Mr . Richard responded that there were a number of homes along Five
Mile Drive that do burn wood right now , adding that he has not noticed
any problems . Mr . Richard remarked that gas heat is planned for the
houses .
Ms . Beeners commented on the open space situation in that , given
the size of the Hackberry Subdivision , there would be , essentially , a
. 06 acre area as a 10 % open space reservation . Ms . Beeners stated
that a real need for that half acre or so is not something that is
considered as a need within the subject subdivision . Ms . Beeners
commented on a bikeway along Coy Glen Road leading from an area park
down in the Inlet Valley area , adding , this bikeway was approved in
concept , but there may be some great engineering constraints in trying
to develop it , however , given that conceptional plan , and also given a
• proposal which will be reviewed by the Town Board , and which is the
draft engineer ' s report on water on West Hill , adding , it includes a
possible pump station site within the parent parcel of 48 acres , but
Planning Board - 11 - May 16 , 1989
• just uphill from the northwestern limit of the Hackberry Subdivision ,
she wondered if the Board , at this time , would entertain a deferral of
preliminary subdivision consideration of an actual open space
reservation with some ideas to be finalized by staff , working with Mr .
Richard , for some possible multi - use open space dedication , which
could accommodate a pump station , as well as be intergrated into an
open space plan . Ms . Beeners suggested having the above finalized at
the time of any final subdivision consideration . Chairman Grigorov
wondered if the pump station would be underground . Ms . Beeners
responded that. it can be underground , but it is more common to have a
small building that looks like a little cottage , about the size of the
one on Troy Road and Coddington Road , Ms . Langhans mentioned that the
PUMP station at Indian Creek Retirement Community would be
underground , with Town Engineer Sally Olsen responding that that is a
hydropneumatic system .
Attorney Barney noted that the plan has to go before the Town
Board for approval for the location of the road . William Lesser
wondered about the access to the Cornell lands , and deeding the
right - of -way . Mr . Lesser asked if that was going to be usable to the
public , or limited if it is open to the public , and would there be a
parking consideration involved ? Ms . Langhans said that it is open to
the public , but nobody tells anyone about it .
Ms . Olsen reported that she had some concerns about the water and
• the drainage . Ms . Olsen , reporting on the water , said that an
engineering study had been received from Stearns and Wheler for
continuing the water system through the Inlet Valley area entirely ,
which includes a 12 " main coming down over the topside of Glenside ,
and continuing down Coy Glen Road to Route 13A , adding , that piece
will loop around back into the City and will be a 12 " main the entire
length . Ms . Olsen stated that , since Mr . Richard would be placing
some 250 ' - 300 ' of watermain along Coy Glen Road anyway , and the
project for the entire Inlet Valley will be going in shortly
thereafter , certainly less than a year ' s time , she would require that
the piece of watermain from the end of the 8 " on the corner of Coy
Glen Road and Route 13A , up to the corner of Coy Glen Road and the
Hackberry Subdivision , be a 12 " main , in order that the Town can tie
into it . Ms . Olsen noted that there would be a higher material cost ,
but it makes more sense than tearing up the brand new 8 " main and
replacing it with the 12 " main . Ms . Olsen commented that then there
could be a reducer so the line going along Hackberry would still be
8 " , which is sufficient . Ms . Olsen asked about the width of the
streambed at the proposed crossing by the road . Mr . Richard replied
that it is a flatbed with about 5 ± feet of vertical sides , and on the
order of 15 ' - 20 ' wide . Ms . Olsen said that she wanted to make sure
that the streambed would not be widened in the area of the culvert ,
nor creating a constriction based on the opening of the 29 " X 42 " pipe
arches , adding that the standard way of installing parallel pipe
arches of that size is with a 36 " separation . Ms . Olsen commented
that Mr . Richard would have sufficient flow area to take the water ,
• but there would be a smaller opening , basically , to trap any debris .
Planning Board - 12 - May 16 , 1989
• George Sc:hlecht , Engineer for the project , stated that they had
looked carefully at the location , and one of the reasons they moved it
away from where the concrete slab was , in part , because of the
concerns of where the road could fit in with the drainage . Ms . Olsen
said that it had been mentioned that the native soils have a
moderately high erodability , adding that she would like to see some
alternates for protection at the inlet and outlet . Ms . Langhans
remarked that there is a little waterfall by the concrete slab .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . Robert Miller :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval for the proposed " Hackberry Lane Subdivision " , proposed
to consist of five single - family lots on a 6 . 43 acre portion of
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 1 - 3 . 1 , 44 . 05 acres total ,
located at 144 Coy Glen Road , near the corner of Five Mile Drive ,
Residence District R- 30 .
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Planning Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
• review .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 16 , 1989 , has
reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form , proposed
Preliminary Plat , dated May 2 , 1989 , by George C . Sch lecht , P . E . ,
L . S . , and other application submissions for this action .
4 . The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for this
action .
THEREFORE , IT I: S 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 - Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , May , Ken erson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson :
. WHEREAS .
Planning Board - 13 - May 16 , 1989
1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval for the proposed " Hackberry Lane Subdivision " , proposed
to consist of five single - family lots on a 6 . 43 acre portion of
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 1 - 3 . 1 , 44 . 05 acres total ,
located at 144 Coy Glen Road , near the corner of Five Mile Drive ,
Residence District R- 30 .
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Planning Board , acting as
Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on May 16 , 1989 , made
a negative determination of environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 16 , 1989 , has
reviewed the proposed Preliminary Plat , dated May 2 , 1989 , by
George C . Schlecht , P . E . , L . S . , and other application submissions
for this action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive , at this
time , the requirement for reservation of land for public open
space , subject to the full consideration of possible public space
reservations on the remaining lands of Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 1 - 3 . 1 ,
upon consultation with Cornell Plantations , such reservations to
be finally determined prior to any final subdivision approval .
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
• Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as proposed , subject to
the following conditions :
a . Approval of proposed roads and other public facilities by
the Town Board prior to consideration of final subdivision
approval ;
b . Approval of proposed deed restrictions and easements by the
Town Attorney and Planning Board prior to consideration of
final_ subdivision approval , such restrictions to include
limitation on cutting trees in excess of 4 inches in
diameter , limitation on cutting Hackberry trees , buffer
zones , and limitation of lots to single - family occupancy ;
c . Provision of an easement , in form satisfactory to the Town
Attorney , for access to remaining lands of Cornell
University to the west ,
d . Agreement with the Town Board as to the size of the water
pipe line along Coy Glen Road ;
e . Modification of drainage plans , to the satisfaction of the
Town Engineer , to show riprap or other erosion control
devices at the road culverts ,
f . Items " c . " , " d . " , and " e . " , above , to be accomplished prior
• to final subdivision approval .
Planning Board - 14 - May 16 , 1989
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , May , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Grigorov declared the Consideration of " Hackberry Lane "
Preliminary Subdivision Approval duly closed at 9 : 10 p . m .
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : PROPOSED " CHASE POND " DEVELOPMENT , PROPOSED AS A
REVISED SITE PLAN FOR THE " BUTTERFIELD " SITE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 311 , LOCATED ON EAST KING ROAD NEAR RIDGECREST
ROAD , MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT , DAVID C . AUBLE , OWNER / APPLICANT .
Chairman Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted matter
at 9 : 11 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above .
Mr . Auble approached the Board and stated that the Chase Pond
property was once part of the Beacon Hills project , as was the
original ButterField site , adding that they had been pre -developed
back in the early 19701s . Mr . Auble offered that approval had been
granted for the Chase Farm site , but became aware that the Chase Farm
site and the Chase Pond site should be more closely coordinated , which
delayed the process of construction . Mr . Auble said that during the
winter months he had become acquainted with the Andres Duany and
• Elizabeth Plater - Zyberk planning team , liked their ideas and thought
their ideas would be appropriate for the Ithaca area . Mr . Auble noted
that , as a result , the ButterField site was re - designed and re - named
and it is more of an extension of Chase Farm . Mr . Auble stated that
he felt it was important to coordinate the two sites .
Mr . Peter Trowbridge , Architect for the project , addressed the
Board and explained that on East King Road there is a center road that
leads into Chase Farm , adding that the primary access into the Chase
Pond site is directly across from that access road . Mr . Trowbridge
said that the major concept of the plan is to establish a traditional ,
more conventional neighborhood organization than might be typical of a
conventional subdivision . Mr . Trowbridge offered that the centerpiece
is really a long view , if one is driving along East King Road one
would see a village green , and what has been maintained as a long
central access through the site , in fact , it focuses on the Cornell
Plantations water tower . Mr . Trowbridge said that the other access
, point is at the westerly edge of the site , which focuses back on the
existing pond on the site . Mr . Trowbridge offered that the overall
density is consistent with the established density of previous plans ,
commenting , there are 65 Type II townhouse units that are primarily
clustered around the village green and long central access , and some
additional townhouse units flank the project , both to the east and to
the west . Mr . Trowbridge said that the units are not exactly typical
for the area in that there is no gable end , as often on townhouse
• units one would. find a blank wall at one end of the unit , adding that
the end wall of the proposed units are articulated , so what one sees
is something that really has a traditional neighborhood , very civic ,
Planning Board - 15 - May 16 , 1989
building facade profile . Mr . Trowbridge said that the facade profile
achieved , considering parking requirements and access to the site , is
that there are alleyways that run parallel behind the sites , with
garage configurations that allow for access in parking and fire access
all the way around the buildings , but primarily parking access , and
garages at the rear of the sites . Mr . Trowbridge said that the second
type of unit is really clustered along the northeasterly edge ,
commenting that the center part of the site is called a sideyard and
is a single - family detached zero lot line house . Mr . Trowbridge
mentioned that: the impression of someone driving by would be of very
low density .
Continuing , Mr . Trowbridge stated that he thought the overall
advantage of the site is that it does have density in certain
locations , much like a cluster overlay . Mr . Trowbridge noted that
there are two other park configurations - one is more of a boulevard
relating to [ pointing to map ] " these " townhouse units , and a small
park that restates to the townhouses that flank the east . Mr .
Trowbridge stated that , in looking at affordability , the townhouse
units would be approximately 1 , 250 square feet , which would be in a
range of about: $ 90 , 000 . 00 . Mr . Trowbridge offered that the sideyard
units would be about 1 , 400 square feet , and in the $ 115 , 000 . 00 range .
Mr . Trowbridge added that , in addition , the developer is looking at a
potential 13 units which might be called carriage house units or
secondary units , noting that these would be one - bedroom units for
rent , and would be associated with the sideyard units , in some cases
• up to the level of 119 dwelling units on the site . Mr . Trowbridge
commented that: the issue here is establishing street character ,
livability , a pedestrian zone that is fairly well defined , and
reserved open space . Mr . Trowbridge stated that the developer has
reserved several sites for future public or civic use . Mr . Trowbridge
stated that the total acreage of the site is 23 acres .
Chairman Grigorov wondered about whether or not the site could be
multiple use . Ms . Beeners responded that she had received a letter
from Town Board Member John Whitcomb , dated May 11 , 1989 . [ Letter
attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . ] Ms . Beeners said that Mr . Whitcomb
asked that a summary be prepared of the Town ' s decisions relevant to
the parcel . Ms . Beeners noted that she replied , as well as a response
to Mr . Whitcomb ' s wife , the night before that tonight ' s meeting was ,
essentially , just to gather questions and comments . Ms . Beeners
stated that she thought the summary was something where the developers
could lend a hand . Mr . Trowbridge offered that a meeting is scheduled
next week with the staff , and also a meeting is scheduled May 17 ,
1989 , with Brian Wilbur of the Fire Department , as to the fire access
issues . Chairman Grigorov stated that the question was : if Mr . Manos
sold the property , would it still be zoned multiple or did it revert
to R- 15 ? Chairman Grigorov noted that that has to be considered where
density is concerned . Mr . Trowbridge responded that they have not had
an opportunity to discuss the matter with staff .
• Chairman Grigorov stated that , since the above issue is a concern
of the public , she would ask if anyone from the public present wished
to ask any further questions .
1
Planning Board - 16 - May 16 , 1989
Karl Niklas of 1005 Danby Road spoke from the floor and stated
tht he would :Like to supply some information that might engender some
questions . Mr . Niklas cited that Town Local Law No . 3 - 1987 ,
basically stipulates that this piece of property conformed , in all
respects , to the site plan that was given approval to Mr . Manos , when
the plan was known as the Majestic Heights Subdivision , adding , if one
goes back into the records , that original site plan was based on a
piece of property that was 30 acres , noting that Mr . Manos was granted
the opportunity to build 119 units , which comes to a density , per
acre , of four units per acre . Mr . Niklas stated that the current site
in question is 23 . 1 acres , and still maintains the 119 buildings ,
which comes to a density of 5 . 1 units per acre . Mr . Niklas stated
that he was provided with some information from a very helpful Town
Board member . Mr . Niklas said it was his understanding , as a private
citizen , that the property is zoned MR , and not zoned R- 15 . Mr .
Niklas offered that the reason for that was that the Town Board
Resolution dated February 4 , 1983 specified , and the Planning Board
noted , that if the property was sold by Mr . Manos , the undeveloped
property would revert back to R- 15 , adding that this is one of the
understandings justifying the zoning from the original R- 15 to MR .
Mr . Niklas commented that , when this was passed as , a law by the Town
Board , that section of the Planning Board Resolution was deleted , and
there was no explanation as to why it was deleted . Mr . Niklas stated
that it was his understanding that there was no stipulation for it to
go back to R- 15 , however , the point is that the Town Law specifies
that the site plan on subject property , to maintain MR , meet the
• specifications of the previous site plan granted to Mr . Manos , Mr .
Niklas remarked that one of the very clear things in the document is
the density of 119 units for the then 30 acres , again noting the
current site plan is 23 . 1 acres , and still has 119 units , adding , that
is a 20 % increase in density from the previous site plan , because of a
reduction of seven acres .
Chairman Grigorov asked if there was anyone else who wanted to
comment .
Mr . Trowbridge stated that , in addition , there was also a program
item that not only included the dwelling units , but also included a
large service area that was almost commercial in size , adding , there
was a square footage requirement , he believed , that went along with
the 119 units . Mr . Trowbridge felt that the entire program should be
investigated . Mr . Trowbridge noted that the intention is to ,
hopefully , sit down with staff and clarify some language , and also the
paper trail . Ms . Beeners commented that her intention , given that the
developer has copies of about all the documents that are available ,
the applicants should actually supply a summary of what has occurred
over time , so that it can be resolved .
Chairman Grigorov asked for a reaction from the Board since this
is a Sketch Plan Review .
• William Lesser stated that , in his opinion , it looks like a
different approach , adding that he was favorably impressed with the
idea of developing something to use the site to maintain sight
Planning Board - 17 - May 16 , 1989
distances and a somewhat different type of construction . Mr . Lesser
commented that , at this point , he likes the concept , adding that the
Board is sensitive to the issue of height of the buildings . Mr .
Lesser mentioned parking . Mr . Trowbridge responded that the intent is
to have , on many streets , on- street parking .
Ms . Langhans inquired about the sideyard houses , in that there
are a few that are back to back . Mr . Trowbridge replied that the idea
was to try to maintain the view , and also give some set -back to the
reserved area for a civic building . Mr . Trowbridge said that those
two units will be attached .
Attorney Barney wondered about the advantage of a zero - lot line
arrangement , as opposed to centering a building on the lot . Mr .
Trowbridge responded that , if there were sideyard requirements on both
sides , it automatically happens that there are additional yard width
requirements to get , effectively , the same amount of space . Mr .
Trowbridge said that the developer would be having the zero - lot line
side somewhat less fenestrated so that each house has a private space
to the side . Attorney Barney wondered if Mr . Trowbridge was talking
about windows , with Mr . Trowbridge answering , yes .
Mr . Lesser wondered how many of the townhouse units would be
linked in a block . Mr . Trowbridge responded that there would be 9 - 10
units . Mr . Trowbridge said that it is assumed that the requirements
are being met within the MR zone , in terms of the 50 - foot front yard
• set -backs , as well as the ability to put buildings together . Mr .
Trowbridge noted that the developer had looked at a cluster overlay as
a possibility , but it became somewhat restricted , primarily the
townhouse units , because they could only get small groups of units
together before they had to come up with a break . Mr . Trowbridge
stated that the MR requirements , overall , were maintained on the site .
Mr . Lesser inquired about a Homeowners ' Association . Mr . Trowbridge
responded that they are investigating two issues right now - one being
a not for profit corporation , and a Homeowners ' Association , adding
that they were not sure what direction they would be going in .
Mr . Kenerson asked if the developer was building to sell homes .
Mr . Trowbridge answered , yes , it is fee simple .
Mr . May wondered if there had been any discussion with the Ithaca
Fire Department: regarding the narrower turning radii . Mr . Trowbridge
responded that a meeting is scheduled with Brian Wilbur of the Ithaca
Fire Department on May 17 , 1989 . Mr . May mentioned cars parked along
the road . Mr . Trowbridge noted that the intent is that these will be
Town roads , except for the lane - ways , because there are easements that
cut through the back of all the townhouse properties that provide
access to the rear of each townhouse for parking and / or if there were
a one - bedroom apartment above the garages in the back . Mr . May
wondered who would maintain those " alleys " . Mr . Trowbridge said that
there would have to be some type of agreement with those units .
• Town Engineer Sally Olsen stated that she noticed a rather major
departure from Andres Duany ' s typical sideyard house plan in that the
Planning Board - 18 - May 16 , 1989
garages are not serviced by an " alley " , but by individual driveways .
Mr . Trowbridge answered , that is right , adding that the intent was to
try to create an image that was more consistent with single - family
detached homes .
Chairman Grigorov asked about the open land in the project .
Attorney Barney stated that he thought , if it were by Homeowners '
Association , the Town has accepted , as open area , the area that is
dedicated for the use by the Homeowners ' Association with the bylaws
and declarations relating to that , and having some provision that they
cannot change the use without the Town ' s input and approval , which
would be in lieu of a park that the Town would have the obligation to
maintain . Chairman Grigorov wondered if it would be open to the
public . Attorney Barney responded that it would not be open to the
public . Ms . Langhans asked about the donation of 4 - 5 acres that
ButterField had given to Cornell , and whether that was their
trade - off , at that time . Attorney Barney said that he remembered when
that transfer occurred , but does not remember the details of what the
reasoning was behind it . Ms . Beeners stated that that is part of what
she was asking for , as far as a summary of the ButterField history .
Ms . Olsen wondered if the developer expected the road section to
be curbed with enclosed storm drainage . Mr . Trowbridge answered , yes ,
but there really is not provision for roadside ditches , and the intent
is that the pond , which was always sized as a detention basin for the
project , will continue to be used as a detention basin . Ms . Olsen
said that one of the reasons that she had mentioned the garages and
driveways coming out on the street side , is that it virtually cuts the
on - street parking in half . Mr . Trowbridge agreed that is an issue ,
however , there is considerable drive length on the lots , so the
sideyard units have adequate parking , noting that the townhouse units
would use some of the side streets for guest parking .
Ms . Beeners wondered about the market in the area , before the
plans being presented tonight . Mr . David Auble , developer for the
project , stated that the townhouses at Deer Run , which are adjacent to
his property , have been selling extremely well . Mr . Auble mentioned
the sideyard design or zero lot line homes , in that he understands
from the Real Estate market that that would be preferable to the
attached units that were formerly designed . Mr . Auble stated that he
is getting a good response , and felt that it is a superior approach .
Ms . Beeners asked if the townhouse units would be sprinklered .
e ulations he assumes this
that based on the r ,
Mr . Auble respondedg
would be done . Ms . Beeners mentioned a waiver request or variance
request at a future date , as to the sprinkler requirement . Mr . Auble
said that the subject of sprinklers has not been discussed , but he was
sure it would come up soon .
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz commented that one of the
benefits of the zero - lot line housing is that the homes can be
• oriented with the windows mostly on one side of the house , adding that
with the proper orientation they make excellent homes as far as solar
energy is concerned . Mr . Auble said that , obviously , there are some
Planning Board - 19 - May 16 , 1989
site considerations that would restrict construction , commenting , it
is not as pliable as a single - family lot . Mr . Rick Holt stated that ,
even though it would not be an active solar system , it certainly would
have some solar benefits in opening up a whole side of a house . Mr .
Auble said that the homes would not be entirely void of windows on one
side , the windows would just be higher up .
Ms . Langhans wondered how far the project was from the South Hill
Swamp , Mr . Trowbridge responded that [ indicating on map ] to " this "
corner of the property it is about 450 ' from the closest developed
area . Mr . Trowbridge said that the intent really is keep everything
up above the pond .
Mr . Karl Niklas of 1005 Danby Road again spoke from the floor and
stated that he understood the rationale behind asking the developer
for some kind of chronology for the various considerations that have
gone through since Majestic Heights , Mr . Niklas stated that he was
hoping he might get some legal declaration from the Town Attorney , as
to what aspects of the Manos site , which are specified in the Town
Local Law No . 3 - 1987 , would be required of any site plan for this
particular site . Attorney Barney stated that , obviously , the Local
Laws that have been passed relevant to this project would be reviewed .
Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any other comments . There
being none , Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the " Chase Pond "
Development Sketch Plan Review duly closed at 9 : 50 p . m .
• STAFF REPORT - - Six Mile Creek ; Fall Creek .
Town Planner Susan Beeners approached the Board and reported on
the Six Mile Creek issue .
Ms . Beeners referred to a copy of a Bill that was introduced into
the State Legislature . [ Document , along with a map , are attached as
Exhibit 2 . ] Ms . Beeners offered that in 1984 and 1. 985 there was a
land substitution plan for which the Town was asked to be an endorser
of a City - sponsored application , where certain parcels in the Inlet
Valley area [ indicating on map ] which are shown in " green " , were to be
substituted for the lands that are shown in " red " , adding , that
project has been slowly moving along , meanwhile , totally by accident ,
a copy of the proposed legislation was received , along with an
attached map , which is asking that the parcels attached on the map be
substituted for the Festival site up near Treman Marina , Ms . Beeners
stated that the staff was taken by surprise because they had been
involved for several years , especially over the last year , in some
very good and close discussions with the City about land use policy
and the types of conservation mechanisms the Town might be able to
offer . Ms . Beeners stated that State Legislators Martin Luster and
James Seward have decided not to take any further action until there
is some additional word from the Town of Ithaca on the matter ,
commenting that the City Common Council has decided not to pursue it
• until their Intergovernmental Relations Committee can look at it . Ms .
Beeners stated that Town Supervisor Desch has appointed Town Board
Member John Whitcomb and himself , being South Hill residents , to a
Planning Board - 20 - May 16 , 1989
committee that would , essentially , begin with Town representatives ,
rather than going to the City , so that the Town could look at what all
is involved . Ms . Beeners noted that Supervisor Desch has asked
Planning Board Chairman Carolyn Grigorov to consider appointing a
couple of representatives from the Planning Board . Chairman Grigorov
noted that she: would be a representative , and William Lesser indicated
that he would be interested . Mr . May wondered who actually introduced
the legislation to the Assembly . Attorney Barney responded that
someone from the governmental function of the City . Ms . Beeners noted
that , given the circumstances , the staff has decided not to even
garner any additional information from the City . Mr . May remarked
that what he thinks is scary about this is that Martin Luster and
James Seward reacted to it without even bothering to know who owned
the land . Mr . Lesser wondered about the transfer mechanism concerning
the land . Attorney Barney said that there is nothing that prohibits
the City from purchasing land outside , and becoming a landowner like
anybody else , adding , if they were trying to use their eminent domain
rights there are some limitations on using those rights once one is
outside their jurisdiction . Attorney Barney commented that he did not
believe one could use eminent domain for park purposes , or
recreational purposes , it can be used for water supplies . Ms . Beeners
offered that it is meant to be a substitution of land that would be of
equal recreational value to what they would like to not be park land
in the Inlet Valley , adding , the intent is that it be a trade of some
lands in Inlet Valley that were made park land , but are not suitable
for park land .
• Attorney Barney offered that , generally speaking , the law is :
once a community has dedicated land of local municipalities to park
purposes , one cannot do anything with that land , other than a park ,
absent State legislation giving authority to do that .
At this time , Ms . Beeners reported on the Fall Creek issue .
Ms . Beeners stated that the Town Board decided not to act on the
letter addressed to State Senator James Seward and State Assemblyman
Martin Luster , from Town Supervisor Noel Desch , dated May 9 , 1989 , a
copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3 .
Ms . Beeners said that Margaret Fabrizio is trying to set up a
meeting , probably on the 31st of May 1989 , adding that a
representative from DEC would be in attendance to answer some of the
questions that have come up . Attorney Barney offered that there is a
lot of conflicting information coming from Ms . Fabrizio , Cornell
University ' s representative , and from the Town office .
Town Engineer Sally Olsen gave a report on the 1989 Water and
Sewer Improvements that are going to be before the Town Board at
Public Hearing on June 12 , 1989 . Ms . Olsen said that the 1989 Water
and Sewer Improvements Report has been received from Stearns and
Wheler , and noted that Inlet Valley water and Inlet Water sewer are
• the main parts of the document , and it also refers to a little bit of
water and sewer on West Hill , and a possible new water tank on South
Hill . Ms . Olsen stated that it includes 31 , 000 feet of new water main
Planning Board - 21 - May 16 , 1989
to service approximately 140 people , and there will be a 12 " main
coming around and connecting into the City , off the Elm Street tank , a
10 " main coming down along Route 13 and an 8 " main to serve
[ indicating on map ] out " here " . Ms . Olsen said that this would create
a nice loop that will serve everybody well . Ms . Olsen pointed out Coy
Glen Road , and noted that " this " is the new piece of 12 " main that the
Hackberry Lane Subdivision would coordinate with , commenting , that
area is already sewered so " this " is existing sewer shown " here " . Ms .
Olsen noted that gravity sewer would be in existence most of the way ,
but part of it will have to be pumped until it can get to gravity
again , commenting that this would serve approximately 140 homes . Ms .
Olsen stated that , just by topo , water can be extended to people , but
sewer cannot be picked up . Ms . Langhans wondered how far out it goes .
Ms . Olsen responded that it goes to Turback ' s , and they would get
water , but no sewer . Ms . Beeners offered that the service area would
be fairly limited as to how far the water can go up Bostwick Road ,
Ms . Olsen said that it would go up Seven Mile Drive and all the way to
Bostwick Road , but not continue up Bostwick Road , and it would be
available to College View Trailer Park ,
Ms . Olsen. , referring to West Hill , stated that there would be a
watermain coming up and stopping at Hayts Road , and coming around
through the Hospital , there is a hydropneumatic pumping station that
provides sufficient pressure to [ pointing to map ] " these " folks , comes '
back and dead - ends " here " . Ms . Olsen noted that the Town has to ,
basically , have an agreement with the Indian Creek Development people
• that the Town would construct " this " portion of the watermain , and
they will construct " this " portion of the watermain , and complete
" this " , but because this is served by a hydropneumatic pumping station
the pressure in " this " line is greater than the pressure in " this "
line , and they will not be able to be connected ; they will be
physically connected , but the flows will not function until further
improvements are done in the West Hill water , which is being studied
right now by Lozier Engineers , Ms . Olsen noted that the proposed
sanitary system will pick up " here " .
Ms . Olsen stated that the water pressure zones on South Hill are
not equal , not everybody has sufficient pressure from the existing
water tank , adding that a new water tank is planned at elevation 1200 .
Ms . Olsen pointed out the new site chosen for the water tank , which
would go through the Troy Road pumping station . Ms . Bee ners offered
that the site is part of the Deer Run open space . Mr . Lesser wondered
about the cost for the various components . Ms . Olsen responded that
the Inlet Valley water cost is approximately 1 . 7 million , and Inlet
Valley Sewer is approximately 1 . 8 million . Chairman Grigorov wondered
if developers would contribute to the cost , with Ms . Olsen responding
that she did not believe that has been discussed . Attorney Barney
stated that a number of years ago individual districts were dissolved ,
so , basically these are townwide , and are financed through bonds that
are paid for by the townwide assessment of water and sewer benefit .
Mr . Kenerson wondered what was done regarding hook -up charges in the
• College View Mobile Home Park , Attorney Barney answered that the
Local Law governing hook - up would have to be looked up , but it would
be no different from a single - family house . Mr . Kenerson wondered if
Planning Board - 22 - May 16 , 1989
it can be predicted what it would look like twenty years from now ,
because of utilities , adding that the extension of water and sewer
throughout the Town makes quite a difference on development . Ms .
Olsen responded that Lozier is preparing a study , right now , for
servicing the entire West Hill , Mr . Kenerson asked about South Hill .
Mr . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , noted that the Ridgecrest Road
tank is right on the Town line . Ms . Beeners said that there has been
some interest from the Town of Danby for their creation of the higher
density , compared to most of the Danby residential area , commenting ,
Danby sees growth as being fairly inevitable in the north part of
Danby , and might consider , at some time , becoming part of the Bolton
Point system . Mr . Kenerson wondered about the Town of Enfield , and
Town of Newfield , where they are not going to put in a facility like
Bolton Point , or like the intermunicipal wastewater treatment plant .
Mr . Frantz stated that , personally , he hoped on a countywide basis the
development can continue to be concentrated close to the City of
Ithaca . Ms . Beeners offered that the 1989 Water and Sewer
Improvements report would be forwarded to the Planning Consultant ,
Stuart I . Brown , for his information . Ms . Beeners also mentioned the
Lozier report , which is the West Hill new pressure zone , in that they
meet and consult with Mr . Brown , adding that she had told Mr . Brown ,
if he wants to submit a proposal for additional consultation , then it
would be alright to do so . Mr . Kenerson wondered when Mr . Brown would
complete Phase I . Ms . Beeners responded that she had contacted Mr .
Brown , and he :replied it would be the first week of June 1989 .
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 24 , 1989
MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by Virginia Langhans :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of January 24 , 1989 , be and hereby are approved with the
following correction :
i . That , on Page 12 , with respect to the Resolution on the
Southwoods Development , Montgomery May ' s name be deleted from the
voting record .
There being no further discussion , the Chairman called for a
vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , May , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nat - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman Grigorov declared the May 16 , 1989 , meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 16 p . m .
•
. S
Planning Board - 23 - May 16 , 1989
• Respectfully submitted ,
Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•
•
. s
• 146 EAST SENECA STREW
MACAr NEW YORK
14850
May 11 , 1989
Susan Beeners
Town of Ithaca Planner
126 E . Seneca
Ithaca , NY 14850
Dear Susan :
It has come to my attention that the Plann ; ng Board wi t be
considering a new sketch plan for Auble ' s " Butterfield " project on
Tues . May 16 . Auble is under the impression that this is Zoned
" MR " . I believethat a February , 198 ' , site plan approval for the
same property , then owned by Mr . Maros , states that if Maros sold
the property , it would revert to R15 Zoning .
Did the Town , at some later date , extend the MR Zor; ing beyond
•
Maros ' ownership ? A summary of Town decisions relevant to this
parcel should be, prepared prior . to . Tuesday ' s meeting , I t WIli- L ' 1 d seem
imperative that the Planning Board make no commitments to Mr ,
Auble , either implied or explicit , until thiT. queZstion is r- eso ! ved .
Sincerely ,
J in G . 'Whitcof;, b
Councilman
cc C . Grigorov
J . Barney
•
EXHIBIT 1
, I
STATE OF NEW YORK
S . 432 A , 6903
1989- 1990 Regular Sessions n _
0 2 A'S'E ASSEMBLY. . .
1 ��NG March . 28 , 1989 '
4
IN SENATE - - -Introduced by. Sen . SEWARD - - read twice and ordered `
printed , and when printed to be committed . to .the Committee on Cities
IN ASSEMBLY - - Introduced by M . of ' A . LUSTER - - read once and referred
to the Committee.. on Local Governments
AN ACT to , amend chapter 757 of the - laws .of 1985 + relating to authorizing
the city of Ithaca , county of Tompkins , to , discontinue the use of car
-
tain lands owned for park and recreation purposes + , i. n relation to
authorizing the city of ; Ithaca ; county of Tompkins . - .to , replace the
Festival landsl described as Parce.1 B therein with other properties -, -
' The People of the State . of ' New York , represented an Senate and Assem-
bly , do enact as follows :
1• Section I * Parce 1 B of.; sect on., •3 . of• . chapter 157 of thei„l aws� :of 1985 +
„ 2� relating to .authorizing the, ;-I ty , of Ithaca . county • of ;Tompkji ns, to
3 discontinue the use of :_ •cer ta.i n' :I ands _,owned : for park . and.* recreat i ona I . !
4 purposesp is amended to read as: follows ;
5 [PARCEL. B . _
6 : ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL , OF . LAND _ situate in the • CIty. of .I. thacas, . County
7 of Tompkinst- State ofNew' •• .York ' and : more part i cul or 1 y,� : bounded { •and
8 described as follows : .
9 BEGINNING . at an iron : rods , ; `said .+iron rod : bei ng: N ' 76' 06 32_ E ; � a
'10 distance of 86 . 54 feet from a concrete monument set In the easterly line
11 of New York StateRoute89 .: also known as Taughannoek Boulevard . (the
12 coordinate of said concrete monument referred . to, the- New.. York coordinate
13' system are N 23 + 927 . 20 and E._ �:16 , 494 . 71 ) running - thenco ; _N 21° ; 45 W : a •
14 distance of 361 . 4 feet , to an ' i ron pipe ; run, ing ' . thence .N 32' :: ;33'. w�:, a
15 distance of 357 . 1 - feet to an l i ron pipe ; , runn i•ng thence'.. N 09' 51. .. W: - e .
16 d•ist'ance of 326 . 3 feet , to an : iron pipe ; " . running , thence N 22.= `31 E . . a• '
EXPLANATION - - Matter in italics (underscored) is new ; . matter in brackets
[ ]. is old.1aw to be omitted . •
L8009602 -151 -9
rLj
`
1
EXHIBIT 2
. a
I
S . 4320 2 A . 6903
• 1 distance of 688 . 9 feet to an iron pipe running 'thence S 770 42 E a
2 _ distance of 538 . 0 feet to an iron pipe marking the rtheast corner_ of
3 the herein described parcel ; running thence S 19 ° 4 assing through
4 a concrete monument at 377 . 0 feet , an iron • pin sett feet , an
5 . iron pipe set at 939 : 30 : feet , . a total distance of e a set -
._ 6 :' iron rod ; running thence. . S 13 ° 54 E a distance q . 0 0
7 iron rod ; running thence S 76 ° 06 32 W a d;i ce f 150 "Rti `"rwPA
8 .iron rod marking the point or place of _ beginninh . CQnta g.- 10 . 36 a
ti 9 - of land
10 Reference is hereby made to a survey entitled " S�4T� ;01= ;% NEW , YORK EX r '
11 CUTIVE DEPARTMENT , OFFICE . OF PARKS AND RECREATION , MAP '' OEw7, :� ANDir-•10 , BEZ"r
VOLVId '
12 EXCHANGED . UNDER SECTIONS 676a OF THE CONSERVATION LAW IN6:� ITHACAsr
13 STATE MARINE PARK IN FINGER LAKES PARK COMMISSION AND CENTER FOR ? ';THE'
14 ARTS 'AT ITHACA , INC . , ' C. ITY OF ITHACA - TOMPKINS COUNTY , N . Y .," by Edward
15 Co Oliver , L . L . S . dated July 13 ; . 1972. and designated as map # 11023 . 1
16 Parcel 81
17 _ ALL OR PART OF ' .THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in the Town of
18 'Ithaca , County ' of Tompkins , and State of New York , being a part of Lot
19 100 : bounded and described a's follows :
20 . Beginning at a peg in the center of the road leading from Ithaca to
21 Candor ( Coddinaton Road ) , South 400 East 5 chains and 52 links from the
22 West line of said Lot 100 where it intersects said center ; thence South
23 40' east along said center 3 chains and 65 links to a peg in said cen-
: 24 ter : thence North 27 ° east 40 chains to the North line of said loth_
25 thence west along said line 10 chains and 55 links to the northeast cor -
26 •ner of land . . - formerly owned or - occupied by Margaret Coddington ; thence
' South 170 WesiA6 chains and 60 links to the place of ' beginning , con__ -
28 taining 27 acres of land .
• 2.9 EXCEPTING THEREFROM , the parcel of land transferred to Frank E . • and
30 ! ouise V . Mudrak by deed dated December` 20 , 1978 , and recorded in the
3l--:'Tompkins • County ' C1erk ' s Office December 21 , 1978 , in Liber ' 568 of Deeds
3 ` `•a4tTPa4e } 0041' '. _ . .
- 3 } et - = toI ''- .the : ' following insofar as ' they may affect 062i'ubiect
34remises : _
31 : ,
premises .R i ,
i 35 ` "' -� �= -Right - • of : • Way . agreement with New York State Elecaric Corporation
i 36 . daited '• Juiy - 25 , - 1929 ; - recorded in Liber 218 of Deeds at page 483 .
�
i .
1 = � = ;7)• ='Easement • for • gas p i pe 1 i ne .to New York State Electric and Gas Cor -
;;,}.. 3,8., , 0or60on = dated • May .. 10 , 19,65 , recorded in Liber 456 of Deeds at page 819 .
59 ` - ' = 3) i- • ' Pole = line easement to New York State Electric and Gas Corporation
40 recorded April 21 , 19759 in Liber 544 of Deeds at page 146 .
41 = 4) . The rights of the public in , over , and across that portion of the
42 said premises which lie within the bounds -of the public highway ,
43 BEING the same premises conveyed to the grantors - herein by warranty
44 deed from Patrick R . Mackesey dated and recorded November 25 , 1981 , in
45 the Tompkins. County Clerk ' s Office in Liber 586 of Deeds at page 864 .
w
= 46 ALSO ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in; the Town of Ithaca ,
y
- . . 47 -:-. County of Tompkins , and State of New York , being a part of Lots 99 and
48' . 100 , bounded and described as follows :
. 49 Beginning at an iron pipe at the northwesterly corner of the premi-ses
50 described in a deed to Lewis C . Beardsley , Jr . , from . Laura Agnes Dorn
51 Giles dated November 8 , 1972 , and recorded in the Tompkins County
52 . Clerk ' s Office in Liber 504 of Deeds at page 812 , and .: in the southerly
53 line of the . premises described in a deed to Anthony L . Bascelli from
54 William F . Farrell , dated August 23 , 1971 , and recorded in said Clerk.
-:.s
55 Office in Liber_ 494 of Deeds at page 555 ; thence North 480 East 204 feet
EXHIBIT 2
, s
S . 4320 3 A , 6903
Ialong said southerly line and along a southerly lino of the premise1
• 2 described In a deed to William Fe Farrell a / k / A William J, a Farrell_fC2M
WI- 1- 11am - it Farrell and Jo Dianne Farrell dated Qctosr 15 , 1957 , jLnd
recorded In sold Clerk ' s Office in Liber 401 of Deeds at Page 137 and
along the remains of a fence on said line to the Intersection of Bald
fence j1ne with - -the division line between M ( 1 ( tarr Lots gg and 129L
hence- northerly 1125 feet more or less alone sold division _ 11ne Jtelag
T 8 + ., an easterly ' line of sold Farrell premises to the northwest corner of
D.
i, .., g' .: Mi 1' I tory Lot ' 100 In a souther 1 y line of the City
of I theca wet r e
# .a 10 `thence easterly 51942 feet along the northerly line of M1 Mary Lot
t�{ ' =: 11 100 being the southwesterly line of said City premises . thence South
-.,
12 . 17 ° West 1861 6 feet more or lass along the wester•.ly line of the Preor
< 13 • mases described in a deed to Bert R . Wurzel and Edith L . Wurzel from
14 . . :.John W Riddell and Ise 'M Riddell dated October 20 . 1942 . and recorded
_ikhrz .
911— 'said Clerk ' s Office in Liber 265 of Deeds at page 402m to thejn� center
6f a 30 inch black cherry tree with . a pipe set at its base and in an old
` 17 ' fence line at the most northerly corner of the premises described in a
18 deed to Kenneth R Marion and wife from Sidney H . Giles and Laura A .
'J9 Giles , dated April 30 , 1949 , and recorded in said Clerk ' s Office in
20 Liber 320 of deeds at page 139 ( now reputedly owned by William L . Mesner
21 and Lillian Riecke Mesner , 499 Deeds , page 718) ; thence South 45 ° 40 '
22 West 483 feet along the northwesterly line of said Marion premises ,
23 passing through a pipe in or near the northeasterly corner of Coddington
- 24 . Road to the center line of said road ; thence northwesterly 300 feet
25; ' along the center line of said road to the southwesterly corner of the
26= remises described in ' a deed dated November Be 1972 , and recorded in
__ 27 ,said Clerk ' s Office in Liber 504 of Deeds at page 812 . thence nor
28 : ; theasterly 200 feet along the southeasterly line of said SeardslaY are
29 mases passing through a pipe in or near the northerly l .lne of Cod_ in on
- 30 Road to a pipe , thence northwesterly 231 fent a10ng the northerly _ ne
;: 31 of said Beardsley premises to the .place of beginnlnQ*hat por ion thereof
` 3 ,i: EXCEPTING from the above . described premises that I
; 33 described in a deed to New York . State Electric and Gas Corporation from
34 the Delaware Lackawanna and Western RaiIroad Compaa'tY; A4fad June 21 :
is 35 .• _ 1960 recorded in said Clerk ' s Office in Liber 429 • of, Ji �eds at Page Z12 .
` 36 " 5ubiect to the following : ¢ s c ;
: ; 1 } The rights of ' the public in , over , and across that 'partlon of. the
38 said premises which He within the bounds of the pu000000,blic hPghwaY; i
2) Easements insofar as they may affect the said :pr_enlf. ses granted to
'40 ;;= New York State Electric and Gas Corporation by ins.tr.uments . dated .
: ` t;j April 28 . 1965 , for a gas pipeline and recorded in Liber 456 of
42 Deeds at page 797 . r
'' 43 ' b) July 24 , 1929 , for a pole line , etc . g recorded in ' Liber 218 of
44' -Deeds at page- 46
-'' 45 c) November 119 1930 , for a pole line and recorded in Liber 223 of
-46' Deeds at page 366 .
t47 . • d) September 26 1939 , for a pole line and recorded in Liber 252 of
.` 48= Deeds at page 3180
r= k9 e) September 21 1948 , for a pole line and recorded in Liber 313 of
V50; - Deeds at page 547 .
1 . ..: ) a pole lin
; e and recorded in Liber 330 of Deeds ,
5 . ; , fMarch 2 , 1950 , for
: .
52 '.. at• • page -34 .
53 g) . November 9 , 1950 for a pole line and recorded in Liber . 331 of.
` 54 rDeeds at page 135 .
55 h ) February 3 , 1958 , for a pole line and recorded in Liber 403 of
56 Deeds at page 542 .
r •
EXHIBIT 2
S , 4320 4 A . 6903
• 1
0 . January 5 . 1972 , for a pole line and recorded in Liber 498 of
2 Deeds at page 889 .
3 Tether with such rights of the grantors pursuant to an - eaeement
4 agreement with New York State Electric and Gas _Corporation by instrument
END
5 dated June 10 , 1981 . and recorded November 25 , 1981 in said Clerk ' s Ofoo
6 flee in Liber 586 of Deeds at page 856 .
7 BEING the same premises conveyed to the grantors herein by warriffi. .
8 dead from John Do Bodine and Patrick R . Mackesey gated and reggedid
9 November 25 , 1981 , in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s ff eei L1be 6 f
10 Deeds at page 861 ,
11 Parcel B2
12 ALL OR PART OF THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in the Town of
13 . Ithaca . _ County of Tompkins and State of New York being a part of Mili -
14 Lary Lot # 100 in said Towns located on the northeast side of the..Coddin -
15 ' gton Road , bounded and described . as follows : COMMENCING at a tioint I
16 . the center line of Coddington . Road 605 . 22 feet (9 17 chains)
17 southeasterly along said line from its intersection with the west boun -:
18 dary of Military Lot # 100 ; thence south 40 degrees east along the center,
' 19 line of said road 401 . 4 feet - (6 . 09 chains ) to the southwest corner of
20 premises formerly owned by Robert Coddington • thence north 34 degrees 45
21 minutes east 3326 . 4 feet ( 50 . 40 chains) to the north line of Military
22 ' Lot # 100 ; thence west along said Military Lot Line q18 . 72 feet ( 13 . 92
23 chains ) to premises formerly of Isaac Haws ; thence about south 27 d0% _
24 grees west 2640 feet (40 chains) to the place of BEGINNING
25 EXCEPTING AND RESERVING THEREFROM a strip of land conveyed to' tiff's
26 . Cayuga and Susquehanna Railroad Company by deed recorded in Book - 169 tof
27 Deeds at page 136 , and two parcels conveyed to the City of Ithaca ; one
28 recorded in Book ..175 of Deeds at page 531 and one recorded in Book245
=29 of Deeds at page 38 .
• 30 THIS CONVEYANCE ._ IS •SUBJECT to a richt -of=war across the northerly por - .
31 tion_ of . the above -described premises conveyed to the New York State
32 Electric Corporation by deed recorded in Book 218 of Deeds at page 572 .
33 - - BEING THE SAME PREMISES CONVEYED by- lyda E Small '. Edna Dunn and Clinton
34- • J . Updike • to DeForest Heffron . and Lula M Heffron as tenants by the en -
35 t i rets ' • by - deed dated May 24 1971 and recorded :in the Tompk i:ft.,Eouitty
` 3 ' Clerk ' s'- Office in Liber 492 of Deeds at pace- 1044 ,' . • ' .
37 Parcel B3
- 38 ALL OR : PART OF THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate - in the' Town- of
39 Ithaca . County of Tompkins and State of New York and bounded and
40 ' described as follows :
41 BEGINNING in the northerly boundery •jine of the farm property mow or
42 - formerly belonging to Curtin E . Matter , at a point in such line whey e
43 the northerly line of the property of the Delaware LackawaMa •at>d
44 Western Railroad intersects said boundary line such point also' 13ei'ng '
45 near a culvert and switch on said railroad * running thence easterly
46 along the line of the property now owned by the City of Ithaca about 650
NED
47 feet to a point : thence southerly in a direction at about right angles
48 to the last described line and runnina along the line ofproperty now -
49 owned by the City of Ithaca about 921 feet to the northerly line of 'tai's
. 50 Delaware , Lackawanna and Western Railroad running thence northwds:terl'y
51 along the northerly boundary of the said railroad property to the- -p-lace
52 of beginning .
53 BEING THE SAME PREMISES conveyed to the parties of the first pert i4
54 deed of Ralph C . Mandeville and Mary S . Mandeville by Deed recorded in
55 the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office on January 10 . 1958 . in Liber 403 of
56 Deeds at page 249 .
EXHIBIT 2
, a
S . 4320 5 Al. 6903
• 1 Parcel B4
2 ALL OR PART OF THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in the Town of
3 Ithaca Count of Tom kins State of New York bounded and described as
4 follows :
5 BEGINNING at a point in the center line of Coddington Road . said point
6 bel no N 27 ° 3 ' W 49 feet , more or less from the interseetlon of ° said
7 center line with the present center line of Troy Read : the S a1 35
8 E along the center 11ne of Troy Road 730 . 5 feet to a Point opposlte a
9 driveway , thence continuing S 27 15 ' E along said center llna 4�a
10 feet to a point over the center of a brooks thencepassing a
11 i e at 25 feet and along the center line of a brook a chord distance of
12 416 1 feet to a point , thence continuing along the center line of said `
13 brook N 65 ° 53 ' E a chord distance of 887 feet _to a point marked by a
141 . pipe , said point being 1240 feet more or less alongthe center line of
15 said brookfooloof from the center line of Coddington Road ; thence N 17 ° 15 ' E
16 bein aloe the westerI line of the former railroad right of way 278 5
7 , • feet to a go marked b a pipe set in an old fence and hed e • thence N
1 ° ' W bein the average bear in 4 . 1 feet alongthe old fence and
1.7
19 hedge to an 18 inch hickory tree . at a bend;
thence _ continuina along the
20 fence and he d e S 80 ° 11 ' W assin a pipe in the easterl lfeet to the
21 dinoton Road at about - 666 . 9 feet a total distance of 702 . 3
22 center line of Coddington Road the point of beginning .
23 BEING a ortion of the remises conve ed b Earle W . Bodine and Thelma
24 A . Bodine to 1 . Johnson and - Ruth -. Eo Johnson by deed dated August
25 28 , 1964 , recorded in the Tompkins County -Office in Liber 452 of
26 Deeds , page 64 Albert L Johnson died January 24 ,
1978 , leaving the
27 grantor herein as surviving tenant by the tenant .
28 The above described remises are shown on a " Surve ` Ma Lands of John
28 .Co , s
29 son located on Coddington Road , Mil Lot 97 Town of : •Ithaca , U08
4 .
30 New York " , made by T G : - Miller Associates P . C . , dated April 19 ,
31 . a co of which -is to be filed in said Clerk ' s Office - concurrently
33 The above 32 herewithe described premises are conveyed SUBJECT ,to )& �fol, lowing :
j4 ' 1 The rights of the public in and t0000 . -thaw •portion of the above
35 described premises lying within the bounds of Cb "k .ton Road a �1 ;
36 2 Easements granted to the New York State Elects is _ 6was ' CorooratIon . .
37 insofar as they affect the above described premises_
j8 a) Dated November 11 , 1930 , recorded in the Tom�kins _County Gle� k ' s
39 •Office in Liber 223 of Deeds , . page 70 ; • - > r `
40 b) Gas pipe line easement dated July lis
1961 , recor. ded . in . aid i -
41 Clerk ' s Office in Liber 436 of Deeds , page 6 � t.
42 The easement for installed utilities along or witfi' in '. the right of
43 way of Coddington Road .
44 Parcel B
45 ALL OR PART OF THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in the Town of .
46 Ithaca County of Tompkins and State of New York bounded and described
47 as follows :
48 BEGINNING in the zo�center of - Coddington Road at the extreme southerly
oof
49 corner of lands conveyed to Arr •rn K , Cham lin b 21,101 of Homer Benem
50 Namee recorded in the Tompkins County Clark ' s Off lee in Book .
51 Deeds at page 422 and running thence north - 59 ° 53' east 2 ., 22 o aeons
52 old fence and hedgerow , at 2146 4 ' passing through an old monuments to a
53 pipee, thence south 31 ° 04 ' east 740 1 ' to a monument thence sou h 0 ° 0 '
II
54 east 789 . 9 ' to a monument ; thence south 3� 30 ' east 460 2 " to a mon
55 ment , thence south 33 ° 0 ' east 69 8 ' to a i e thence south 8 ° 47 ' west
56 291 feet to a pipei thence north 81 ° 10 west 896 , x ' to a points thence
EXHIBIT 2
t ': S . 4320 6 A . 6903
r = 1 : - north - 710-331 -west 1 1 -. '- to ; a Point near- -on -1811 - hickory - - trees-- thanes- --
2 so 800111 west 702 . 3 to the canter - of CeddingtonAoedi thongs north
ty ; r3 27 . 07- ' : west along said center line " to the " place o1•: big Innlna .
4 EXCEPTING AND RESERVING THE FOLLOWINGS
Lot5 1 . - Ex i s t I ng pub 1 I c h i ghwav andy ut 1 1 1 tv r I ohts of way with 1 n ' the boundi
r . rL �`� � *.,� 6 ,;, of-tCodd i ngton " Road : ;,x: { � �� ° , �s � � 4 'e� ;,. , . °'mak 4 + 1 • . . .`: ,� n � 1 1
i '°t , 't 7 o' ce = c e o - 1 1 0` ` va`i'A'Imeda Steoheni ' by deed '
dated Au 02 raccirde " i n* the TompkIns County Clark ' s I e In
1
,, 91 ��Book x157 oV Deeds at page : 29
!10:` 3 .= t: cThe ' old D . Ldvr s W : `,Rai:Iroad `r. taht ` of . wavy' now own®d' bw New` York State
14,
1 ectr l c - and Gas: ' Compsnv
Easements - granted to the New York Electric and 'Gas Company by 'deeds
;x.13 ; recorded = i n . said C perk ' s' : Of f i ce ' i n ":Book' 392 of Deeds ' at page 495 . and In
r "XI 4•, - Book • 436 - of Deeds :- at page 794: ,;'•,.
Easement granted to New ' York Telephone. Comaam °bv deed' dated June 26 .
16l, -1984 and . recorded in said Clark ' s Office in Book 604 of Deeds at page
1.' _JU
. 18 BEING the same premises conveyed to Philip A . and Mary R . McEachron by
19 deed of . ira B . and Florence M . Myers by deed dated December 7 , 1949 and
20 recorded in said Clerk ' s Office in Book 327 of. Deeds at Pace .320 .
21 The . premises are shown on' a • survey map thereof labeled "map of Lands of
1p 22 Mary Smith " dated July 22 , 1985 , made by T . G . Mi11er Associates , to be
. .23 recorded concurrently herewith . _
24 S 2 . This act shall take effect immediately ,
•
. . . -
`
lot
or
to
t
1
EXHIBIT 2
o
.�
9 r
r
mom • £
A
• n
z
■ 3
• ■ a
• / o
I <
to •
•
•
•
84 ■ ♦ • l
•
■
, j
■
■
■
■
TO*
•
4w C)I I O of
■ %
W O O vD ■ r / '
F70.
in --
t m mcD -
O P �.
R u7 r ■ ' /
n
O " DI ■ - /
� m -A > v ZN �
NZ0 v m
2itCD
D m n n ■_
In
mm2? A � : ■
< mo � C � ■
n
t, M >
�p O
_ Z a� •
■
-CD a
- n
D
EXHIBIT 2 1 �
r
.7
TOVM OF rrE[A,CA
126 EAST SINICA MW
MCA, NEW YORK
MIN
May 9 , 1989
Honorable James Seward
State Senator
State of New York
tjOl
41 South Main Street (✓
Oneonta , New York 13820
Honorable Martin Luster
State Assemblyman
State of New York
106 East Court Street
Ithaca , New York' 14850
RE : Designation of portions of Fall Creek .as .a
Recreational River
Dear James and Martin :
This is in response to Martys "inquiry �• of April 28 °as to the status
of our consideration of the proposal received by the Town of Ithaca
• ' `' _- on April 17- frau Ms . Fabrizio . " At` the regular . meeting of . the Tann
Board `last evening , Ms . Fabrizio outlined the proposal and
indicated '. that a number of lamendments were being considered by the .
sponsor . She also indicated that' a DEC representative would
tentatively be in Ithaca at ' City Hall on May 24 to explain the
scenic rivers legislation and regulations .
The. Ithaca. Town Board will not have had the opportunity to ask
questions about the proposal until our June 12 meeting . That
meeting will also give affected property owners the opportunity for
further comment on the proposal . It the meantime , the Town
_Planning .Board has recannended that local Planning policies be
evatuated before . a position is taken by the Tann on the scenic
river proposal .
Thanks for your interest in this matter .
Very fly yours ,
Noel Desch
Supervisor
ND/ 7s
cc : Town Board
Planning Board
EXHIBIT 3
• .}."t : {- .`itf >de"S C r to . . `S 9s ♦ . to _ . " . _ _. '
ra AFFMAt 'lf. 4W
. _ fes: r ♦ - • ..
JOURNAL.
J.7
TO-.> ..
" m do rutttorz. drposms �
s � r
ate: &a) ttwoat bt residesin: IthlCvtumt� and nate af ^reki3 sad`
• . TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING
tart. ba: sr:.ttlss' �._ <�. -- ---- __ . ._ .._. ._. ...: _: ...-:.._ _...
BOARD, NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARINGS TUES. . MAY 16 '89
s= " By direction of the Chairman
TS$: htzA6k oi.7.N IL a. bl t: Dew i r=t'Dd� and U�l _ of the Planning Board, NOTICE
Alit - P. -IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public ' -
g ' 1 - Hearings will be held by the
r Ft is xrsudi.`� that lu L of VM" C� the &=elect is a tf' Ute'
Planning
onB Tuesday,oard of Town 16f
1989, in Town Hll , 126 East .
Seneca Street, Ithaca, N. Y. , at
the following times and on the
�_ __,- ^'!�. -•�- � _�_ _ •_ _., `___,• -- . .
following matte
-Consideration
matters .
of
-.. . .. . Subdivision Approval, for
the
-' -' proposed subdivision of 6 .4.9.
plus/minus acre Iotfrom Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6=24
.. .� ._ ._ . . - - -... . . . . ... . . - . _ — . ._.. __.. . . . - - • •-• -- . ._. . _ � _._... _ . .- - - - - ' 5- 10. 3, 6. 49 Plus/minus acres )
total , located on ' Bundy Road '
&D-� tr. �•+} Lst " L,�� t � C.^. or SL' s II : = : ! K'� Oi t
approximately nw feet west
F - - t�' t _._ ______._.. of its intersection with Hopkins
Road , Agricultural -District
Qt� (Town ). Carolyn B. Slaght and
�+ L }', , Ot - �. _ _ .. . . . . . . , .� ___• -_. _ . __ _ _ .. _ .__. ..._.. . . . _ . _ . . .. . .. ��_- U 1_• , l.. E. Bund Jr. , Owners; Fred-.
erick Beck Jr. , Esq Age
^
8: 15 P. M. Consideration of
f� Preliminary Subdivision A -
_ - - P
Pon k proposed Lane
to con ist of i
Oil �'"x. L^ :.. 511'0.^' «- . t : � .
_ . Z:. L: e; tip ._._.. _.. _ . . _ . _.__ .� ._ . .____ . C.fiV.:. _ . _ .. . - five single-family lots on of
6. 43 acre portion of Town of ;
Ithaca Tax
3. 1 44. 05 ac e
restotarcel al Tlocao. lted '
- at 144 Coy Glen Road, near
the corner of Five Mile Drive, '
Residence District R-30. Thom-
----- •.<• - -• _ • • - 1�. __ _ . ._. .__ _. __ .- ____— _..- _ ,_.._ _.. . as Richard and Clare Hinrichs,
Owners; Thomas Richard/Coyj
Or^"y C St '3 .L . Glen Associates, Applicant.
i �a• � GRD Said Planning Board will at �
J
:= rotary P � Mate of New York.
said times an said place hear ]
all persons in support of such
410 matters or objections thereto.
465 Persons may appear by agent ;
"romp.1C.lilS COUt9tY �/ r or person .
Jean H
n
. � . �n . Swartwood
1.9 , . ., Town Clerk
1 {(fes M3Y 31 / _ 273- 1721
^. f May 11 , 1989
rL- 1+n._ "02 .ate . - . . __ •- :- � '. - _ ' - - - - - - _
_ F •'
.�ti`?!'n::-�re -�.-V+... . . .y +ra - :. . R.i_ __ ._. '• - .. . _•r.. ..__. Ate_ . w rr- __ a - _ . . -.[...�._. � , ,mow - � .:? - : . . _ _ .__ •
.:• ,�i.�0"YJ��C.•a+l4R, •V .•Ci�q .. - . .y rtaeu.�- .. _ __. .. .. .. •. -. _ .