Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1989-07-18 EXCERPT Planning Board Meeting of July 18 , 1989 . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : PROPOSED REZONING OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 38 - 1 - 2 AND 6 - 38 - 1 - 3 , LOCATED AT 110 AND 116 EAST BUTTERMILK FALLS ROAD , FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 TO BUSINESS DISTRICT " C " . MARGARET RUMSEY , OWNER , Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted matter at 8 : 33 p . m . , and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Ms . Rumsey approached the Board and stated that the property was improperly zoned in 1954 ; it has never been a residence and there are no plans for it to be a residence , adding that by court order she had requested the Town Board to rezone the property . Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the property Ms . Rumsey wants rezoned is around the house . Ms . Rumsey responded that the property she had asked to have rezoned was the quonset hut , but apparently it does not have enough land to be rezoned , so it was suggested that she also do the house as well . Ms . Rumsey offered that the two properties together are a little less than 2 - 1 / 2 acres . Ms . Langhans noted that the two properties would be 110 and ' 116 East Buttermilk Falls Road . Robert Miller stated that he would be uncomfortable with rezoning the property because of Buttermilk Falls State Park , Mr . Miller • stated that he felt the Town of Ithaca was wrong in not giving Ms . Rumsey a variance to use her quonset hut , which she has been using and renting out over the years to various businesses . Continuing , Mr . Miller commented that the reason he was uncomfortable as to the rezoning to Business District " C " is because , if one looks at what " C " allows , Ms . Rumsey is not going to put an auto agency or liquor store there , but she could sell it to someone else and that someone would be free to put a business there that would not be compatible to the State Park , which is ' across the way from Ms . Rumsey ' s home . Mr . Miller offered that what could be done is to recommend to the Town Board that they give her a variance to use the quonset but for the way it has been used for the past few years , commenting that it is income for Ms . Rumsey . Mr . Miller again stated that he thought the Town was wrong in giving her a hard time on using it . Chairperson Grigorov thought that the problem was just the outside storage . Town Attorney Barney stated that the Zoning Board gave her a Special Approval ; the only issue at the time was on whether cable spools , which are rather fairly sizable pieces of equipment could be stored outside , and , indeed , at the time of the application was made , it was unclear as to whether they were going to be needed to be stored outside . Mr . Miller said that he has driven around there and , in his opinion , it is a very quiet business . Attorney Barney remarked that a condition was placed on the approval that no outside storage be permitted in what is , essentially , a residential zone . Attorney Barney stated that litigation ensued when the outside storage persisted after that approval was granted . Attorney Barney stated that a couple of times Ms . Rumsey was invited • to reapply to the Zoning Board of Appeals and demonstrate why the outside storage was a hardship , but noted that she has declined to do that , so he did not think . the Town was giving anybody a hard time . e / EXCERPT Planning Board Meeting of July 18 , 1989 . - 2 - • Mr . Miller commented that he has lived in Ithaca 30 + years and he has seen all kinds of businesses there , adding , no one has ever given her a hard time before ; why all of a sudden did they pick on her . Attorney Barney replied that he did not think anyone got picked on particularly ; there was a decision by Judge Ellison on the case where he specifically said that the defendant has two options ; she can either apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals to permit outside storage , or she can petition and apply for rezoning of her property , adding that she has opted to apply for rezoning . Attorney Barney stated that he has to take issue with the statement that the Town is picking on her , adding , the Town has an Ordinance to enforce . Mr . Miller remarked that he did not have the whole story . Chairperson Grigorov stated that Ms . Rumsey has permission to rent it for storage . Virginia Langhans mentioned that Mr . Miller said he did not get the Planning Board packet in the mail , so he did not read all the material . Attorney Barney noted that the only issue was the outside storage . Chairperson Grigorov stated that the Town is usually very hesitant to rezone small parcels . Ms . Langhans , directing her comment to Ms . Rumsey , wondered why she did not want to go for a variance to try and correct the storage area . Ms . Rumsey responded that the Town of Ithaca took her to court . Ms . Rumsey stated that after 34 years of non - conforming use , it was the Town of Ithaca that took her to court , commenting that this is a court order requesting her , after going to court , to try to get the matter taken care of . Chairperson Grigorov wondered if Ms . Rumsey had • the outside storage all those years . Ms . Rumsey replied , off and on for different things , yes . Chairperson Grigorov mentioned that the only problem was that the person renting from Ms . Rumsey places things outdoors . At this point , Allen Hayes , of 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road , addressed the Board and stated that the application that was submitted was submitted by him , and he was advising Ms . Rumsey about it . Mr . Hayes offered that outside storage is necessary for this particular business , noting that the Park itself engages in outside storage , and he felt that there is a double standard involved . Mr . Hayes commented that Buttermilk Falls State Park stores heavy equipment in what amounts to his front yard . Mr . Hayes held up a Tax Map showing the park properties involved , and pointed out the area that is filled with sheds and outside storage of steam shovels , bulldozers , trucks , etc . , adding that there is considerable ouside storage there which is across the road from the house . Mr . Hayes offered that the Park has outside storage in three other locations in the Park itself . Mr . Hayes remarked that as he understood it , the Park has outside storage which the Town has no control over , and which is pemitted by default . Mr . Hayes said that where the Town does have some control , they are attempting to prevent it , commenting that it seemed to him that that is a double standard . Chairperson Grigorov wondered why the Zoning Board of Appeals specifically stated no outside storage . Mr . Hayes responded that one would have to ask the Zoning Board why they did not • want outside storage . Mr . Hayes said that the Zoning Ordinance provides for outside storage , which is so noted in Section 60 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . EXCERPT Planning Board Meeting of July 18 , 1989 . - 3 - • Ms . Rumsey stated that at the time the approval was granted , and after people voted on it , was when someone on the Board said ; " and let ' s have no outside storage " , commenting that she remembered someone saying that . Ms . Langhans offered that it was probably because it was in a residential zone . Ms . Rumsey stated that it was after it had been voted on . Mr . Hayes stated that it is the residential zone they are here to correct . Ms . Rumsey stated that because it is a residential zone and it is not a residence , that is the court order to her to get it rezoned . Attorney Barney stated that it is an either / or ; it is to either apply for rezoning or apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Hayes mentioned the fact of applying to the ZBA for approval each time there is a new tenant , adding , the ZBA cannot act quick enough to keep the tenant from going away before the Board can get around to hear the case , and , second , the property owner should not be made to keep running to the ZBA and bothering them with something that a simple rezoning would eliminate , the proper thing to do would be to rezone it . Mr . Hayes mentioned that it should have been rezoned that way in the first place , and there never would have been any question . Mr . Miller remarked that Zoning " C " is being requested , which allows for a lot of things that Mr . Hayes would not want next to his house . Mr . Miller wondered why the applicant asked for zoning " C " . Ms . Rumsey replied that she did not have it in front of her to know what it all is . Ms . Rumsey said that she has no plans for specific changes . Chairperson Grigorov said that in 50 years it would still be zoned Business " C " . Mr . Miller stated that he worries about the next owner if it is rezoned . Mr . Hayes stated that the • property - should have been zoned Commercial Business when it was zoned in the first place , there would be no worry if it was zoned properly in 1954 , it is contiguous with the commercial strip in the City ; Route 13 is essentially commercial from one end to the other . Mr . Miller commented that the only thing is that there is a big railroad track bank that hides the property in question from the rest of the Elmira Road , Attorney Barney stated that if the property were rezoned Business " C " , he did not see that that would permit outside storage , with Mr . Hayes responding that it does not prohibit it . Mr . Hayes again mentioned Section 60 , of the Zoning Ordinance , Attorney Barney replied that Section 60 refers to junkyards . Mr . Hayes agreed with Attorney Barney . Attorney Barney noted that Section 36 of the Zoning Ordinance talks about permitted accessory uses in Business Districts " A " , " B " , " C " , " D " , and " E " , which specifically says : " Accessory storage buildings , but not to include outside storage . " Mr . Hayes stated that he felt that was not a prohibition ; it just does not approve it . Attorney Barney stated that his sense of the issue , and he suspects Judge Ellison would agree , is that that would not permit outside storage and one still has to seek a variance . Attorney Barney stated that as long as the use is in a less restrictive zone , then one does not have to go to the ZBA ; there is that right automatically , however , once one gets approval for a particular business use , which in this case is a cable company , although he was not sure if it goes • as high as " C " or not , then any other use would be permitted in that same level without the need of seeking a variance , or a lesser use if it was a " C " use , and , if there was something effectively an " A " use , EXCERPT Planning Board Meeting of July 18 , 1989 . - 4 - then one would be able to use an " A " use . Mr . Hayes stated that the application before the Board was for a rezoning and is supposed to discuss outside storage . Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that she has been involved with the matter since the original appeal to permit National Cable Craft to locate there , which was approximately two years ago [ March 9 , 1988 ] . Ms . Beeners stated that as she understood it , one of the things she was looking for as far as an impact mitigation related to allowing the Cable Craft Company to be there was a Site Plan showing how , indeed , parking was going to be located , and if there was to be outside storage . Ms . Beeners stated that she saw it as a very simple matter of some fairly modest improvements to the site to spruce it up a little bit , and to have some kind of screening for the areas that were going to be used for loading , dumpsters , etc . Ms . Beeners commented that in about 1986 she had suggested to Ms . Rumsey that she [ Ms . Beeners ] had considered it to be a fairly simple matter , and one that , hopefully , she would be able to find , in the local area , a landscape designer who could come up with the type of screening that she [ Ms . Beeners ] thought was appropriate . Ms . Beeners stated that she has advised them again , that that type of a site plan showing what existing and proposed improvements there might be related to those kinds of things , and that was definitely a part of what would have to be a submission for a rezoning application , adding that she has not received that at the present time . • Continuing , Ms . Beeners stated that while Ms . Rumsey and Mr . Hayes are saying that they are not proposing any improvements , there is really not a plan that shows where existing areas are designated for parking , for loading , and for unloading . Ms . Beeners again noted that she had advised Ms . Rumsey and Mr . Hayes that there has to be some kind of screening , either landscaping or some kind of fencing , put in the areas where the spools are , commenting that they reported that they would rather hear that kind of a request come from the Planning Board , as far as it being something that is deficient from the application . Ms . Beeners said that she did remind them that there is , unfortunately , no outside storage within the Zoning Ordinance , and also tried to clarify exactly what types of uses should be permitted there , as to uses under Business " C " were really suitable for the property . Ms . Beeners noted that they also talked a little bit about whether or not there could be some kind of a modified Business " C " , with certain uses specified . Ms . Beeners stated that she also threw out the idea of a possible Special Land Use District , commenting that the problem with the Special Land Use District is that there can be residence uses , and " A " , " B " , and " E " business uses . Ms . Beeners stated that there is nothing about Light Industrial or Business " C " . Mr . Hayes remarked that the residential designation is outlandish and cannot be complied with in a quonset hut . Mr . Miller commented that the applicant is asking for the but to also be changed to Business " C " , adding that he is not worried about Ms . Rumsey , but worried about the next owner . Chairperson Grigorov offered that there is also the • choice of renting it to someone who would not store anything outside . Mr . Miller mentioned a modified business use of the quonset hut , and leave the homestead out of it . EXCERPT Planning Board Meeting of July 18 , 1989 . - 5 - Assistant Town Planner George Frantz wondered about the lifespan of the quonset hut . Mr . Miller replied that it is all metal and on a concrete floor , adding that he thought it has another 30 - 40 years . Ms . Rumsey stated that the quonset but is being talked about for rezoning , adding , she did not care about her house being zoned business , although they said she must because of the size requirement . Ms . Langhans offered that she thought the applicant should go to the ZBA and ask for Special Approval for screened outside storage . Chairperson Grigorov stated that the applicant thinks she has to have a variance every time there is a new tenant , with Ms . Rumsey noting that that is exactly what has been said . Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the applicant has to get the approval renewed when a tenant is changed even if there is no change in the way its used , just a different tenant . Attorney Barney replied that if there is a tenancy , one dates back to a valid non - conforming use , adding , if it is assumed the Karate school was a valid non - conforming use , then it has to be figured out what Business District that qualifies under , but assuming it is a " A " , " B " , or " C " , then any other use in that Business District would be permitted . Continuing , Attorney Barney noted that if the Cable Company was a less restrictive Business District and they obtained approval for that , and once that use ended , there would be the right to go back to the same level that existed with the prior non - conforming use . Attorney Barney commented that if it is assumed the Cable Company is a less restrictive use than a Karate school , which it probably is , and wanting to stay at the same level of • restrictiveness as a Cable Company , then , yes , one would have to come back in for a new approval . Chairperson Grigorov stated that the matter is a Sketch Plan Review with the Board ' s general reaction and comments . Stephen Smith commented that he thought to state that the 1954 decision of zoning the property residential was incorrect just because of the quonset but sitting there was not correct ;zoning is not done in spot intervals ; it is looking at large areas . Mr . Smith stated that he thought the property was not improperly zoned , and the best bet would be to go for a variance , and continue with a non - conforming use . Mr . Miller asked about modified zoning for the quonset but only . Ms . Beeners re.sponded that she thought it would be possible , but the main problems are , as she sees it , that there has not been any effort to bring in a Site Plan showing what she [ Ms . Beeners ] would consider to be modest improvements made on the site , irrespective of what Board is being talked about , or what zoning mechanism . Mr . Miller wondered if Ms . Beeners was talking about landscape improvements , with Ms . Beeners responding , yes , particularly related to the front and the back of the quonset hut , which appeared to her , since Ms . Rumsey does have her Bed and Breakfast at 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road , would be in her [ Ms . Rumsey ] interest as well , to improve some of the ambiance • on the adjacent property . Ms . Beeners stated that what she would consider to be a minimum requirement has not been met . EXCERPT Planning Board Meeting of July 18 , 1989 . - 6 - • Mr . Hayes said that he would go along with a modified Business District that would limit it to something on the order of just the quonset hut . Mr . Miller wondered if all they would have to ask for is a variance for outside storage . Attorney Barney responded that it would have to be for the same type of occupancy , adding that he thought they have lost the non - conforming use rights , because , if anything , a Karate school is a permitted use in an R- 30 zone under Section 18 , Subdivision 4 , which notes private schools , and , assuming that the Karate school is a private school , at that point the building was presumably in compliance with R- 30 use regulations , so anything out of R- 30 now would require a variance . Attorney Barney offered that once it is abandoned for a period of one year , the use of a non - conforming use has been lost . Ms . Langhans said that Judge Ellison stated that the defendant has two options ; she can either apply to the ZBA to permit outside storage on the property , or petition for a rezoning . Attorney Barney stated that the applicant has specific approval to operate a cable supply , conditioned , among other things , on there being no outside storage . Ms . Rumsey stated that if Attorney Barney is right on his presumption of the issue , then that means that the quonset but is now a residence . Attorney Barney remarked that it is an R- 30 use . Attorney Barney stated that the other possibility is a kind of a version of a Special Land Use District which would encompass both the house and the quonset hut , provide specific use limitations , and allow certain uses for the business in the quonset hut . • Chairperson Grigorov offered that she felt the simplest remedy Y would be to try to get the requirement about the outside storage lifted by the ZBA , adding that rezoning is really drastic and permanent . Mr . Hayes stated that the quonset but must not be zoned residential . Mr . Hayes said that there is not anything in an R - 30 zone that that quonset but is adapted to . Attorney Barney noted that , among other things , an R- 30 zone permits other uses , other than a residence . Mr . Smith stated that the applicant already has approval for the present use ; a variance for outside storage is needed . Ms . Rumsey mentioned the Special Use for just the quonset but area . Attorney Barney replied that it could be looked at . Ms . Beeners stated that it would appear to her that the way the Special Land Use District legislation , Local Law No . 2 - 1984 , is set up , it would be preferable to have some kind of a unified plan , and , at a minimum , it would be appropriate to look at the Bed and Breakfast property and the quonset but as potentially one Special Land Use District , Ms . Beeners wondered if there could be some decisions by Ms . Rumsey as to , indeed , what types of uses she envisions for the property , both the Bed and Breakfast part and the quonset hut . Ms . Beeners said that , the Special Land Use District provisions in the combination of " A " , " B " , and " E " , should be firmed up as far as what the specific types of uses would be within such district . Ms . Beeners noted that there has to be more specificity about the types of uses on • the land , and also the requirements related to the process of a rezoning have to be met , which pertain to the requirements of Site Plan Approval in Section 46 , of the Zoning Ordinance , Ms . Beeners EXCERPT Planning Board Meeting of July 18 , 1989 . - 7 - • stated that apart from metes and bounds , a map has been submitted showing the rough - location of the three buildings on the property . Ms . Beeners stated that it would be her opinion that a topo map would not be an absolute requirement , because , indeed , it is a flat area , except for the railroad enbankment , adding , the crucial elements are landscaping , parking areas , and proposed improvements to make the quonset but site more compatible with both the Bed and Breakfast property and also with the Park on the other side of the road . Ms . Langhans wondered if that would have to go through a public hearing , with Ms . Beeners answering , yes , one at this Board , and one at the Town Board , Ms . Beeners noted that the rezoning matter had been referred by the Town Board to the Planning Board , Ms . Beeners stated that it would appear to her , based on what has been submitted , that additional information is being requested to conform to the procedure that is used for all rezoning applications , however , the Board is free to make a recommendation to the Town Board , Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to make a recommendation to the Town Board , Attorney Barney stated that the procedure is outlined in Section 46 of the Zoning Ordinance , whereby there is the requirement that a Site Plan be provided , and then the Planning Board holds a Public Hearing on the Site Plan , and then the recommendation is passed on to the Town Board . ' • It appeared to be the consensus of the Planning Board that Ms . Rumsey should go before the ZBA concerning the issue . Ms . Rumsey and Mr . Hayes stated that they would take the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairperson Grigorov closed the discussion of the proposed rezoning of 110 and 116 East Buttermilk Falls Road from Residence District R- 30 to Business District " C " at 10 : 00 p . m . Approved by Planning Board December 14 , 1989 . 67 Mary S . ryant , Recording Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . • STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS . : • I , the undersigned Deputy Town Clerk and Secretary to the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , DO HEREBY CERTIFY : That I have compared the foregoing copy of the duly approved Excerpt from the meeting of the Planning Board of said Town held on the 18th day of July , 1989 , with the original thereof on file in the office of the Town Clerk , and that the same is a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole of said original so far as the same relates to the subject matter therein referred to . I FURTHER CERTIFY that all members of said Board had due notice of said meeting and that , pursuant to Section 98 of the Public Officers Law ( Open Meetings Law ) , said meeting was open to the general public and that further notice of the time and place of such meeting , in addition to that required by law with respect to that matter before the Board requiring Public Hearing , was given to the public by posting the Agenda therefor in the following places on the following date and by giving such other notice as follows : Town Clerk ' s Bulletin Board July 12 , 1989 Notice Box Outside Front • Door of Town Hall July 12 , 1989 Affixed to Outside Door of Town Hall Meeting Room July 12 , 1989 Service by Mail upon the Media and Parties with Interest July 12 , 1989 IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Town this 15th day of December , 1989 , 0 Nancy M . uller , Deputy Town Clerk and Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , S A L N4 , o� FILE® TOWN OF ITHACTA Date • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk JULY 18 , 1989 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , July 18 , 1989 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia Langhans , Stephen Smith , Robert Kenerson , Robert Miller , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , George Frantz ( Assistant Town Planner ) , Nancy Fuller ( Planning Board Secretary ) , ALSO PRESENT : Tom Richard , Margie Rumsey , Allen W . Hayes , Les Reizes , Earland Mancini , Thomas G . Bell , R . Holgate , David C . Auble , Nancy Ostman , Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 55 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on July 10 , 1989 , and July 13 , 1989 , respectively , together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the property under discussion , as appropriate , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the • City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicant on July 11 , 1989 . At this time Virginia Langhans announced that she would not be in attendance at the August 1 , 1989 Planning Board Meeting . Town Attorney John Barney distributed copies to members of the Board of the " Decision " in regard to the Rumsey matter . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED " HACKBERRY LANE " SUBDIVISION , GRANTED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON MAY 16 , 19891P AND 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 . 11 44 . 05 ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED AT 144 COY GLEN ROAD , NEAR THE CORNER OF FIVE MILE DRIVE , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THOMAS RICHARD AND CLARE HINRICHS , OWNERS ; THOMAS RICHARD / COY GLEN ASSOCIATES , APPLICANT . Chairperson Grigorov announced that the above - noted matter was noticed for Publication and Notification , but it was not properly published in the newspaper . Chairperson Grigorov stated that she would entertain a motion to adjourn the Public Hearing . MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by Stephen Smith : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca• Planning Board , that the Public Hearing in the matter of Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed " Hackberry Lane " subdivision be and hereby is ' a Planning Board - 2 - July 18 , 1989 • adjourned until August 1 , 1989 at 7 : 30 p . m . , so that the Public Hearing can be re - noticed in accordance with requirements . At this point , Mr . Richard stated that he would not be able to attend the August 1 , 1989 Planning Board Meeting , but his partner would be present . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Smith , Kenerson , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . At this time , Mr . Kenerson wondered if there was anything the Board should know tonight . Mr . Richard responded that the only question concerned the water line . Ms . Langhans commented that she did not quite understand the access for the scientists . Mr . Richard responded that the scientists would be allowed to come in twice a year . Mr . Richard noted that there are two separate types of access - one being a 20 - foot or 25 - foot right- of -way for Cornell Plantations , which can be walked or driven through, to their larger parcel , and which is otherwise landlocked , commenting that that land is deeded to Cornell and they • can do whatever they want , anytime . Mr . Richard said that the additional access is for the reserve areas of the Hackberry tree protection and that land will not be built upon . Mr . Richard noted that the Hackberry trees essentially ring the property . Ms . Beeners mentioned the conservation easement , with Mr . Richard stating that it varies from 100 ' to 150 ' along Coy Glen Road , and then 25 ' along the back side . Ms . Beeners , referring to the open space matter , suggested that there essentially be an agreement by the developer that there actually be a deferral of the open space reservation requirement until the Planning Board "could review it again , and prior to the issuance of any third certificate of occupancy within the subdivision , or prior to any further subdivision applications , whichever might happen sooner . Ms . Beeners mentioned the possibility of money " in lieu " of land for open space . Ms . Beeners commented that the 25 ' access that the developer is providing for Plantations use , plus the set - backs from that land , equals about . 06 acres , or the 10 % . Ms . Beeners said that the conservation easement was intended , really , as she ( Ms . Beeners ) saw it , to be for the mitigation of some impacts to some uncommon species . Virginia Langhans wondered about the scientists going across private lots . Nancy Ostman , of Cornell Plantations , stated that she supposed that the scientists would not be going in the 50 - foot strip in the back of the private lots very frequently , probably 2 - 3 times a year at the very most . Ms . Ostman stated that there are two rare • butterflies found in the area of the Hackberry trees , adding , Cornell would like to protect these rare butterflies . Planning Board - 3 - July 18 , 1989 • Attorney Barney , referring to the Proposed Deed Restrictions for Hackberry Lane Subdivision , Paragraph No . 2 , stated that , from the Town ' s standpoint , he would be very uncomfortable having the Town condition the subdivision approval on a requirement that a paragraph such as No . 2 be contained in the Deed Restrictions . [ Proposed Deed Restrictions for Hackberry Lane Subdivision attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . 1 Ms . Langhans mentioned parking . Ms . Ostman stated that she assumed there would not be a lot of cars , adding , there would be room for the vehicles to pull off on the right - of -way . Attorney Barney mentioned Paragraph No . 3 , which presumbly would be numbered Paragraph No . 2 , when the existing Paragraph No . 2 disappears , if it disappears , and the use of the term single - family residential purposes only , commenting that he would like to see that a little more defined as to what is contemplated as family , and also prohibition , specifically , against subsidiary or secondary apartments , if , indeed , that is what is intended . Mr . Richard agreed with Attorney Barney . Mr . Richard stated that he would instruct his Attorney , Richard Salk , to contact Town Attorney Barney regarding the matter . Ms . Beeners mentioned monitoring parking on Hackberry Lane . Ms . Ostman stated that she would hope it would not become a major thoroughfare . • Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any other comments . There being none , Chairperson Grigorov declared discussion of the " Hackberry Lane " Subdivision duly adjourned at 8 : 32 p . m . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : PROPOSED REZONING OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 38 - 1 - 2 AND 6 - 38 - 1 - 3 , LOCATED AT 110 AND 116 EAST BUTTERMILK FALLS ROAD , FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 TO BUSINESS DISTRICT " C " . MARGARET RUMSEY , OWNER , Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted matter at 8 : 33 p . m . , and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Ms . Rumsey approached the Board and stated that the property was improperly zoned in 1954 ; it has never been a residence and there are no plans for it; to be a residence , adding that by court order she had requested the Town Board to rezone the property . Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the property Ms . Rumsey wants rezoned is around the house . Ms . Rumsey responded that the property she had asked to have rezoned was the quonset hut , but apparently it does not have enough land to be rezoned , so it was suggested that she also do the house as well . Ms . Rumsey offered that the two properties together are a little less than 2 - 1 / 2 acres . Ms . Langhans noted that the two properties would be 110 and 116 East Buttermilk Falls Road . Robert Miller stated that he would be uncomfortable with rezoning • the property because of Buttermilk Falls State Park , Mr . Miller stated that he felt the Town of Ithaca was wrong in not giving Ms . Rumsey a variance to use her quonset hut , which she has been using and Planning Board - 4 - July 18 , 1989 renting out over the years to various businesses . Continuing , Mr . Miller commented that the reason he was uncomfortable as to the rezoning to Business District " C " is because , if one looks at what " C " allows , Ms . Rumi'sey is not going to put an auto agency or liquor store there , but she could sell it to someone else and that someone would be free to put a business there that would not be compatible to the State Park , which is across the way from Ms . Rumsey ' s home . Mr . Miller offered that what could be done is to recommend to the Town Board that they give her a variance to use the quonset but for the way it has been used for the past few years , commenting that it is income for Ms . Rumsey . Mr . Miller again stated that he thought the Town was wrong in giving her a hard time on using it . Chairperson Grigorov thought that the problem was � just the outside storage . Town Attorney Barney stated that the Zoning Board gave her a Special Approval ; the only issue at the time was on whether cable spools , which are rather fairly sizable pieces of equipment could be stored outside , and , indeed , at the time of the application was made , it was unclear as to whether they were going to be needed to be stored outside . Mr . Miller said that he has driven around there and , in his opinion , it is a very quiet business . Attorney Barney remarked that a condition was placed on the approval that no outside storage be permitted in what is , essentially , a residential zone . Attorney Barney stated that litigation ensued when the outside storage persisted after that approval was granted . Attorney Barney stated that a couple of times Ms . Rumsey was invited to reapply to the Zoning Board of Appeals and demonstrate why the • outside storage, was a hardship , but noted that she has declined to do that , so he diad not think the Town was giving anybody a hard time . Mr . Miller commented that he has lived in Ithaca 30 + years and he has seen all kindslof businesses there , adding , no one has ever given her a hard time b,°efore ; why all of a sudden did they pick on her . Attorney Barney replied that he did not think anyone clot picked on particularly ; there was a decision by Judge Ellison on the case where he specifically said that the defendant has two options ; she can either apply t6 the Zoning Board of Appeals to permit outside storage , or she can petition and apply for rezoning of her property , adding that she has opted to apply for rezoning . Attorney Barney stated that he has to take issue with the statement that the Town is picking on her , adding , the Town has an Ordinance to enforce . Mr . Miller remarked that he did not have the whole story . Chairperson Grigorov stated that Ms . Rumsey has permission to rent it for storage . Virginia Langhans mentioned that Mr . Miller said he did not get the Planning Board , packet in the mail , so he did not read all the material . Attorney Barney noted that the only issue was the outside storage . Chairperson Grigorov stated that the Town is usually very hesitant to rez 'one small parcels . Ms . Langhans , directing her comment to Ms . Rumsey , wondered why she did not want to go for a variance to try and correct the storage area . Ms . Rums;ey responded that the Town of Ithaca took her to court . Ms . Rumsey stated that after 34 years of non - conforming use , it was the Town of Ithaca that took her to court , commenting that this is a court order requesting her , after going to court , to try to get the matter taken care of . Chairperson Grigorov wondered if Ms . Rumsey had the outside storage all those years . Ms . Rumsey replied , off and on Planning Board - 5 - July 18 , 1989 • for different things , yes . Chairperson Grigorov mentioned that the only problem was that the person renting from Ms . Rumsey places things outdoors . At this point , Allen Hayes , of 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road , addressed the Board and stated that the application that was submitted was submitted by him , and he was advising Ms . Rumsey about it . Mr . Hayes offered that outside storage is necessary for this particular business , noting that the Park itself engages in outside storage , and he felt that there is a double standard involved . Mr . Hayes commented that Buttermilk Falls State Park stores heavy equipment in what amounts to his front yard . Mr . Hayes held up a Tax Map showing the park properties involved , and pointed out the area that is filled with sheds and outside storage of steam shovels , bulldozers , trucks , etc . , adding that there is considerable ouside storage there which is across the road from the house . Mr . Hayes offered that the Park has outside storage in three other locations in the Park itself . Mr . Hayes remarked that as he understood it , the Park has outside storage which the Town has no control over , and which is pemitted by default . Mr . Hayes said that where the Town does have some control , they are attempting to prevent it , commenting that it seemed to him that that is a double standard . Chairperson Grigorov wondered why the Zoning Board of Appeals specifically stated no outside storage . Mr . Hayes responded that one would have to ask the Zoning Board why they did not want outside storage . Mr . Hayes said that the Zoning Ordinance provides for outside storage , which is so noted in Section 60 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Ms . Rumsey stated that at the time the approval was granted , and after people voted on it , was when someone on the Board said ; " and let ' s have no outside storage " , commenting that she remembered someone saying that . Ms . Langhans offered that it was probably because it was in a residential zone . Ms . Rumsey stated that it was after it had been voted on . Mr . Hayes stated that it is the residential zone they are here to correct . Ms . Rumsey stated that because it is a residential zone and it is not a residence , that is the court order to her to get it rezoned . Attorney Barney stated that it is an either / or ; it is to either apply for rezoning or apply to - the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Hayes mentioned the fact of applying to the ZBA for approval each time there is a new tenant , adding , the ZBA cannot act quick enough to keep the tenant from going away before the Board can get around to hear the case , and , second , the property owner should not be made to keep running to the ZBA and bothering them with something that a simple rezoning would eliminate ; the proper thing to do would be to , rezone it . Mr . Hayes mentioned that it should have been rezoned that way in the first place , and there never would have been any question . Mr . Miller remarked that Zoning " C " is being requested , which allows for a lot of things that Mr . Hayes would not want next to his house . Mr . Miller wondered why the applicant asked for zoning " C Ms . Rumsey replied that she did not have it in front of her to know what it all is . Ms . Rumsey said that she has no plans • for specific changes . Chairperson Grigorov said that in 50 years it would still be zoned Business " C " . Mr . Miller stated that he worries about the next owner if it is rezoned . Mr . Hayes stated that the Planning Board - 6 - July 18 , 1989 • property should have been zoned Commercial Business when it was zoned in the first place , there would be no worry if it was zoned properly in 1954 ; it is contiguous with the commercial strip in the City , Route 13 is essentially commercial from one end to the other . Mr . Miller commented that the only thing is that there is a big railroad track bank that hides the property in question from the rest of the Elmira Road , Attorney Barney stated that if the property were rezoned Business " C " , he did not see that that would permit outside storage , with Mr . Hayes responding that it does not prohibit it . Mr . Hayes again mentioned Section 60 , of the Zoning Ordinance . Attorney Barney replied that Section 60 refers to junkyards . Mr . Hayes agreed with Attorney Barney . Attorney Barney noted that Section 36 of the Zoning Ordinance talks. about permitted accessory uses in Business Districts B C D and which specifically says : " AccessoryA , , , storage buildings , but not to include outside storage . " Mr . Hayes stated that he felt that was not a prohibition ; it just does not approve it . Attorney Barney stated that his sense of the issue , and he suspects Judge Ellison would agree , is that . that would not permit outside storage and one still has to seek a variance . Attorney Barney stated that as long as the use is in a less restrictive zone , then one does not have to go to the ZBA ; there is that right automatically , however , once one gets approval for a particular business use , which in this case is a cable company , although he was not sure if it goes • as high as " C " or not , then any other use would be permitted in that same level without the need of seeking a variance , or a lesser use if it was a " C " use , and , if there was something effectively an " A " use , then one would be able to use an " A " use . Mr . Hayes stated that the application before the Board was for a rezoning and is supposed to discuss outside storage . Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that she has been involved with the matter since the original appeal to permit National Cable Craft to locate there , which was approximately two years ago [ March 9 , 1988 ] . Ms . Beeners stated that as she understood it , one of the things she was looking for ' as far as an impact mitigation related to allowing the Cable Craft Company to be there was a Site Plan showing how , indeed , parking was going to be located , and if there was to be outside storage . Ms . Beeners stated that she saw it as a very simple matter of some fairly modest improvements to the site to spruce it up a little bit , and to have some kind of screening for the areas that were going to be used for loading , dumpsters , etc . Ms . Beeners commented that in about 1986 she had suggested to Ms . Rumsey that she [ Ms . Beeners ] had considered it to be a fairly simple matter , and one that , hopefully , she would be able to find , in the local area , a landscape designer who could come up with the type of screening that she [ Ms . Beeners ] thought was appropriate . Ms . Beeners stated that she has advised them again , that that type of a site plan showing what existing and proposed improvements there might be related to those kinds of things , and that was definitely a part of what would have to • be a submission for a rezoning application , adding that she has not received that at the present time . Planning Board - 7 - July 18 , 1989 • Continuing , Ms . Beeners stated that while Ms . Rumsey and Mr . Hayes are saying that they are not proposing any improvements , there is really not a plan that shows where existing areas are designated for parking , for loading , and for unloading . Ms . Beeners again noted that she had advised Ms . Rumsey and Mr . Hayes that there has to be some kind of screening , either landscaping or some kind of fencing , put in the area 's where the spools are , commenting that they reported that they would rather hear that kind of a request come from the Planning Board , as far as it being something that is deficient from the application : Ms . Beeners said that she did remind them that there is , unfortunately , no outside storage within the Zoning Ordinance , and also tried to clarify exactly what types of uses should be permitted there , as to uses under Business " C " were really suitable for the property . Ms . Beeners noted that they also talked a little bit about whether or not there could be some kind of a modified Business " C " , with certain uses specified . Ms . Beeners stated that she also threw out the idea of a possible Special Land Use District , commenting that the problem with the Special Land Use District is that there can be residence uses and " A " " B " " Ms . Beeners and E business uses . stated that there is nothing about Light Industrial or Business " C " . Mr . Hayes remarked that the residential designation is outlandish and cannot be complied with in a quonset hut . Mr . Miller commented that the applicant is asking for the but to also be changed to Business " C " , adding that he is not worried about Ms . Rumsey , but worried about the next owner . Chairperson Grigorov offered that there is also the • choice of renting it to someone who would not store anything outside . Mr . Miller mentioned a modified business use of the quonset hut , and leave the homestead out of it . Assistant Town Planner George Frantz wondered about the lifespan of the quonset hut . Mr . Miller replied that it is all metal and on a concrete floor ,, adding that he thought it has another 30 - 40 years . Ms . Rumsey stated that the quonset but is being talked about for rezoning , adding , she did not care about her house being zoned business , although they said she must because of the size requirement . Ms . Langhans offered that she thought the applicant should go to the ZBA and ask for Special Approval for screened outside storage . Chairperson Grigorov stated that the applicant thinks she has to have a variance every time there is a new tenant , with Ms . Rumsey noting that that is exactly what has been said . Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the applicant has to get the approval renewed when a tenant is changed even if there is no change in the way its used , just a different tenant . Attorney Barney replied that if there is a tenancy , one dates back to a valid non- conforming use , adding , if it is assumed the Karate school was a valid non - conforming use , then it has to be figured out what Business District that qualifies under , but assumingit is a " A " " B " " " or C then any other use in that Business District would be permitted . Continuing , Attorney Barney noted that if the Cable Company was a less restrictive Business District and they obtained approval for that , and once that use ended , there would be • the right to go back to the same level that existed with the prior non - conforming use . Attorney Barney commented that if it is assumed the Cable Company is a less restrictive use than a Karate school , Planning Board - 8 - July 18 , 1989 which it probably is , and wanting to stay at the same level of restrictiveness as a Cable Company , then , yes , one would have to come back in for a new approval . Chairperson Grigorov stated that the matter is a Sketch Plan Review with the Board ' s general reaction and comments . Stephen Smith commented that he thought to state that the 1954 decision of zoning the property residential was incorrect just because of the quonset but sitting there was not correct ; zoning is not done in spot intervals ; it is looking at large areas . Mr . Smith stated that he thought the property was not improperly zoned , and the best bet would be to go for a variance , and continue with a non - conforming use . Mr . Miller asked about modified zoning for the quonset but only . Ms . Beeners responded that she thought it would be possible , but the main problems are , as she sees it , that there has not been any effort to bring in a Site Plan showing what she [ Ms . Beeners ] would consider to be modest improvements made on the site , irrespective of what Board is being talked about , or what zoning mechanism . Mr . Miller wondered if Ms . Beeners was talking about landscape improvements , with Ms . Beeners responding , yes , particularly related to the front and the back of the quonset hut , which appeared to her , since Ms . Rumsey does have her Bed and Breakfast at 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road , would be • in her [ Ms . Rumsey ] interest as well , to improve some of the ambiance on the adjacent property . Ms . Beeners stated that what she would consider to be a minimum requirement has not been met . Mr . Hayes said that he would go along with a modified Business District that would limit it to something on the order of just the quonset hut . Mr . Miller wondered if all they would have to ask for is a variance for outside storage . Attorney Barney responded that it would have to be for the same type of occupancy , adding that he thought they - have lost the non - conforming use rights , because , if anything , a Karate school is a permitted use in an R- 30 zone under Section 18 , Subdivision 4 , which notes private schools , and , assuming that the Karate school is a private school , at that point the building was presumably in compliance with R- 30 use regulations , so anything out of R- 30 now would require a variance . Attorney Barney offered that once it is abandoned for a period of one year , the use of a non - conforming use has been lost . Ms . Langhans said that Judge Ellison stated that the defendant has two options ; she can either apply to -the ZBA to permit outside storage on the property , or petition for a rezoning . Attorney Barney stated that the applicant has specific approval to operate a cable supply , conditioned , among other things , on there being no outside storage . Ms . Rumsey stated that if Attorney Barney is right on his presumption of the issue , then that means that the quonset but is now a residence . Attorney Barney remarked that it is an R- 3 .0 use . • Attorney Barney stated that the other possibility is a kind of a version of a Special Land Use District which would encompass both the Planning Board - 9 - July 18 , 1989 house and the quonset hut , provide specific use limitations , and allow certain uses for the business in the quonset hut . Chairperson Grigorov offered that she felt the simplest remedy would be to try to get the requirement about the outside storage lifted by the ZBA , adding that rezoning is really drastic and permanent . Mr . Hayes stated that the quonset but must not be zoned residential . Mr' . Hayes said that there is not anything in an R- 30 zone that that quonset but is adapted to . Attorney Barney noted that , among other things , an R- 30 zone permits other uses , other than a residence . Mr . Smith stated that the applicant already has approval for the present use ; a variance for outside storage is needed . Ms . Rumsey mentioned the Special Use for just the quonset but area . Attorney , Barney replied that it could be looked at . Ms . Beeners stated that it would appear to her that the way the Special Land Use District legislation , Local Law No . 2 - 1984 , is set up , it would be preferable to have some kind of a unified plan , and , at a minimum , it would be appropriate to look at the Bed and Breakfast property and the quonset but as potentially one Special Land Use District , Ms . Beeners wondered if there could be some decisions by Ms . Rumsey as to , indeed , what types of uses she envisions for the property , both the Bed and Breakfast part and the quonset hut . Ms . Beeners said that , the Special Land Use District provisions in the combination of " A " , " B " , and " E " , should be firmed up as far as what the specific types of uses would be within such district . Ms . Beeners • noted that there has to be more specificity about the types of uses on the land , and also the requirements related to the process of . a rezoning have to be met , which pertain to the requirements of Site Plan Approval in Section 46 , of the Zoning Ordinance . Ms . Beeners stated that apart from metes and bounds , a map has been submitted showing the rough location of the three buildings on the property . Ms . Beeners stated that it would be her opinion that a topo map would not be an absolute requirement , because , indeed , it is a flat area , except for the railroad enbankment , adding , the crucial elements are landscaping , parking areas , and proposed improvements to make the quonset but site more compatible with both the Bed and Breakfast property and also with the Park on the other side of the road . Ms . Langhans wondered if that would have to go through a public hearing , with Ms . Beeners answering , yes , one at this Board , and one at the Town Board , Ms . Beeners noted that the rezoning matter had been referred by the. Town Board to the Planning Board . Ms . Beeners stated that it would appear to her , based on what has been submitted , that additional information is being requested to conform to the procedure that is used for all rezoning applications , however , the Board is free to make a recommendation to the Town Board , Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to make a recommendation to the Town Board , Attorney Barney stated that the procedure is outlined in Section • 46 of the Zoning Ordinance , whereby there is the requirement that a Site Plan be provided , and then the Planning Board holds a Public Planning Board - 10 - July 18 , 1989 • Hearing on the Site Plan , and then the recommendation is passed on to the Town Board . It appeared to be the consensus of the Planning Board that Ms . Rumsey should go before the ZBA concerning the issue . Ms . Rumsey and Mr . Hayes stated that they would take the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairperson Grigorov closed the discussion of the proposed rezoning of 110 and 116 East Buttermilk Falls Road from Residence District R- 30 to Business District " C " at 10 : 00 p . m . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 21 - 1 - 5 , LOCATED ON TAUGHANNOCK BLVD . ( BETWEEN 1051 AND 1081 ) , INTO SIX LOTS . MARGARET B . REIZES , OWNER , Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted matter at 10 : 02 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Mr . Les Reizes addressed the Board and stated that a Sketch Plan of the project had been submitted in June 1989 , and noted that , at that time , there were slanted boundary lines between the proposed six lots , commenting that Assistant Town Planner George Frantz had pointed out that , under' the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance , if a rectangle would not fit in it , then different set - backs would be required , which • Mr . Reizes stated he had not been aware of . Mr . Reizes offered that the new drawing has not substantially changed , but does straighten the boundary somewhat , so that the rectangle fits . Mr . Reizes offered that there are now six equal rectangles in the subdivision . Mr . Reizes stated that this property is also part of the submission of the Cayuga Lske Estates plan , which he understands is being re - submitted July 19 , 1989 . ` Mr . Reizes stated that his proposal is being submitted on its own and does not propose it to be included in the Cayuga Lake Estates plan , if that is ever approved . Board member Robert Miller wondered if these lots would be developed into home sites . Mr . Reizes replied , yes , they would be available for use as single - family residences in an R- 15 zone . Mr . Miller asked if the lots would be entered from Taughannock Blvd . , with Mr . Reizes answering , yes . Mr . Reizes said that he thought the most practical solution would be to place the garages. five feet in , down on the Blvd . , which is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance , if the grade is more than 80 . Ms . Beeners stated that it does not seem logical to further review the Reizes submission without clarification of the Cayuga Lake Estates proposal . Mr . Reizes said that there was no problem with water and sewer being connected to each lot . Ms . Beeners noted , in Part II of the EAF , that the only recent plan for subdivision of these lands is currently under review by the Planning Board as part of the proposed Cayuga Lake Estates subdivision , where forty- eight lots , plus • land for a road connection to Rte . 89 , and an outlot for sewer and open space use , have most recently been proposed , and . communications between her and the developer of Cayuga Lake Estates have indicated Planning Board - 11 - July 18 , 1989 • that the developer proposes to submit a revised plan within the next few months showing a lower overall density , while maintaining a connection to Rte . 89 , Mr . Reizes stated that he would wait for the Cayuga Lake Estates proposal to be submitted , but that he was in a position now to do a little more engineering on Lot # 2 and the drainage , and be prepared to go ahead with his submission if Cayuga Lake Estates is riot approved . Ms . Langhans mentioned to Mr . Reizes that the depth of the lots and the NYSEG issue would have to be resolved . Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any other comments . There being none , Chairperson Grigorov declared the sketch plan review of the proposed 6 - lot subdivision by Margaret B . Reizes duly closed . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 1 . 15 ACRE PARCEL FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , 88 ± ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED NORTHWEST OF 608 ELMIRA ROAD , AND FURTHER , PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 1 , 000 SQ . FT . PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 41 0 . 9 ± ACRE TOTAL , LOCATED AT 614 ELMIRA ROAD , FOR CONSOLIDATION INTO SAID PROPOSED 1 . 15 ACRE PARCEL , AND FURTHER , PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 12 , 000 SQ . FT . WAREHOUSE ON SUCH NEW PROPOSED 1 . 17 ACRE CONSOLIDATED PARCEL , LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT . EARLAND AND ROBERT MANCINI , OWNERS OF PARCEL N0 , 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 ; THOMAS AND MARTHA BELL , T & M CONVENIENCE OF ITHACA , INC . , OWNERS OF PARCEL NO , 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 4 ; THOMAS • BELL , APPLICANT . Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted matter and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Mr . Bell approached the Board and stated that he would like to build a warehouse behind his Convenience Food Store at 614 Elmira Road , adding that the warehouse would be 12 , 000 sq . ft . Mr . Bell stated that the topo of the land has limited usage because of the NYSEG right -of - way . Mr . Bell said that he is requesting a subdivision as well as a sideyard and backyard variance . Board member Robert Miller stated that he sees no problem with this request . Town Planner Susan Beeners offered that , given the information she has , she does not see any great environmental problems with what is being proposed , as long as there is more information supplied with respect to how one treats the bank between the Bells ' store and the warehouse , and also the drainage issue . Ms . Beeners stated that the problem is that just about every application for development within that Light Industrial District has to seek variances , and part of it seems to be related to the NYSEG right- of -way , which runs through the middle of the site . Ms . Beeners stated that it deals with variances on a property where , indeed , the whole thing has to be brought into more of a context , commenting that there has to be an overall plan showing what the potential development of the remainder of the land is going to be . Chairperson Grigorov mentioned that Mr . Mancini was told • the last time , with the Cannon Pools project , that no more of his land could be subdivided until the Board had an overall plan . Ms . Langhans stated that quite a lot of property is involved . Ms . Beeners stated Planning Board - 12 - July 18 , 1989 • that any future subdivision proposals were to reflect an overall plan for the use of the Mancini parcel . Mr . Bell said that access to his warehouse would be by private road . Mr . Miller stated that he did not see any problem for Mr . Mancini to bring in an overall plan . Mr . Bell said that a plan was supposed to have been brought in today , July 18 , 1989 . Mr . Kenerson offered that the existing lots are not on a municipal highway ; that is a private road . Ms . Beeners agreed , and mentioned Section 280 - a of the Town Law . Mr . Bell stated that he has been working on the proposal for three months , and does not see where he does not meet the normal flow that everyone else has already done . Attorney Barney stated that the problem is that all that has been done has been done without a subdivision map of the whole parcel . Mr . Bell offered that he has had a commitment on the piece of land in question for five years . Mr . Miller did not see any problems with the project . Board Member Smith wondered what the reason was for not increasing the size of the lot , so that sideyard variances could be met . Mr . Bell responded that he cannot do that because Mr . Mancini has sold the other lots . Attorney Barney stated that the Board has to see the NYSEG easement . Mr . Miller , wondered about the height of the building . Mr . Bell replied that the building would be 24 feet , with a pitched roof . Mr . • Miller again stated that he does not see anything wrong with the plan . Mr . Kenerson stated that a subdivision plan is needed . Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any other comments . There being none , Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Bell Sketch Plan Review for 2 subdivision proposals and a warehouse proposal duly closed . AGENDA ITEM PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT Ms . Beeners stated that by the end of the year she thought that the number of development projects actually accrued is going to be way , way , down compared to the last couple of years . Ms . Beeners said that the work done for the Planning Department by the student interns has not really proceeded at the pace she had expected , because the Engineering Department has been in the process of being moved to the former Court Room in the front of the building . Ms . Beeners offered that , now that there is extra space , she is confident that , the Planning Department will be :. able to stay on target and have some mapping , and have some studies of the stream corridors , including Fall Creek , in some kind of a timely fashion . Ms . Beeners reported that she and Assistant Town Planner George • Frantz attended a meeting at the Biggs Complex regarding the north / south connector . Planning Board - 13 - July 18 , 1989 • Ms . Beeners also stated that she has scheduled Mr . Wendt , Director of the Cornell Transportation Department , to present the ' proposed 700 car Cornell parking lot , which is behind the East Hill Plaza , adding , this will be presented in August 1989 , Ms . Beeners mentioned that the latest report on the Comprehensive Planning Consultant issue was that there was a matter of some litigation that was not the fault of Stuart I . Brown Associates , commenting , it "Was related to another project they were working on in another communi" ty . Ms . Beeners stated that that was the latest rationale for not getting the report to her by Monday , July 17 , 1989 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 4 , 1989 MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by Stephen Smith : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of April 4 , 1989 , be and hereby are approved as presented . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Smith , Kenerson , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION ° was declared to be carried unanimously . • APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 16 , 1989 MOTION by Virginia Langhans , seconded by Robert Kenerson : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of May 16 , 1989 , be and hereby are approved as presented . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Smith , Kenerson , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION ' was declared to be carried unanimously . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairperson Grigorov declared the July 18 , 1989 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 00 p . m . Respectfully submitted ,. Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . i J , PROPOSED DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR HACKBERRY LANE SUBDIVISION Subject . to the following covenants , restrictions , licenses and easements which shall run with the land , binding the Grantees , heirs , successors and / or assigns : 1 . The Grantee , their successors , . . assigns , agenta or licensee ' s shall remove no trees . ( by cutting or otherwise ) greater than four ( 4 ) inches :in diameter nor any Hackberry trees unless , such tree - or trees are dead , diseased or have j 'limbs, which , pose a hazard to, primary - structures on the 'premises or which may , if left in . thegj then current state , cause a serious physical injury ' .to• persens walking near them . This restriction shall be limited to the area marked " " Hackberry • Protection . Area " -on - . t-he survey map • ref•erred ,11to above . -2 . Subject to .a license for access _ to, Hackberry ' Protection Area ( shown on said surv.ey ) . by . sc .ientist > affiliated with an accredited university or research institution located within the State -of New York for a minimum period no more than at total for all scientists of two ( 2 ) days per year .or at such other times 'w :ith the I .• permission of the Grantee. . The . s'centists-. =will make their best efforts to notify the Grantee in advance of any visits . Said scientists assume all . , ri. sks of exercising this license and will hold the Grantee ' s' - harmless from any and all liability resulting from the exercise of said license . 3 . The Grantee covenants for himself , his heirs , successors and assigns that .the premises shall be used for single family residential purposes only and such accessory buildings and uses as may comply with the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . (. For Lots 3 and 4 ) j I 4 . Notwithstanding the set back requirements provided for in . the Zoning Ordinance , no improvements shall be constructed ( for Lot 4 : within 55 feet of the northerly- line of the premises deeded to Cornell Unive �• sity by Coo- Glen Associates , Inc . ) ( for Lot 3 : within 40 feet of the i southerly boundary of the lands . conveyed to Cornell University by Coy Glen Associates , Inc . ) . • EXHIBIT 1