HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1989-08-01 FILED.
TOWN OF ITWAC
. bate
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
Clerk
AUGUST 1 , 1989
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , August 1 , 1989 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca ,
New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairperson Grigorov , James Baker , Robert Miller , Stephen
Smith , Robert Kenerson , William Lesser , Susan Beeners ( Town
Planne' r ) , Sally S . Olsen ( Town Engineer ) , John C . Barney
( Town Attorney ) , Andrew S . Frost ( Town Building
Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Evan N . Monkemeyer , Herbert Monkemeyer , Donald R .
Sweezy , Alex Blackmer , Robb Johnsrod , Leslie Reizes ,
Bonnie Simpson , Nancy Ostman , Attorney Shirley K . Egan ,
Mark Lancelle , Myrtle J : Whitcomb , John Whitcomb , Peter
& Lydia Hillman , Marc D . Macaluso , David R . Auble , Kell
C . Auble , Elliott Lauderdale , David A . Herrick , David
J . Stotz , Thomas G . Bell , N . Nolte , Harrison Rue , David
C . Auble , Rick Holt , Laura Marks , Jean Brockway , Peter
Trowbridge , Charlotte Bosworth , Edward Bosworth , Wayne
R . Barr , Sandra Rogers , Marty Newhart , George Schlecht ,
M . A . Stoffregen .
• Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 40
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 July 24 , 1989 , and July 27 , 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 ,
upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the City of
Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , upon the
Tompkins County Administrator , upon the Manager of the Finger Lakes
Region of the NYS Office of Parks , Recreation , & Historic
Preservation , and upon the applicants and / or agents , as appropriate ,
on July 25 , 1989 .
Chairperson 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 .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED " HACKBERRY LANE " SUBDIVISION , GRANTED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION .
APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON MAY 16 , 1989 , 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 . ( ADJOURNED FROM JULY 18 , 1989 . )
.'f
Planning Board - 2 - August 1 , 1989
• Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Alex Blackmer , representing Coy Glen Associates , approached
the Board and stated that he thought the proposed subdivision makes a
positive contribution to the community , such as preserving the Coy
Glen neighborhood , and the unique environment , as well as creating a
new neighborhood on Hackberry Lane .
Chairperson Grigorov . noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairperson
Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 42 p . m . and brought the matter
back to the Board for discussion .
Mr . Kenerson stated that the proposal was pretty well covered at
the July 18 , 1989 Planning Board Meeting ,
Mr . Lesser stated that the proposal looked well - planned to him .
Mr . Lesser wondered about the issue of the water main and whether it
is the responsibility of the Planning Board or totally a matter
between the developer and the Town Board in determining an agreement
on the payment. Town Engineer Sally Olsen responded that it is
between the developer and the Town Board .
• Ms . Beeners noted that the Deed Restrictions were changed to omit
the access for scientific research . [ Attachment to Hackberry Lane
Subdivision Deed Restrictions attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . ]
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . Stephen Smith :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed " Hackberry Lane " Subdivision , granted
Preliminary Subdivision Approval by the Planning Board on May 16 ,
1989 , 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 . 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 made , on .May 16 , 1989 ,
a negative determination of environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board , on July 18 , 1989 , and at Public Hearing on
August 1 , 11989 , has reviewed the proposed final subdivision plat ,
proposed deed restrictions , and other submissions for this
. action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
: a
Planning Board - 3 - August 1 , 1989
• i . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements of Final Subdivision Approval , having determined
from the materials presented that such waiver will result in
neither a significant alteration of the purposes 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 proposed " Hackberry Lane "
Subdivision , subject to the following conditions and
requirements :
a . the passage of a resolution by the Town Board determining
the size of the watermain along Coy Glen Road , and agreeing
upon a method by which the cost of the watermain along Coy
Glen Road is shared by the developer and the Towns
be the submission of a letter of credit , prior to the issuance
of any building permits , in an amount sufficient to ensure
the satisfactory completion of site improvements , with the
amount of credit to be approved by the Town Supervisor and
the Town Engineer , and the form of such letter of credit to
be approved by the Town Attorney .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
• Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Miller , Smith , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Consideration of Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed " Hackberry Lane " Subdivision
duly closed at 7 : 46 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD
WITH RESPECT TO A PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
RELATIVE TO THE OCCUPANCY OF DWELLING UNITS .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 47 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
[ Local Law No . For The Year 1989 Amending the Zoning
Ordinance Relative To The Occupancy Of Dwelling Units attached hereto
as Exhibit 2 . ]
Attorney Barney stated that the concern in the Ithaca community
is that over the years the Town has had a history of litigation
involving large numbers of , basically , students living together in
what are normally single - family or maybe two - family residential areas .
• Continuing , Attorney Barney stated that this has got to be
approached from a little bit different perspective , adding , * the Town
still attempts to regulate by unrelated persons , and allow more than
4 Planning Board - 4 - August 1 , 1989
• the limited number if a permit is obtained , and if the people can
demonstrate that they are going to occupy the units as a traditional
family unit . Attorney Barney offered that the Court of Appeals
basically seems to be saying that one can regulate occupancy , but one
cannot draw distinctions solely on the basis that somebody is related
or not related .
William Lesser stated that he approved , very much , of the
inclusion in this proposed revision of some restriction on occupancy
in multiple residence areas . Mr . Lesser wondered about the
grandfathering issue . Attorney Barney responded with , as to those
where it exists now , there would be a valid. non- conforming use .
Attorney Barney noted that the non - conforming use goes with the
ownership .
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone , present wished to speak .
Peter Hillman , of 370 Stone Quarry Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he would like to applaud Attorney Barney for putting
together something that addresses a serious concern of the community ,
and allows for flexibility , and hopefully it will be upheld in the
courts .
Mr . Hillman , referred to attached Exhibit 2 , Page 4 , Item No .
• ( iv ) . Mr . Hillman commented that he was confused about Item No . ( iv ) ,
in that it seems to imply that it allows three per dwelling unit .
Attorney Barney responded that in the current Zoning Ordinance it
provides that for a single - family house there can be a family plus two
boarders , roomers , or , basically , unrelated individuals , adding , there
can be a traditional family plus two people , or there can be a maximum
of three unrelated people . Attorney Barney said that in a two - family
house if one of the units is occupied by a traditional family the
other unit can be occupied by two unrelated people , and if both units
are occupied by unrelated people there is a maximum of three .
Attorney Barney noted that this makes a distinction between a
single - family and a two - family . Attorney Barney stated that a family
as presently defined is up to two unrelated people , and with a
single - family house , one is allowed one boarder or roomer , so , in
effect , in a single - family house one could have three unrelated people
and be perfectly legal , adding , however , the present draft does not
permit that in two - family houses any more ; no boarders or roomer or
anything of that nature in a two - family house . Attorney Barney said
that one could get , conceivably , four unrelated people in a two - family
house , but no more , commenting , this limitation of four per dwelling
unit really is designed to apply to where there is a single - family
house where three is legal , and as soon as there is four it is no
longer legal . Mr . Hillman stated that he would feel more comfortable
with it if there was a clear distinction between a single dwelling
unit in a single - family house , otherwise a two - family house is
actually being applied as a single dwelling unit . Attorney Barney
• referred to Exhibit 2 , Page 6 , Item No . 1 , along with referring to
Item No . 5 on Page 6 . Mr . Hillman stated that he was reflecting back
to the original . Zoning Ordinance .
Planning Board - 5 - August 1 , 1989
. Continuing , Mr . Hillman stated that he has a concern regarding
enforcement , adding that he does not see anything in the Zoning
Ordinance about what kind of reprimands would be placed upon those who
actually violate the Ordinance . Attorney Barney replied that this is
an amendment , the penalty section is in the existing Zoning Ordinance .
Mr . Hillman stated that it appeared to him that the present mode of
enforcement is such that the person can appeal . Mr . Hillman mentioned
that he has a concern about any kind of hardship that this particular
Ordinance might place on unrelated people , especially older unrelated
people .
Elliott Lauderdale , of 381 Stone Quarry Road , spoke from the
floor and wondered if there was a record of how many variances or
special permits were granted in the Town over a year ' s time . Attorney
Barney answered with , less than ten . Mr . Lauderdale stated that he
has a concern with any violations commited .
Herbert Monkemeyer , of 1058 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he felt the impact of the zoning amendment is going to be
a tremendous increase in rents for students , because the number of
units are going to be much fewer . Mr . Monkemeyer wondered if the
various colleges in the area have been consulted on this aspect .
Attorney Shirley Egan , of Cornell University , spoke from the
floor and stated that she had some questions about how a group , which
presumbly would be able to meet the requirements for being a family ,
could , in the first instance , set up the evidence for this . Ms . Egan
said that she had some concerns , functionally , about how this would
get up and running as a practical matter , both for landlords , and for
groups that would otherwise qualify . Attorney Barney responded that
if people come in and demonstrate that they are planning to live in a
certain fashion , then they can probably secure the permit on that
basis , however , the fact that these people move in together probably
does provoke at least the possibility that the Zoning Enforcement
Officer may want to take a look at it at some point in time and
determine that everyone is , indeed , living as they indicated they
would be . Ms . Egan wondered how much time it would take to process a
permit , with Attorney Barney answering that it would be in terms of
weeks .
Marc Macaluso , of 198 E . King Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he had a concern about the cost of renting . Chairperson
Grigorov wondered , except for the multiple , is the Ordinance more
restrictive than the law is now ? Attorney Barney replied , yes ,
slightly .
At this time , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer
Andrew Frost referred to Exhibit 2 , Page 5 , Item ( f ) . Mr . Frost
questioned the limitation by square footage . Mr . Frost also referred
to Exhibit 2 , Page 7 , No . 9 , which refers to the maximum number of
vehicles permitted .
Planning Board - 6 - August 1 , 1989
• There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board , Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion .
MOTION by Mr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Miller :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town
Board with respect to a Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning
Ordinance Relative to the Occupancy of Dwelling Units ,
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental
review . The Planning Board is acting as an involved agency in
coordinated review .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on August 1 , 1989 has
reviewed the proposed Local Law , SEQR application and
environmental review for this action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Town Board that a negative determination of environmental
• significance be ' made for this action .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called .for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Miller , Smith , Ken erson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town
Board with respect to a Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning
Ordinance Relative to the Occupancy of Dwelling Units .
2 . This is a Unlisted Action for which the Town Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental
review . The Planning Board is acting as an involved agency in
coordinated review .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on August 1 , 1989 has
reviewed the proposed Local Law , SEQR application and
environmental review for this action .
THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED :
Planning Board - 7 - August 1 , 1989
• i . That the Planning Board , in making recommendation to the Town
Board , determine and hereby does determine that ,
a . There is a need for the proposed local law amendment in
the Town of Ithaca .
b . The existing and probable character of the
neighborhoods in the Town would not be adversely
affected .
c . The proposed local law amendment is in accordance with
a comprehensive plan of development of the Town .
2 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Town Board that the proposed local law amendment be approved
with the following modifications :
a . Remove restrictions on room size .
b . Remove restrictions on number of vehicles .
c . Increase number of unrelated persons permitted in
multiple residence units to three ( 3 ) per dwelling
unit .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Miller , Smith , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION " was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Consideration of
a Recommendation to the Town Board with respect to a proposed local
law amending the Zoning Ordinance duly closed at 8 : 49 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
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 , CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 10 , 000 SQ . FT . PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 4 , 0 . 9 ± ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED AT 614 ELMIRA
ROAD , FOR CONSOLIDATION INTO SAID PROPOSED 1 . 15 ACRE PARCEL , AND
FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF A 12 , 00 0 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 N0 ,
6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 4 ; THOMAS BELL , APPLICANT .
Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
• above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 50 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
' S
Planning Board - 8 - August 1 , 1989
• Mr . Bell approached the Board and stated that the last time he
was at the hearing he was waiting for Mr . Mancini to get his project
to the Board members , adding that he thought this had been done .
At this point , Town Planner Susan Beeners asked if there were a
representative for Mr . Mancini present .
David Herrick , of T . G . Miller Associates addressed the Board and
stated that he did not have a plan to append to the bulletin board .
Ms . Beeners said that she had wanted a plan appended to the board so
that , indeed , it would be noted that a general progress plan was
submitted . Ms . Beeners stated that the main item is really the
consideration of the matter as it was published . Ms . Beeners noted
that she had asked Mr . Bell to bring some additional material , so that
the Board could perceive what the project would look like , commenting
that that would be appropriate to put up on the board as well . Ms .
Beeners said that the requirement which spurred the production of the
progress general plan was related to the Axenfeld subdivision ( Cannon
Pools ) , when it was said that no further subdivision should be made on
the Mancini property until there was an overall plan submitted . Ms .
Beeners said that she has relayed to Mr . Mancini that there would be
no real discussion or action taken on possible future subdivisions
within his property , but noted that she could talk about that later .
Board member Robert Miller stated that he did not see where
• Tommy ' s proposal would interfere with the overall plan . Attorney
Barney , directing his comment to Mr . Miller , stated that the problem
is that there has been piecemeal subdivision of the Mancini property
now for about five years . Mr . Miller said that where Mr . Bell is
proposing to build . . . Attorney Barney interjected that no individual
lot is a problem , usually , but we are now confined , in some respects ,
because we have taken individual lots one by one by one , and the sense
is that there should be some kind of overall plan before too much more
occurs . Mr . Miller wondered if Attorney Barney was talking about all
the acres that Mr . Mancini owns out back that are now Agrigulture .
Mr . Kenerson said that it is Light Industrial . Attorney Barney stated
that there is no provision for a road that meets Town specs as far as
he knew , at this juncture . Mr . Kenerson noted that the Light
Industrial part is being discussed at the present time . Chairperson
Grigorov stated that maybe we should have a brief description of the
whole thing first .
Mr . David Herrick , of T . G . Miller Associates approached the Board
and stated that he was representing Mr . Mancini . Mr . Herrick said
that it is Mr . Mancini ' s intention to come back to the Board at a
later time with a complete preliminary plat , adding that he has not
been able to prepare all of the necessary documents . Mr . Herrick
stated that he is looking toward the second meeting in September ,
hopefully , to bring in a proposal that includes possible rezoning of
all of the rear lands to Light Industrial , adding , at the same time
proposing that three lots , as shown on the appended general plan ,
• within the Light Industrial District , be rezoned for something less
than the 150 - foot front yard set - back required , currently , under the
Town zoning . Mr . Herrick offered that there has been a piecemeal
Planning Board - 9 - August 1 , 1989
approach to the subdivision of this property to date . Mr . Herrick
remarked that the submitted plan was to assist with the approval of
the Bell parcel , and also to show to the Board that progress is being
made toward a planned development of all remaining property . Mr .
Herrick mentioned that there are points of access for Town roads ;
there is one at the [ indicating on map ] very top northwest corner
which would exit out to Seven Mile Drive ; also there ` is the
possibility of access to Fidler Road which Mr . Mancini is not clear on
yet as there needs to be further investigation as to the actual
dimensioning , location , and filing of the maps for the end of that
road . Mr . Herrick stated that Mr . Mancini is also proposing that
access to the rear lands be provided toward the southwest portion of
the rear lands , adding , there is a provision for a 60 - foot road from
Mancini ' s current private drive . Pointing to the map , Mr . Herrick
stated that the penciled - in portion is the existing pavement that is
in place for the private drive , commenting that the new access is
located along the westerly property line , and is labeled as such .
Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the possible future Town road would
go from Five Mile Drive over to another road . Mr . Herrick responded
that two reservations , 60 feet wide , are being proposed where Mr .
Mancini ' s property ends [ indicating on map ] " here " on the west ; one
would access the rear lands , and the other would be a possible
continuation out to Seven Mile Drive if it were ever necessary . Mr .
Herrick offered that there is a current strip that Mr . Mancini owns at
the northwest corner that could be tied in with all of this , and
• [ indicating on map ] there is also the possibility of tying into Fidler
Road " here " . Mr . Miller noted that Mr . Mancini does not own that
property to the west . Mr . Herrick responded with , no , it is more of a
provision for the extension of a Town Road for the neighbors , if it is
necessary .
William Lesser wondered if we were in a situation where we are
facing the prospect of a long dead - end road for a considerable period
of time , virtually an indefinite period , since there are no proposals
to develop the back lands , and we have no authority to continue that
road to the west . Mr . Herrick responded that , again , this is just a
general plan , and these reservations are being provided , but not
proposed that they become Town roads at this point . Mr . Lesser said
that he meant it would create some difficulties , if development is
proposed along the upper reaches of that proposed road , as to whether
or not it is permitted under the Fire Codes to grant access . Mr .
Lesser asked how long the dead - end road would be . Mr . Herrick
responded that there is an existing private drive that connects to
Elmira Road to the west of T &M Convenience from the intersection of
that road down to the proposed reserved right -of -way of 950 feet . Mr .
Lesser noted that the measure would really be how far it was to access
to another road , so another linkage would have to be added to Elmira
Road . Mr . Lesser said that he was not sure if there was a right to
put fire apparatus over a narrow private road . Mr . Smith asked about
the variances needed . Mr . Herrick replied that , with the present
Light Industrial boundary , and given the width of lots that currently
• front on Route 13 , one is looking at a 90 - foot set -back for
[ indicating on map ] " this " parcel , the parcel that fronts on Route 13
adjacent to Cannon Pools , and there is one large parcel " here " most of
` t
` Planning Board - 10 - August 1 , 1989
which is eaten up by the existing NYSEG utility right - of -way . Mr .
Herrick noted that there are three parcels that would require some
variance to the front yard set - back . Mr . Herrick stated that most of
the other parcels , he believed , within this district , have something
less than 150 feet .
Chairperson Grigorov mentioned that this is sort of a provisional
proposal which makes possible consideration of the Bell project , and
the Board really does not have to go into approving this tonight . Mr .
Smith said that the way it is set up is that there is a constant
inflow of people coming in for variances , which may have been avoided
if it was properly handled in the beginning , or at least minimized .
Mr . Kenerson offered that Mr . Bell is not building in an approved
subdivision either . Ms . Beeners stated that she has a couple of plans
that were submitted for this area , but no approvals of any full
general plans were given , adding that there has been a record of
variances on a number of the lots located there , particularly related
to the 150 - foot front yard . Ms . Beeners said that what has happened
instead was that in the original plan , apparently , there was supposed
to be some kind of 150 - foot buffer along Elmira Road with very limited
access right onto the road , commenting that that has , essentially ,
gone by the wayside . Ms . Beeners mentioned the plan she has been
discussing with Mr . Herrick as to concerns that she has , along with
Town Engineer Sally Olsen ' s concerns , as far as future subdivisions .
Ms . Beeners noted that a number of those concerns are in the review ,
• and also in the draft resolution on Page 2 . Ms . Beeners stated that
there needs to be some real consideration of some kind of phased plan
such as : is the road going to be private ; if it is , until when , and
when might the Town want to take it over ? Ms . Beeners said that she
would like to see some minor replatting on the plat , adding , there is
a back access which is [ pointing to map ] the " pink " line that Mr .
Herrick did show as a way that the lots that do front on Elmira Road
would be able to get down into there . Ms . Beeners stated that it
would appear to her though , and it is certainly at the Board ' s
discretion , that the Bell proposal , being where it is located ,
essentially , right on the corner of two existing private roads of Mr .
Mancini ' s , and given what few platting alternatives she ( Ms . Beeners )
could see within that land , because there is the NYSEG power easement
running through it , that granting approval to the Bell project , with
certain conditions , would not really impair any further .regulation or
review of the remaining . Mr . Miller said that he agreed with Ms .
Beeners .
Mr . Lesser , directing his comment to Ms . Beeners , wondered if it
were possible or feasible that if one of the additional conditions
that were added , besides the particular ones outlined , would be that
final approval would not be granted until the Board approves an
overall development , essentially , grant subdivision approval for the
overall Light Industrial Zone . Mr . Lesser said that that then ,
essentially , allows the Bells to move ahead with their process , but
yet makes it contingent on the fact that , indeed , the Board does have
• an opportunity to go ahead and approve the overall development of that
overall result . Chairperson Grigorov wondered if that was necessary .
Attorney Barney stated that he thought the problem was that the Bells
Planning Board - 11 - August 1 , 1989
• are at a point now where they need , in effect , a final approval . Ms .
Beeners stated that they need to go on with at least a preliminary
approval so that the Zoning Board could check out the variances .
Mr . Lesser stated that his only point was that it says THEREFORE
IT IS RESOLVED , adding that he really does not see what transpires , if
indeed , these conditions are not fulfilled , it seemed to him that ,
typically , whenever some requirements have been established that the
Board has also stated the penalties if the requirements are not
satisfied . Attorney Barney noted that what is being said here is that
there would be no further subdivision permitted on the Mancini
property . Mr . Lesser commented , - haven ' t we already expressed that
situation ; are we essentially by - passing our earlier requirements by
saying " well , we will let this one go by " ? Mr . Lesser wondered if
this was the time to say : let ' s be very specific if we have already
put Mr . Mancini on notice that we want to have this subdivision laid
out in detail , and this is just a further step in that process , and we
will just prevent it . Mr . Lesser noted that the above comments were
his feelings .
At this point , Mr . Miller offered two things , in that No . 1 he
agrees with Ms . Beeners that Mr. . Bell ' s project would not interfere
with the future development of the subject land , and noted that at the
last meeting the Board more or less let Tommy know that if he came to
this meeting we would probably approve the project . Mr . Miller
• mentioned that Mr . Lesser was not in attendance at the last meeting .
Mr . Miller again stated that he did not think Tommy ' s project would
hurt the future development of this subdivision , so he felt that the
Board should okay it . Mr . Lesser commented that he was a little
concerned about the fact that , if the Board says something , and then
does not do it . Mr . Miller replied that he agreed with Mr . Lesser
that we had told Mr . Mancini , but on the other hand he thought that
the Board has an obligation to Mr . Bell on what was discussed at the
last meeting . Mr . Lesser stated that he understood from Mr . Mancini ' s
associate that Mr . Mancini plans to come in in mid - September , and if ,
indeed , the Board felt it was appropriate to go ahead with preliminary
approval now for Mr . Bell , and he really felt Mr . Mancini was going to
come in here and propose a reasonable plan , then he ( Mr . Lesser )
thought the Board was reasonably prepared to see this matter resolved ,
that the practical implications would not be great . Mr . Herrick ,
speaking for Mr . Mancini , stated that that is his intention , to come
back with a well - developed , thought out study plan . Mr . Herrick
remarked that not too much can be done with the Light Industrial area ,
as that has been split up , the Light Industrial portion of the
property is as is , but the remaining property to the rear is something
that can still be well - thought out , and planned for , adding , that is
Mr . Man cini ' s intention .
Ms . Beeners stated that the time - frame for actually reviewing any
further general ' plan on this property is probably not September , but
would be later in the year .
• At this time , Mr . Bell addressed the Board and stated that , of
course he favored Board Member Mr . Miller ' s decision in that ,
Planning Board - 12 - August 1 , 1989
physically , he is really the first lot coming down into any Mancini
development ; it is not like he was using the fringe areas ; he is the
first lot right off Route 13 , and right behind the T &M Convenience ,
Mr . Bell commented that it is a situation where there are many
warehouses in that same area , which are down farther . Mr . Bell said
that one is looking at 20 feet to get to his property „ Mr . Lesser
stated that he " was not saying that he had any particular concern with
Mr . Bell ' s development at all ; his concern was that if a requirement
was established , then he felt that unless there was an expression of
real hardship in the case . . . Mr . Bell interjected with , it is
definitely a hardship in the sense that if he cannot get his
contractors and people involved in this project in a very short time ,
then , of course , he would be held up indefinitely . Mr . Bell commented
that his property was tied in so close to the Elmira Road situation ,
with his store already being there and just using the back lot .
Again , Mr . Lesser noted that he understood and was sympathetic , but
the problem is that the Board has sort of already been through the
whole thing , and that is why it ended up with a bunch , or series , of
decisions . . . Mr . Bell interjected that Mr . Lesser was not present at
the last meeting , and he ( Mr . Bell ) was sort of led to believe that ,
if Mancini came in with what he was proposing for his Light Industrial
area , which he has , then he ( Mr . Bell ) would not have a problem .
Chairperson Grigorov stated that she did not think it was noted that
it had to be accepted , and she does not want to see it rush the study
of the Mancini plan . Mr . Lesser noted that what he was suggesting was
• that the Board tie the approval , perhaps granting of an occupancy
permit to acceptance of an overall subdivision plan , adding , Mr . Bell
can go ahead , but he has to recognize , if indeed , the Board decides
and that were voted on , that , indeed , Mr . Mancini would , indeed , have
to come before the Board with an appropriate plan before the warehouse
could be occupied . Mr . Bell responded that his feelings were that the
banks , unless he gets subdivision approval , would not loan him money
on speculation . Attorney Barney remarked that he thought Mr . Bell was
probably right .
Attorney Barney stated that Ms . Beeners had discussed with him
the prior resolution of the Planning Board which was that no further
subdivision would be permitted without presentation of an overall plan
for the development of the area . Attorney Barney commented that the
question is whether this plan meets with that approval . Attorney
Barney stated that he would suggest that , if the Board proceeds and
grants Mr . Bell his request , there be a very definitive statement that
there will be no further subdivision without an approved final
subdivision plan for the entire balance of the Light. Industrial
District , Attorney Barney stated that then there is no question in
the future that Mr . Mancini would not have any more sales until he has
done what he is supposed to have done .
Mr . Kenerson wondered if Mr . Bell had an option on the property ,
with Mr . Bell answering , yes , he could buy it today , but he has to
have the subdivision before it is a legal contract . Mr . Ken erson
is
commented that he just wondered where it stood . Mr . Bell offered that
there is definitely a purchase offer there , and it is binding .
' 1
Planning Board - 13 - August 1 , 1989
Mr . Miller , directing his comment to Attorney Barney , wondered
about the last page of the Town Planner ' s proposed resolution , as
there is a , b , c , d , e , and f . Attorney Barney responded that he would
_. suggest putting ahead of " a " - Final approval of a subdivision plan
for the entire Light Industrial District , and then re - letter
everything . Mr . Lesser stated that he would be willing to accept that
as a compromise , but noted that he is not happy about it because he
felt the Board ' s intent was clear at the last meeting , adding , if it
takes specific language then it will be done now , and commented that
it would be done properly in the future .
Mr . Bell offered that the proposed project is a 12 , 000 square
foot warehouse , which would have loading docks , and three bay
sections , each consisting of 4 , 000 square feet . Mr . Bell offered that
he is in commercial real estate , adding that there is a tremendous
demand for quality warehouse space within a five minute drive of
central Ithaca . Mr . Bell stated that he was limited as to where he
can place the warehouse , because of the power lines that go through
the property , adding , that is one of the reasons that he has had to
ask for some side yard and back yard variances . Mr . Bell mentioned
that there is plenty of room on the property , but because of the
50 - foot easement on each side of the power lines he pretty much has to
put the warehouse where it is proposed on the map . Indicating on map ,
Mr . Bell pointed out that the " green " area is plantings and
landscaping that Ms . Beeners wanted shown on the map , commenting , the
• plans were done by Village Greenhouse in Trumansburg , NY , and
indicate the types of plantings which are proposed . Mr . Bell said
that there would be a three - railroad tie retaining wall , which
[ indicating on map ] is the " brown " area behind the building , which
would decrease the slope and wash area . Mr . Ken erson wondered if the
proposed warehouse would look like the Anderson building . Mr . Bell
responded with , no , actually it is exactly like Mancini ' s ; it is 4 ' - 5 '
of masonry out of the ground , then a steel shell sitting on top of it ,
adding , it will be a much more desirable type of warehouses it is not
just a steel building sitting on a slab . Mr . Bell , pointing to the
map , noted that the " dark green " area in the back indicates sidewalks
which will come around to the left of the building with continuous
sidewalks to the parking lot . Mr . Bell offered that it would be
crusher run for a while , and , hopefully , blacktop later . Mr . Smith
wondered if access would be through the private drive along Elmira
Road , Mr . Bell answered , yes , ' and pointing to map , said " this " is
Route 13 ; " this " is the existing store , and " this " is the private
drive which is a short distance from his property to the lot . Mr .
Lesser wondered ' how much traffic Mr . Bell was anticipating , with Mr .
Bell replying , very light traffic . Mr . Lesser wondered if it would be
sort of long term , and not someone running down there all the time .
Mr . Bell responded that it would be a three - year lease , and basically
would be for heated , dry storage . Mr . Bell offered that Cornell
University looks for a lot of that type of storage , along with Ithaca
College and NCR , adding that they are pretty good people to deal with ,
and they are always looking for quality warehouse space , noting that
• the City of Ithaca has none ; it is not available . Attorney Barney
wondered if the warehouse would be partitioned inside . Mr . Bell
responded , yes , it will consist of three bays , each being 4 , 000 square
Planning Board - 14 - August 1 , 1989
feet , a bay like " this " , a bay in the center , and a bay on " this " end ,
with overhead doors , an access door in the front , and each having
access doors in the back . Mr . Bell commented that there would be a
common bathroom area in the back . Attorney Barney wondered if leasing
would be per day . Mr . Bell replied that one could have the option of
renting 4 , 000 or 8 , 000 square feet .
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public: Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairperson
Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 24 p . m . and brought the matter
back to the Board for discussion .
Mr . Kenerson asked Mr . Bell if he was on municipal sewer and
water . Mr . Bell answered that we will not hook up . . . it is not
required to have bathrooms in warehouses strictly because! there is not
a permanent residence there , we are going to wait until . . . I guess it
could either start in November 1989 or Spring of 1990 , with municipal
water and sewer coming to that area ,, so we are going to wait and hook
up to the new system .
Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ,
asked Mr . Bell � if he had any employees . Mr . Bell answered , no .
There aPPearing to be no further discussion , Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone' were prepared to make a motion .
• MOTION by �Mr . Robert Miller , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
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 , Consideration of Subdivision
Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 10 , 000 sq . ft . portion
of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 4 , 0 . 9 + / - acres total ,
located at 614 Elmira Road , for consolidation into said proposed
1 . 15 acre parcel , and further , Consideration of Site Plan
Approval ;for the proposed construction of a 12 , 000 sq . fte
warehouse on such proposed new 1 . 17 acre consolidated parcel .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in the
environmental review of the proposed subdivision and site plan .
The Zoning; Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as
Lead Agency for any proposed variances .
3 . The Planning Board at Public Hearing on August 1 , 1989 , has
reviewed the application submissions and environmental assessment
form and review for this action .
• THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
Planning Board - 15 - August 1 , 1989
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in environmental
review ofilthe proposed warehouse subdivision and site plan , make
and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental
significance .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Miller , Smith , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . Stephen Smith , seconded by Dr . William Lesser :
WHEREAS :
i . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
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 , Consideration of Subdivision
Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 10 , 000 sq . ft . portion
of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 4 , 0 . 9 + / - acres total ,
located at 614 Elmira Road , for consolidation into said proposed
1 . 15 acre parcel , and further , Consideration 'of Site Plan
Approval for the proposed construction of a 12 , 000 sq , ft ,
warehouselon such proposed new 1 . 17 acre consolidated parcel .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the proposed
subdivision and site plan , has on August 1 , 1989 made a negative
determination of environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board at Public Hearing on August 1 , 1989 , has
reviewed the application submissions and environmental assessment
form and review for this action , and has also received a progress
plan for a General Subdivision Plan for the remaining Light
Industrials District lands of Mancini .
THEREFORE , IT I'S RESOLVED :
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's.
2 . That the a„ Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision and Final Site Plan Approval to the subdivision , with
the following conditions :
a . Granting of any requested variances by the Zoning Board
of Appeals .
Planning Board " - 16 - August 1 , 1989
b . Approval of final site landscaping , drainage , and
"access plans by the Town Engineer and Town. Planner .
11
c . Agreement by the applicant to grant easement for water
, and / or sewer main installation within the area abutting
the " private drive " , if , upon further determination by
the Town Engineer , such easement is necessary for
proposed area water and sewer improvements .
FURTHER , IT IS „ RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board require and hereby does require that no
further subdivision of the remaining lands of Mancini be permitted
without the following :
a . Final approval of a subdivision plan for the entire
; Light Industrial District .
b . An agreement by the developer to set aside a 10 per
,cent open space for public recreational purposes , or an
equivalent , suitable to the Planning Board. .
c . Consideration of rezoning to modify certain yard
requirements , such as minimum 150 - foot front yard
setback required in Light Industrial Districts .
11
• d . 'Development of a suitable road or driveway within the
" Proposed 30 ' wide permanent easement for rear access ”
` prior to any final site plan approval for development
on the " Parcel to be conveyed by Mancini to Hannan " ,
and the " Proposed Parcel to be conveyed " in the
southwest corner of the District fronting on Elmira
' Road ,
e . Consideration of revision of the proposed rear property
' line of the latter " Proposed Parcel to be conveyed "
' fronting on Elmira Road to increase possible setbacks
on that parcel .
f . Consideration of a phased plan for road improvements
Within the District , including the consideration of
discontinuation of the existing private drive access
from Elmira Road , the development of a new outlet to
Seven Mile Drive , and acceptable arrangements with
, respect to road design , ownership , and maintenance .
g . °Agreement by the owner to grant easements for the
proposed water and sewer improvements in a location
acceptable to the Town Engineer .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
• Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Miller , Smith , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
k �
Planning Board; - 17 - August 1 , 1989
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of Consideration of
Subdivision Approval and Site Plan Approval for the proposed T &M
Convenience of '' Ithaca , Inc . warehouse duly closed at 9 : 30 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING :` CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED " CHASE POND "
DEVELOPMENT , PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF 119 CLUSTERED DWELLING UNITS IN
ATTACHED AND DETACHED CONFIGURATIONS ON 23 . 03 ACRES LOCATED ON EAST
KING ROAD NEAR RIDGECREST ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 ,
6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 3111 MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . DAVID C . RUBLE , OWNER ;
BUTTERFIELD ASSOCIATES I , APPLICANTS .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 9 : 31 p . m . and read aloud from th
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Maps wereappended to the bulletin board .
Mr . David Auble , owner of Chase Farm and Chase Pond , approached
the Board . Mr .;; Auble distributed copies of a response to the material
• that was delivered to the Town Planning Board today , and possibly to
the individual ' Town Planning Board members , adding , this is material
that was received from the South Hill Community Association last
Friday , commenting that the staff had received the information
earlier . Mr . ; Auble stated that he would like to compliment the
Community Association on their extremely hard work that they have put
into the material , noting that , obviously , he does not agree with a
good share of , it , but felt it is a good effort on behalf of the
Community Association in that it is a good start . Mr . Auble stated
that , speaking from a perspective of the owner of the property , and
being acquainted with the residents that are immediately affected by
the project , as', well as the new owners that will be moving in soon , he
wants to relate' to the Board that , regarding Chase Farm , he has had a
very successful, response to the plan that was approved by the Planning
Board last Fall' , adding that , out of 51 home sites in Phase I , he has
18 remaining . Mr . Auble said that that is far ahead of his
projections , and many of those will be people that AMG will actually
be building homes for , and they can expect to move in this Fall , and
early Winter . Mr . Auble said that he is extremely happy with that
response and that those people should really be polled by the South
Hill Community !Association when they are discussing what is happening
in their immediate proximity , adding , that should be a real factor in
the kinds of material that the Planning Board is receiving from the
South Hill Community Association , as that will help enlighten the
South Hill Association as to what the people that live adjacent to the
Chase Pond site think about AMG ' s plan in terms of its impact on
views . Mr . Auble stated that he felt the real factor that affects the
new owners on Chase Farm is that AMG wants to make sure that
construction is ; moving along on Chase Pond , because AMG does not want
Planning Board - 18 - August 1 , 1989
to drag out the construction time . ' Mr . Auble offered that , as one can
see , it is obviously a tough site . Mr . Auble [ pointing to the
appended maps ] ', stated that the map on the top is the old Beacon Hills
site , which was done in 1974 ; the map below is the Bill Manos project
which was approved back in 1982 for 119 rental units , one residential
unit , and a 20 , 000 square foot laundry facility , adding , knowing it
was a multiple residence site and feeling it would be a profitable
rental complex , ' we came in in 1986 and revised the Manos ' plan , stayed
with the density and different configuration , but with large open
parking spaces ., Mr . Auble stated that in the meantime he got involved
with acquiring adjacent properties , including Chase Farm . Mr . Auble
stated that he has spent the last couple of years , somewhat
defensively , acquiring properties that are close to his site to
prevent what he thought would be development that would have a
negative impact on what he was doing , adding that , as a result , he
ended up with several acres of land that are contiguous . Mr . Auble
stated that he felt he has been very successful with the first
project , which is the Chase Farm site , commenting , the Chase Pond site
is now really married to the Chase Farm site by infrastructure and
sewer lines . Mr . Auble noted that a lot of work has been done on the
site , as one would see if they came up and looked at it . Mr . Auble
said that work was actually started last fall , but had . to stop because
of the weather, conditions , adding that , in the meantime , over the
winter , we enhanced the plan with a much more interesting architecture
which is the Greek Revival , and which is more reminiscent of Upstate
New York , commenting that the ends of the red brick townhouses will
face East King „ Road so that one would not be looking at a wall ; this
will be an alignment allowing people to look through the project at
the views . Mr . Auble mentioned the small single - family homes that are
called sideyard, houses , adding that these are about 50 feet .
At this point , Mr . Auble turned the discussion over to Mr . Peter
Trowbridge , Landscape Architect for the project .
Mr . Trowbridge addressed the Board and stated that, this is the
third time the „ developer has been before the Board , commenting that
there were two sketch plan reviews prior to tonight . Mr . Trowbridge
offered that during that time a meeting was also held with the South
Hill Community ;Association , and subsequently , a , large meeting with the
neighborhood at large . Mr . Trowbridge said that the developer has
tried to create as much opportunity as possible , both to inform the
Board and inform the community as to what has happened over the last
several months .
Mr . Trowbridge stated that one thing about the subject project ,
which he wanted to make very clear , was that it is zoned Multiple
Residence , andbased on the recommendation of the Planning staff , the
developer is looking at an MR zone with a cluster overlay . Mr .
Trowbridge said that the intent was to move away from a lot of the
earlier schemes that were done in the early 1970s and early 1980s of
all " For Rent " units , adding , inherently , that is what multiple
. residence is all about ; it is multiple residence on a single lot . Mr .
Trowbridge stated that that zone , right now , allows for all the units
to be rental , Mr . Trowbridge noted that it is the developer ' s
r,t
7
Planning Board - 19 - August 1 , 1989
• understanding , within the community , that the desire really is to look
at " For Sale " units , commenting that the cluster overlay on the MR
allows the developer to look at " For Sale " units within that zone .
Mr . Trowbridge reported on the progress since the last meeting in
that the engineering has been provided for water / sewer , drainage , road
design , and alli'ithe inherent details that go with that , which has been
reviewed with staff , commenting that it is the developer ' s
understanding that it is as complete as can be at this preliminary
stage . Mr . Tr�'owbridge stated that , in addition , deed restrictions
have been provided , description of community corporation , site plan
development , which includes things such as walk locations , planting
plans and species selection , and architectural characterizations that
give people different views of buildings on the site . Mr . Trowbridge
offered that , since the last meeting the developer has also made a
number of contacts , and had meetings with Nancy Ostman and Peter Marks
of Cornell Plantations . Mr . Trowbridge stated that another meeting
had been held with Brian Wilbur , of the Ithaca Fire Department , to
re - assess and "I confirm the road scheme and turning raddi , also
addressing Mr . Wilbur ' s concerns about hydrant locations , etc . Mr .
Trowbridge stated that the developer has communicated with Bernie
Carpenter of the Ithaca Transit office regarding bus stop locations
and what is possible in terms of bringing public transit into the
neighborhood .
• Mr . Trowbridge offered that there are 108 lots on the parcel , and
the ultimate density would be 119 units , noting that the difference
would be 11 units which are being called carriage - house units , and
which are rental . Mr . Trowbridge said that the kinds of units are
quite varied , in that there are four unit types - two townhouse unit
types , and two ';kinds of single - family detached units that exist on the
site . Mr . Trowbridge said that the intention is to get a wide variety
of housing and ' diversity of people in the neighborhood ,, adding that
that is the developer ' s understanding that that is a real concern , to
try to offer more affordable housing , perhaps mid - range kind of rental
housing on the site , so that there is a diverse complex community , as
well as a diverse range of architectural types . MI . Trowbridge
referred to thetotal open space , and stated that , as one looks at the
parcel as a who, le ,. one needs to remember that open space has already
been exacted from the subject parcel at an earlier date , and has been
received by Cornell . Mr . Trowbridge mentioned that , if one looks at
the current open space on the plan , the designated open space , or park
space , the total percentage of open space for the parcel is 450 , which
is very comparable with other projects , such as Deer Run , which gave
large parcels of land for both Plantations and Town use . Mr .
Trowbridge noted that the developer has clarified locations of the
bikeway as it moves through the site , and the recreation trail that
would come across Chase Lane , up " this " front access road , out through
the sewer easement , and ultimately connecting over to Deer Run , Mr .
Trowbridge said that there are sidewalks planned , at least on one side
of the street , (; [ indicating on map ] in " this " location , " this " location
• " here " , and also paralleling the recreation trail , adding , the
recreation trail moves through Chase Farm , connecting with sidewalk
section , and ba'ick into recreation trails , then into Deer Run .
Planning Board - 20 - August 1 , 1989
• Mr . Trowbridge stated that the vehicular entrances are in two
locations ; one !, centered on Chase Lane , which is the primary entrance ,
and the secondary entrance on the westerly end . Mr . Trowbridge
pointed to the map and stated that , at one point , there was the
desirability ofi, having another access point " here " , but the closeness
of the intersection with Ridgecrest Road did not allow that to be
developed . Mr . '' Trowbridge offered that quite a number of street trees
are being proposed , the idea with the street tree species selection
being that they are all low canopy trees that would never exceed the
heights of the ', buildings , so they would not impede a view from higher
topo in and around the area . Mr . Trowbridge said that the developer
is also concerned about the views through the project , and [ indicating
on map ] " this " , is one of the longest elevations that would exist on
the site , explaining this just shows one what the magnitude of that
would be . Mr Trowbridge said that " this " is one of . the longer
townhouse facades that exist along " this " green space , adding , the
view from E . King Road is " this " elevation , this is a cross - section
across the green space , so one is seeing two elevations ,, as if there
would be big houses sitting at " this " location and " this " location
with their respective garages . Mr . Trowbridge said that this is a
typical cross - section of the single - family zero lot line house types
that flank either side of those townhouses . Mr . Trowbridge offered
that the developer has , in this particular plan , characterized these
in an architectural manner that is less than the 30 - foot separation ,
noting that the developer is not trying to play visual games . Mr .
• Trowbridge commented that the developer is looking at two waivers ,
adding , in the cluster overlay there are two kinds of things that the
developer would look at for waivers - one being the building face
separation , noting that in the MR , as discussed last time , there could
be as little as 22 feet between the buildings and , with the cluster ,
it is the developer ' s understanding that that is probably more of an
aesthetic issue; than a Code issue , because State Code does not require
that there be a 30 - foot separation . Mr . Trowbridge stated that it is
shown in this case as a 30 - foot separation , and also shown what a bay
might look like , or an extended porch , that would limit the space
between the buildings up to 22 feet , adding , what is shown is what
that elevation would look like with the side yard waivers in place .
Mr . Trowbridge ' said that the other waiver issue is one in cluster that
does not allowl one to gang together more than six contiguous units ,
and again , in the MR a wide variety of things can be done as long as
Code is complied with , noting that this would be , within the zone
overall , a quite acceptable facade . Mr . Trowbridge said that with
cluster , one would only be able to put six of these together , then
there needs to 'be a break and start over again . Mr . Trowbridge stated
that the above are the two issues that within cluster , and within the
MR do not 100 $ ; comply with MR with cluster overlay . Mr . Trowbridge
pointed out the typical floor plans of those units , and in addition ,
there is a schematic of utilities , noting that the other appended
drawings characterize other engineering drawings .
Continuing , Mr . Trowbridge stated that , just to give one a sense
• of scale , from the center line of E . King Road to the fronts of these
buildings is in excess of 80 feet , and noted that in a typical R - 15 or
R - 30 they could be as close as 25 feet , and there are several layers
Planning Board - 21 - August 1 , 1989
• along E . King Road , such as : the roadside edge which is planted to
match the other side of E . King Road , adding , we have planted a row of
Crab Apples which are repeated on the far side and planted another row
of street trees , commenting that there would be a street character ,
again , units facing out onto E . King Road rather than backing on E .
King Road , where back yard things would be involved , e . g . , raised
above - grade pools , storage . Mr . Trowbridge said that the intent is to
have a facade along E . King Road that really respects the street . Mr .
Trowbridge stated that a number of the concepts had been discussed at
the last meeting in terms of attempting to achieve , as much as
possible , the elimination of large garage doors and garages that face
onto the street , and tucking those behind units , pulling in off
alleyways to accommodate garages and parking , but not to be a
detriment to a street character . Mr . Trowbridge stated that the pond
has been designed and was , early on , as part of the Erdman project ,
large enough to accommodate a huge area , commenting that the run - off
from this particular project is all accommodated in the pond , except
for a drainage swale that runs at the back side of the site , which ,
ultimately , connects into the pond spill -way , so all of the run - off ,
whether it comes through the pond , or from other parts of the site , in
particular [ indicating on map ] " this " Swale , converges at " this " point
to run off the site as it has always been expected . Mr . Trowbridge
stated that the importance of this area is that it ' is seen as a park
space that a wide variety of people can access .
• Mr . Trowbridge stated that AMG has looked at the possibility of a
not - for - profit community corporation primarily for two . concerns - one
being , if we are looking at creating more afforable housing , that we
would not overlay the additional expense of a maintenance contract on
all these units if this was a Homeowners ' Association , and two , we
would like to have , not only these residents , but residents from other
projects and other areas on South Hill to access this , adding that the
concern of the Homeowners ' Association is that , if that was included
in the Homeowners ' Association then there would really be no incentive
to invite anyone else into the site , so the idea was to try and keep
the site as accessible as possible . Mr . Trowbridge said that AMG is
looking at developing a park course and some other seeding information
about the sensitive area that is just off the site , adding , AMG will
be working with Cornell to make sure that there is a contiguous
thicket area of either Cornus racemosa or Viburnum dentatum , which
currently exist . Mr . Trowbridge stated that other issues discussed
with Cornell were non - invasive species , judicious use of herbicides
and pesticides , enforcement of the leash law , and a number of things
that really are part of the Local Law in the Manos ' agreement that is
in the records . Mr . Trowbridge said that as Mr . Auble mentioned
earlier on , there is existing water and sewer on the site . Mr .
Trowbridge stated that the engineering has begun , and the construction
of subject site has been really going on for about 15 years . Mr .
Trowbridge mentioned the fact that people living in the community for
a long time have seen an evolution of the site ; the Erdman project
going up ; the Erdman project falling down , and a variety of proposals .
• Mr . Trowbridge said that the developer hopes , in this moment of time ,
that this site can come to closure in terms of construction
development .
Planning Board - 22 - August 1 , 1989
• Ms . Beeners clarified that she would not really say that it was
recommended by her that cluster overlay be used , but it appeared that
it perhaps was the only real zoning technique that could be used on
the site , given the fact that MR Districts traditionally have been
" Not for Sale " lots , but have been rental lots , commenting , if MR
zoning in a " For Sale " situation were to be considered , it was the
feeling that that meant that the yard requirements would have to be
applied to each lot . Further , Ms . Bee ners noted that at her very
first encounter with Duany / Plater - Zyberk she did ask them if they were
fully aware of the Codes that the Town did have , and would they be
prepared to deal with them , adding that they said , yes .
Chairman Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked
if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or
questions .
Myrtle Whitcomb stated that the South Hill Community Association
has put something in writing , but they are also prepared to speak
orally , but noted that she would prefer that other people have an
opportunity first .
Marc Macaluso , of 198 E . King Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he rented his home right near the construction site . Mr .
Macaluso stated that he also was a purchaser of a home at Chase Farm ,
commenting , there will be another five months before the home is
• completed . Mr . Macaluso said that he probably has as much of a
concern as anybody would in the area , in terms of preserving views ,
and maintaining an area in a market that is going to insure the worth
of his home and security for his two children , ages 5 and 2 . Mr .
Macaluso stated that he really likes a lot of what the development has
to offer in terms of trying to reduce the impact to the eye , but still
leaving the natural view in the dedication of almost 50 % of the land
to public use and / or green spaces , commenting that he thought it was a
pretty unbelievable commitment . Mr . Macaluso stated that he thought
the professionalism being used in the Chase Farm development , and the
success they have had with almost 60 % of their lots being sold in just
one season is indicative of the professionalism that has gone behind
all of their design and planning . Mr . Macaluso stated that he thought
a lot of sincere support should go simply for the effort in the nature
by which they have committed themselves to the overview and planning ,
and considering other parties ' needs . Mr . Macaluso stated that he is
fully in support of the development , and noted that being a resident
of the area he would like to see it completed sooner rather than
later , as it has been kind of an eyesore being continually open ,
commenting , if a commitment could be made to a very professional plan
to do it , execute it , and get it completed to reduce the amount of
traffic and confusion on the road .
Attorney Egan , of Cornell University , spoke . from the floor and
stated that , over the years she has been before the Board discussing
the site , but• there has been , evolving over the years , some new faces .Attorney Egan noted that Nancy Ostman , of Cornell Plantations , was
present , and felt that she could give a brief little feel to the Board
for why the area adjacent to the project is so important , not just to
Planning Board - 23 - August 1 , 1989
Cornell and the Plantations , but to the community . Attorney Egan
stated that it is a site which is on the unique natural areas list
developed by the Tompkins County . Environmental Management Council ,
which Ms . Ostman will describe further .
Attorney Egan remarked that this property has not always been
zoned for MR , in fact , it has taken specific changes in the law ,
passed by the Town Board , and noted that , in each instance that zoning
approval , up to MR , has been deliberately couched and approved for its
association with a given site plan , and a given mode of development .
Attorney Egan stated that , the 1987 Law for instance , says that no
buildings in residential units in excess of those approved by the Town
Planning Board on January 18 , 1983 , which was for a larger parcel ,
shall be permitted and the construction development and use must
comply in all respects with the site plans and conditions of approval
and rezoning adopted by the Town Planning Board on January 18 , 1983 ,
and by the Town Board on February 7 , 1983 , and with the revised plan
as approved by the Planning Board on January 20 , 1987 , and no variance
in the construction , development , and use of the parcel shall be
permitted except as may be permitted by the Town Board . .Attorney Egan
remarked that it gives various alternatives , but only as to ones which
are minor changes , which do not increase the size or scope of the
project , or vary the intended use of the site . Attorney Egan stated
that she would submit to the Board that this really needs to be
considered as if it were a first - time application for a zoning change
• and for a use of this type , and with a configuration of the sort that
it is . Attorney Egan stated that , certainly , one very big issue that
will be discussed tonight has to do with , what they understand to be ,
the Manos ' house , which they would like to know more about , and also
the community use of the pond area , which , of course , is getting the
very closest of all to the unique natural area ; the very fragile area .
Attorney Egan stated that , never , in the nearly 10 years that she has
been involved in this has there ever been any contemplation that
anyone , other than the limited number of residents who would be living
on this site would have access to that pond area , or to be getting
closer into the fragile areas , or the areas that drain into the
fragile area , commenting that she thought the above was a huge
consideration , and felt that that drastically changes the nature of
the use of this , if that sort of proposal goes forward . Attorney Egan
stated that she would submit that if the Planning Board has to
consider this as if it were an application from the very beginning ,
starting with that zoning change , adding , the prior zoning change was
keyed to that site plan , commenting , if it is a new site plan , a new
use , a new set of factors like this , it should all be reconsidered
from the start - up .
At this time , Attorney Egan turned the floor over to Nancy
Ostman , of the Cornell Plantations , who , she said , can speak more
specifically to' some of the issues , and also give a little orientation
to any new Board members , or others , who would be interested in a
review of why this area is of importance to Cornell .
• Ms . Ostman approached the Board and stated that she is from
Cornell Plantations , and noted that she managed natural areas for
Planning Board - 24 - August 1 , 1989
• Cornell . Ms . Ostman stated that one of the natural areas is called
the South Hill Swamp ; it is directly north of the pond that is shown
on the appended map . Ms . Ostman said that the swamp is actually quite
close , and there is a buffer area which is immediately to the west of
the proposed development . Ms . Ostman offered that in 1983 Bill Manos
gave Cornell the buffer area , adding , Cornell spent a great deal of
time discussing their concerns with the property , and noted that Mr .
Manos had a commitment to come up with a development which would not
have a tremendous impact on the South Hill Swamp area . Ms . Ostman
stated that the buffer area was given to Cornell because that was the
area that most immediately drained into the swamp , and Cornell was
very concerned that the swamp White Oak did not change , either
becoming dryer or wetter , commenting , that parcel was critical to
Cornell . Ms . Ostman stated that , also critical to Cornell was the
fact that the Manos ' development , as shown on the map , was pushed over
to the east . Ms . Ostman said that Cornell had some significant
concerns about the kinds of run - off that went into the swamp , so it
was very important that the development was pushed to the east side .
Ms . Ostman commented that another concern Cornell has is that there
are rare plants , but there is also a rare bird which is a Prairie
Warbler . Ms . Ostman said that the Prairie Warbler is a ground- nesting
bird , and because it nests on the ground it is very vulnerable to
pets , particularly cats , commenting that Cornell asked that there be
no pets in the development at that time . Ms . Ostman stated that
Cornell is still concerned that there be very stringent controls on
• pets in that area . Ms . Ostman remarked that the Prairie Warbler is
there ; they saw, it again this Spring when they were out there talking
about another development , adding that the Town Engineer was also
present to view, it . Ms . Ostman stated that Cornell ' s big concern in
developing a long list of deed restrictions which the Board has copies
of , was that the traffic would not be directed toward the extremely
fragile natural area . Ms . Ostman noted that there is a restriction
which calls for the protective planting that Mr . Trowbridge described
to reduce the traffic heading that way . Ms . Ostman said that Cornell
is extremely concerned about the changes in the restrictions and the
changes in the Homeowners ' Agreement that changed from a Homeowners '
Agreement to a Not - For - Profit community organization . Ms . Ostman
mentioned that any development would actually draw a lot of additional
people to the pond area , and being closer to the natural area is a big
concern with Cornell .
Marty Newhart , of 171 E . King Road , addressed the Board and
stated that he appreciated everything that Ms . Ostman reported on , but
he has some questions . Mr . Newhart said that he has been a resident
on E . King Road for 40 years , and he knows that area quite well . Mr .
Newhart questioned the concern regarding the influx of people through
the Not - For - Profit organization . Mr . Newhart said that the residents
have experienced an influx of people there anyway , such as , drunks ,
college parties , fishermen [which he is one ] , and kids running over
there . Mr . Newhart , mentioning the area which Ms . Ostman spoke about ,
said that the last time he was over there he found at least two holes
• in the existing fence , adding that he is equally as concerned as
Cornell about keeping out unwanted persons or animals . Mr . Newhart
questions where all the concern was over the years , since the subject
Planning Board - 25 - August 1 , 1989
• site has laid with uncovered manholes , waste , garbage , parties , etc .
Mr . Newhart offered that he thought the Board could , tonight , rectify
some of the oversights and mistakes that have been made over the last
14 - 15 years concerning the project , adding that he would very much
like to see the Board do that . Mr . Newhart stated that he realized
there is a lot at stake here , but given what he , and his father , who
also has resided at 171 E . King Road for 40 + years have had to put up
with the last 14 years . Mr . Newhart felt that now there is a chance
to really beautify the area , and commented that in the short time he
has known Dave Auble , he is quite confident that it will be taken care
of and Cornell ' s concerns will be met .
Chairman Grigorov wondered about the fence between Cornell ' s area
and . . . Mr . Newhart interjected with , no , [ indicating on map ] it is a
rectangular shape fenced - in area .
Wayne Barr , of 135 Ridgecrest Road , approached the Board and
mentioned the fact that , as he looked around the room it took him back
a few years ago , like maybe 15 years , when they started Beacon Hills ,
commenting , he has seen the concrete trucks out there and watched the
plywood blow across E . King Road as he travels on the road . Mr . Barr
stated he thought now that Mr . Auble and his group have , started
building houses on Chase Farm , and if they have the same idea for
Chase Pond , then he thought people would be doing a big injustice not
to give him the okay . Mr . Barr offered that the results Mr . Auble has
• already obtained , adding that for years he can remember coming here ,
and there was a little problem with the corner , he belived it was E .
King Rd . and Ridgecrest Rd . , commenting , there was some guy that did
not like the Ordinance , adding that he lived through that for some
time . Mr . Barr noted that that individual moved , so it is nice to
turn the corner .and be able to drive up the road without the fear of
hitting a car parked on the side . Mr . Barr stated that , with Mr .
Auble and his group , it is a lot nicer when one turns the corner . Mr .
Barr offered that he has resided at 135 Ridgecrest Road for 23 years ,
and offered if anyone would be interested in coming up he would be
glad to show them around , as to what has evolved over the years ,
commenting that he thought everyone would agree with him that this
project development will come sooner or later . Mr . Barr stated that
he thought Mr . Auble has a great idea , and hoped the Board will give
him the okay .
Myrtle Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road approached the Board and stated
that she is President of the South Hill Community Association . Ms .
Whitcomb stated that she would like to make a few brief opening
remarks , and then the floor would be turned over to some people who
have taken some of the concerns that they have written about in their
response that the Board has before them . Ms . Whitcomb noted that she
had left a copy of the South Hill Community Association response at
Mr . Auble ' s office this afternoon , as well as the executive summary ,
which is attached to the response . Mr . Auble responded that a copy of
the executive summary was left at his office Saturday morning . Ms .
• Whitcomb , directing her comment to Mr . Auble , said that if Mr . Auble
has a written response to her statement she would certainly like a
copy of it . Mr . Auble replied that he had actually distributed
Planning Board - 26 - August 1 , 1989
• something to the Board . Ms . Whitcomb stated that if it was valuable
information she would certainly like a copy . Mr . Auble also stated
that most of the neighborhood received a copy of his letter dated July
29 , 1989 , which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 .
Ms . Whitcomb stated that she just wanted to make a few brief
statements , but did not want to insult anyone ' s intelligence by taking
the written report that the SHCA did and just stand there and read it
verbatim , even though there are people here who do not know what is in
the document at this point , but SHCA is certainly willing to share
that information with anyone who is interested . Ms . Whitcomb again
stated that she would just like to make a few brief comments , and then
make a presentation based on some of those concerns .
Ms . Whitcomb stated that No . 1 she thought that probably the
developer was most interested in the profit and loss statement ; the
planning staff and Planning Board are most interested in working
through the details of the plan . Ms . Whitcomb stated that , as a
Neighborhood Association , what they have tried to do is stay somewhat
removed from the process , so they do not become a part of the plan ,
adding , in that way they feel that they can best serve the community
by being able to look at the final plan , and the final materials with
a cold eye , probably in somewhat of a comprehensive setting of the
impact on the neighborhood and on the community , commenting that in
other words , they are trying very very hard to maintain a level of
• objectivity , commenting that she thought they have .come a long , long
ways from the time when they used to come down and have emotional
reactions and say : " Oh my God you can ' t do that " , to actually spending
the time to sit down with developers and to invite them to SHCA
meetings and try to go through the material that is available to SHCA ,
ask questions and develop what SHCA hopes is a reasonable , intelligent
rational response to that . Ms . Whitcomb said that is what SHCA felt
they have done with the SHCA document that is before the Board . [ The
referenced SHCA document is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . 1
Ms . Whitcomb stated that she thought the response from proposed
new homeowners in Chase Farm is predictable , and also thought that
probably a year down the road it will be predictable that they will be
standing here addressing concerns about other developments within the
area , commenting , it will be interesting to watch that take place .
Ms . Whitcomb mentioned that , as everyone is all aware , members of the
SHCA participated quite actively in the planning " Charette " , adding ,
they were very , very impressed with the Duany / Plater- Zyberk
philosophy , and SHCA had great expectations for the first plan that
would come out of the planning " Charette " and the type of philosophy .
Ms . Whitcomb stated that she thought for the members of the Executive
Committee and the Development Study committee , SHCA was looking ,
probably , more for a Comprehensive Plan for all of the holdings ,
rather than looking at piecemeal proposals , noting that she had heard
that mentioned once before this evening , and felt that was important
to them as a community association . Ms . Whitcomb stated that there
• seems to be a sense of disappointment , because there is a feeling that
the promise was not quite fulfilled , adding that she thought that . is
M
Planning Board - 27 - August 1 , 1989
• where they started from and where they want to walk through the
presentation .
At this point , Ms . Whitcomb offered that Laura Marks would
address the environmental concerns that SHCA has .
Laura Marks , of 302 E . King Road , approached the Board and asked
if the Board had had a chance to read the SHCA document . Chairman
Grigorov responded that the Board just received the document , and
wondered if Ms . ' Marks was talking about the Executive Summary . Ms .
Marks replied , yes . Ms . Marks stated that she did not want to insult
anyone ' s intelligence just by reading verbatim , so noted that she
would summarize what has been done . Ms . Marks stated that she thought
it was a real tribute to the strength of the land on this parcel that
has been able to resist this for 15 years . Ms . Marks stated that she
was speaking , not only on the SHCA initial concerns , but , in the
meeting between Mr . Auble and Ms . Whitcomb on Saturday , Mr . Auble
commented that he has been negotiating with Cornell and that he does
not need to address the environmental issues of concerns of the
neighborhood . Ms . Marks remarked that the SHCA has stood for
environmental concerns since its inception , and stated that she needed
to make sure that everyone understands that ; SHCA is not only
concerned about the Cornell swamp , which they are , but they are also
concerned about the drinking water her husband , herself , and her babe ,
are drinking , which comes from well water , and which the water table
• will be affected by all of the development in the community . Ms .
Marks commented that one of the concerns is the water quality issue .
Ms . Marks said that at the site plan review the quantity of water ,
making sure that the Black Oaks were protected , was addressed , adding
that the SHCA wanted to make sure that some of the quality issues were
also addressed , so the SHCA has come up with a few things , such as :
CMA , which is Calcium Magnesium Acetate , and that it be used rather
than salt on the roads , which is probably more the Town Engineer ' s
concern than Auble Associates . Ms . Marks stated that she would really
like to see Sally Olsen , Town Engineer , addressing the City of Ithaca ,
Tompkins County , and NYS to be bringing up the use of CMA as a salt
substitute in an area with intelligent progressive environmentally
aware people . Ms . Marks said that it sounded as though the herbicide
and pesticide issue has been addressed . Ms . Marks stated that SHCA
would like to have water quality tests bi - annually taken at the pond
site to make sure that the Ph factor of the pond remains the same in
order to protect the wildlife in the swamp down below , adding that she
thought this could be a job for the Homeowners ' Association , or
whatever it is being called , though it is not really a Homeowners '
Association , Ms . Marks commented that it sounded as though the pet
restriction and leash laws have been addressed ; SHCA is also concerned
about that . Ms . Marks noted that the fence has been addressed .
Again , Ms . Marks stated that she needed to make sure that everyone
understands that the SHCA is concerned about the environment of their
neighborhood .
Elliott Lauderdale , of 381 Stone Quarry Road , approached the
Board and stated that he was going to try and think about the proposal
in sort of broad terms , in terms of the welfare of our Town and our
Planning Board - 28 - August 1 , 1989
• general community . Mr . Lauderdale also stated that he was going to
try and address the possible effect of this additional large approval
in terms of facts , without trying to cast dispersions on Dave Auble ' s
character or the professionalism of his staff . Mr . Lauderdale stated
that they have had ample tribute to the good intentions and the
professionalism , and the intention to do things like : look at For
Sale " units . Mr . Lauderdale stated that it is nice that they look at
" For Sale " units , but they do not quite know what that means , adding
that he would try to explore looking at what " For Sale " units might
mean , in terms of what the community will look like . Mr . Lauderdale
said that there is a large number of people coming into a fairly small
road , so it is a transportation problem . Mr . Lauderdale stated that
there has been some discussion about possible public transit , and
again , it is a ' good intention , but , thus far , to make a responsible
decision about whether that need is going to be met , they do not have
anything other than a generality , but , of course , he has not seen the
whole packet , it was not provided to them , in the same way that Myrtle
Whitcomb did not get the response to the SHCA letter , which he did
get , and is thankful that he got Mr . Auble ' s response to the list of
concerns . Mr . Lauderdale said that in terms of the general , what is
happening in Ithaca , he makes reference to an article done by Claudia
Montague in the Ithaca Times . Mr . Lauderdale said that Ms . Montague
went around to all the real estate agents and asked them how things
were going , and they responded with : not quite dead , but close ,
especially on the high end . Mr . Lauderdale stated that what that
• means is that we are getting close to over -building ; we are getting
close to a glut of new residents in the Town . Mr . Lauderdale said
that the alterations on the site plan , as Mr . Auble has said , were
made from the initial approval of his site plan , because he would like
to build a good community , but they were also made on more realistic
concerns of they cannot do high - end , they need to go medium - end
market , and they need to get something that they can make a profit on .
Mr . Lauderdale commented that if he could keep this 10 years of
reality , rather than pipe - dream , he thought he will have accomplished
what he would like to accomplish . Mr . Lauderdale noted that the
market is sluggish ; the general mood of a lot of members of the
community is , planning has been a little reactive ; there has been a
lot of effort by the planning staff , and a Comprehensive Planning
Consultant has been hired to do work to help everyone decide what we
want our community to look like , adding , there has not been a report
on that ; there has been no decision on the comprehensive plan , but we
are going in the same kind of direction that was just met in an
earlier proposal on the Light Industrial project , the Town Engineer
says : well , it is sort of irrelevant now to come up with a
comprehensive site plan , because it is all done piecemeal . Mr .
Lauderdale felt that . . . Chairman Grigorov interjected that that was
not quite what happened . Mr . Lauderdale responded that that was a
comment he thought the Engineer made : it is pretty much finished , the
Light Industrial , and we can come up with a plan on the Agricultural .
Mr . Lauderdale stated , regardless , the point is that he thought it
important for everyone to think in a comprehensive manner in the
• principal way that Duany / Plater - Zyberk presented their approach to
planning , adding that he lauds David and his staff for . going along
with the principle , but just wondered if , in this particular case ,
Planning Board - 29 - August 1 , 1989
they have any assurance in legal or binding terms that the things that
are of concern to our neighborhoods and our community have been met .
Mr . Lauderdale stated that he was just going to talk about one issue .
Mr . Lauderdale said that the high - end is glutted , but half the people
in our community cannot even buy a house for their family . Mr .
Lauderdale stated that he felt there is a real affordable housing
problem in the Town of Ithaca ; it is not homelessness in NYC ; it is
right here ; a normal person that works at Cornell that does not , even
a beginning professor , cannot , afford to go and buy a house in Ithaca .
Mr . Lauderdale felt that is a very serious problem , and if we are
going to make some kind of plan for a Town we should do something
about it . Mr . Lauderdale stated that , we , as Friends of Buttermilk
Falls , and the SHCA , approached Mr . Auble in December of last year ,
and mentioned how important this issue was for them . Mr . Lauderdale
noted that they have precedents in Mr . Leathers ' proposal of
developers that have recognized this , adding , in Commonland it was
also recognized , affordable housing is an important thing that needs
to be provided in this Town , if we are going to have a community that
is a whole community . Mr . Lauderdale commented : what has Mr . Auble
done to address the interests in affordable housing that they have
asked him to address ? Mr . Lauderdale stated that Mr . Auble has talked
to them several times about his interest in providing affordable
housing , and that he came from a working class family , like I ( Mr .
Lauderdale ) come from a working class family , and we would like to be
able to fulfill the American dream and have a house that we could live
in . Mr . Lauderdale remarked that that is interesting .
Mr . Lauderdale , commenting on the " Charette " with regard to
Duany / Plater - Zyberk , said they learned that these are people who have
got a great deal of expertise in this particular question : how do you
provide affordable housing for a community ? They have legal experts ;
they have architectural experts in addressing the issues of affordable
housing , adding that he ( Mr . Lauderdale ) could almost quote Mr . Duany
when he said that " what typically happens in the problem of affordable
housing is that the community asks that the developer dedicate some
portion of their units to be affordable housing ; they wait until the
end of all their development , and then they pile all the affordable
housing into one place . " Mr . Lauderdale said that the ideal of a
diversified neighborhood is violated by that process . Mr . Lauderdale
offered that in the City of Ithaca he thought we have the prime
example of West Village , where everything is all piled in one place ,
and the communities are no longer integrated , and people do not live
together as Towns , instead they live in isolated pods . Mr . Lauderdale
stated that he felt this was a brillant idea ; he was very happy to
hear that there is some possibility of achieving a solution to the
problem of affordable housing in neighborhoods where all kinds of
people can live together . Mr . Lauderdale stated that when the Friends
of Buttermilk Falls and the SHCA talked with Mr . Duany they managed to
get Becky Bilderback , of the Better Housing for Tompkins County , to
come to the " Charette " , talk to David and his architects , and his
staff , about State programs that provide $ 20 , 000 . 00 a unit , at least ,
• subsidy , to provide affordable housing to people who would be
monitored by an organization like Better Housing for Tompkins County ,
or Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Service . Mr . Lauderdale stated that he
r
Planning Board - 30 - August 1 , 1989
called all of these organizations and asked them , because he had not
heard anything from David , if something was in the hopper about this ,
as there are 119 units , and we have just approved across the street
affordable housing for Mr . Auble , which is $ 159 , 000 . 00 , as advertised ;
$ 159 , 000 . 00 is affordable housing ? Mr . Lauderdale remarked that he
was not exactly sure what the income was , but he was sure there were a
large number of people in our community who cannot afford to buy a
$ 159 , 000 . 00 house , and added that he thought it was a little supicious
advertising , to ,call that affordable housing .
Mr . Lauderdale stated that , on this site , given that there is
approval of what he would call higher -end housing , then he would think
it is a reasonable expectation that the community ask for some
provision of affordable housing in this group of units that are going
to be approved , especially given that a large number of the community
would not like to have any more building until they see some kind of
plan about how the building is going to proceed . Mr . Lauderdale
stated they propose that , on all new developments , large subdivisions
or cluster housing units , that all builders be required to set aside
30 % of their units to be sold at 700 of the median income of our
community , and adjust it according to changes in the economy . Mr .
Lauderdale offered that this is a little bit of a rigorous standard ;
the usual standard is 80 % of the median income , but 80 % of the median
income does not even get half of the people in our community . Mr .
Lauderdale said that this is kind of a standard proviso in all of the
State ' s very available programs that the State can provide in order to
provide affordable housing for people , integrate it into this
community according to the principles of Duany / Plater - Zyberk , and the
intentions of Mr . Auble ,
Mr . Lauderdale said that , despite the stated interest of Mr .
Auble in providing affordable housing . . . At this time , Attorney
Barney stated that he did not mean to interrupt , but it is now 10 : 20
P . M . and we have been here for quite a while ; Mr . Lauderdale has been
speaking for about 15 - 20 minutes ; is there any possibility he can kind
of wind it up and let other people speak what they want to speak . Mr .
Lauderdale said that he was pretty close . Attorney Barney stated that
he did not want to close off Mr . Lauderdale , and hoped he was not
speaking out of turn for Carolyn , but we all have to go to work
tomorrow . Mr . Lauderdale responded that he has to go to work
tomorrow . Mr . Lauderdale stated that Mr . Auble ' s answer to their
request for affordable housing is in the document that the Board
received ; that Mr . Auble is going to provide 11 high quality
reasonable cost rental units above garages , and that he is currently
engaged in discussions with local experts about the feasibility of
another development specifically dedicated to the issue . Mr .
Lauderdale said that specifically dedicated to the issue is a
violation of this diversified community rule , and it is also another
promise , something that might happen in the future , about which they
have no clear concern , all they know is that , right now , 119 units are
being approved and they are all going to be over $ 100 , 000 . 00 , and he
• felt that is not affordable . Mr . Lauderdale said that the other
question directly pertinent to this , as far as - he is concerned , is . . .
which is going to be addressed by Peter Hillman , is Mr . Auble ' s
0
Planning Board - 31 - August 1 , 1989
• approach to sell everything fee simple . Mr . Lauderdale offered that ,
in talking with all the people concerned with affordable housing , the
idea of selling units fee simple provides no community assurance of
anything . Mr . Lauderdale stated that he was very happy that Mr . Auble
would like to sell " For Sale " ; he is looking at " For Sale " units , but
if he sells them fee simple he could sell them to somebody who buys
the whole townhouse and the whole townhouse is rented by the person
who buys and sells the townhouse . Mr . Lauderdale said that there is
no covenant that provides any kind of balance of rental sales ; all of
the units could be rented by somebody if they chose to buy them and
rent them , after Mr . Auble sells them . Mr . Lauderdale said that as
far as he could , understand the non -profit corporation business , there
are no covenant restrictions on the balance of rental sale property ;
there is no way that we can be sure this " Granny " apartment in the
back , over the garage , is not going to be a party house for the
students who are renting the front house .
Peter Hillman , of 370 Stone Quarry Road , approached the Board and
mentioned that one of the things he was concerned about was that the
community on South Hill ; and certainly other portions of: the Town of
Ithaca , is one of rental units . Mr . Hillman commented that the
problem with rental units was one of non - owner occupied units , adding
that he was keenly aware of the problem where the owner buys a house
and then rents it out exclusively to students , and he is not there to
supervise it , so his neighbors end up being the supervisors at great
• discomfort to them . Mr . Hillman stated that he brought up this
particular issue , and concern , with Duany / Plater - Zyberk , and Mr . Duany
mentioned , which was a very good idea , the integration of students on
a small scale , where the owner actually lives in one unit and he could
rent out the carriage - house in the back to a student ; that works fine
if the owner is living in the main unit , because he will supervise , as
he has a vested interest . Mr . Hillman stated that he proposes a
covenant that would ensure that this is a residential family
neighborhood , rather than having the possibility of big land tract
owners come in :and buy multiple units , and then just rent them out at
will . Mr . Hillman said that their covenants are ones which follow ,
pretty much so , the existing zoning requirements in terms of the
number of individuals , and number of unrelated individuals within the
units . Mr . Hillman stated that what is of special interest to them is
what they would like to see taken , to be accepted , would be in terms
of owner occupancy . Mr . Hillman said that , indeed , with the Indian
Creek Retirement Community , he took their covenants statement in terms
of owner occupancy , adding that he thought it is fairly good . Mr .
Hillman stated that he liked the idea of a carriage - unit , which
provides access to a student or other people who cannot afford to buy ,
as long as the main unit is owner occupied , as this provides
supervision . Mr . Hillman noted that the key to the whole thing is
that the surrounding neighborhood , including the other owners within
the unit complex of Chase Pond , will be proud of their community and
will not have all the problems associated with just mass rentals , Mr .
Hillman said that he is very concerned with the quality of life on
• South Hill , adding that such a covenant in terms of owner - occupancy ,
he thinks , is in keeping with what Dave Auble would like to have
himself . Mr . Hillman commented that that is something he would like
Planning Board - 32 - August 1 , 1989
• to have incorporated . Mr . Hillman stated that , in addition , as part
of this , there should be kind of a Chase Pond Homeowners ' Association ,
where they can have sort of a self -governing , self -enforcing body ,
which would also take some of the burden off the Town officials for
noise problems , garbage problems , because they could be self - enforcing
in that respect .
Jean Brockway , of 166 Ridgecrest Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that her comments would be quite short , because most people
have already said what she has written down . Ms . Brockway offered
that she has resided at 166 Ridgecrest Road for 15 years . Ms .
Brockway stated that she was at a Planning Board meeting a month ago ,
and had asked about a connecting roadway between Chase Pond and Deer
Run . Ms . Brockway commented that there was a little discussion , but
then it was kind of dropped . Ms . Brockway wondered what the problem
was concerning that , as she thinks it is really important for the
traffic , for a future school bus route , and personally she likes to
walk and would like a safe walk - way down through Deer Run , possibly it
could connect later on to the South Hill Trail . Chairman Grigorov
wondered if there was an easement for a trail to Deer Run . Mr . Auble
replied , yes , a walk -way /bike -way . Ms . Brockway stated that she was
talking about the trail that would be running parallel to Coddington
Road . Ms . Brockway wondered what the problem was in doing a road -way ,
a connecting road -way at the corner , between the two properties .
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz responded that they did look at
• it , and the major problem is the grade , the elevation difference
between the two parcels , which is quite significant , and it would be
very hard to put a road there , and there is a real question as to
whether or not that road would really be used , because just the way
traffic circulation is in the area , the Town sees E . King Road as
being the primary route of choice for people living in Chase Pond ,
either to go eastward to Burns Road to go to work at Cornell , or
westward to Danby Road to go downtown , or Ithaca College to work . Ms .
Brockway stated that she thought that as Danby Road gets worse and
worse traffic , as well as E . King Road , people will opt for the lower
route , just to avoid having to wait at intersections to get out into
the traffic . Mr . Frantz offered that this analysis is based on the
cumulative impact of the projects on E . King Road , commenting , what we
see the traffic at Danby Road being . Mr . Frantz stated that the Town
did think about it , basically , and he thought that a connector between
Chase Pond and Deer Run , possibly a few people in Deer Run might use
it to get up to E . King Road to go west to Danby Road , but it is
really an option for them : do they go down to Troy Road to Coddington
Road , to Danby Road , to Aurora Street , or up to E . King Road and out ?
Mr . Frantz said that the connector , in this instance , would really be
worth the expense of building down a steep grade , and also the Town
maintaining it . Ms . Brockway wondered if it was envisioned that a
school bus would go into the development and just circle around to get
back out , and the same with Deer Run , Mr . Frantz stated that he did
not think about school buses , as far as public transit , the project is
small enough . . . he did not know how the school buses run , whether they
• . . . Ms . Brockway interjected that it goes right down East King Road ,
and stops on a real steep grade . Mr . Frantz said that he did not know
what the distances were .
Planning Board - 33 - August 1 , 1989
• Mr . Trowbridge , referring to the public bus stop , stated that the
intention was to come in on the service road , and the bus stop is
really at [ pointing to map ] " this " location , so the buses would pull
in and pull back out again on that service road . Ms . Brockway
mentioned that the distance between the single - family homes is quite
limited , commenting that green spaces are nice , but did not know if
the side lots should be compromised for the green spaces . Ms .
Brockway mentioned the pond , in that someone said something about
developing something , adding that it sounded to her like some kind of
a golf course . Mr . Trowbridge responded with , no , it is similar to a
trail development along the inlet canal going to Cass Park ; the City
has developed a whole series of small recreation stations . Ms .
Brockway wondered if that was where one can do excerises on the bars
and things . Mr: . Trowbridge answered , yes , that is one thought ; there
is another thought of doing something that is educational . Mr .
Trowbridge noted that the meeting he had with Nancy Ostman and
Professor Peter Marks was that there were two points of view . Mr .
Trowbridge said that he was taken back by Mr . Marks ' idea that this
should be an important park space for communities on South Hill ,
adding that he ( Mr . Trowbridge ) thought that was a very different view
than what is being discussed tonight . Mr . Trowbridge stated that Mr .
Marks suggested that there be more benches ; that it really be a
drop - dead park space ; that it be an important green space for people
to come to on South Hill , and not be treated as a rough meadow .
• At this time , Myrtle Whitcomb approached the Board and stated
that she would do some visual impact . Ms . Whitcomb promised that she
would be very brief , the only thing is she had to coerce someone . Ms .
Whitcomb stated' that her husband has tried to divorce himself from the
Community Association process , because he is a Town Board member ,
although every once in a while she is able to coerce him into doing an
errand . Ms . Whitcomb said that he is the person who would be setting
up the slide projector , if everyone would just pretend he is an
anonymous stranger , she would appreciate it , and so would he .
Chairman Grigorov wondered if there was time for Ms . Whitcomb ' s
presentation . Ms . Whitcomb responded that it would be real quick ,
only two slides .
At this time , Mr . Trowbridge addressed the affordability issue .
Mr . Trowbridge said that just before coming to tonight ' s meeting he
spent a couple of hours with the INHS . Mr . Trowbridge stated that
when one talks about affordability , one gets at the heart of the
issue . Mr . Trowbridge stated that we are looking at 14 units for
INHS , and in " order to make those 14 units of 1200 square feet
affordable , there are over one - million dollars in State subsidy for 14
units . Mr . Trowbridge said that that subsidy is very dearly sought
after , INHS has been pursuing it for years , in fact , we developed
plans over two years ago for the project on Floral Avenue . Mr .
Trowbridge said that his concern about making broad general sweeping
statements about affordability , having worked with INHS , and the kinds
• of projects they get , and the funding they have received , is that that
housing is very dearly gotten . Mr . Lauderdale spoke from the floor
and wondered if Mr . Trowbridge was contending that it is not possible
Planning Board - 34 - August 1 , 1989
• to get subsidies for 20 % of the units , in the way that he had
contended , and if that is what INHS said . Mr . Trowbridge stated that
he was not saying that it is not possible , he is just saying that the
project they are doing , which is the very first project that INHS has
ever done as new housing , that funding has been long and difficultly
sought after , adding that he was not sure that every project could
find funding . Mr . Lauderdale wondered if Mr . Trowbridge was saying
that he could not get subsidies . Chairman Grigorov said that we
cannot get into a discussion . Mr . Trowbridge offered that he was just
trying to clarify something .
Continuing , Ms . Whitcomb said that on and off , over time , as they
have come down , they have talked about the panoramic view from this
particular site , noting that ' she thought it was talked about the last
time Dave was in for ButterField . Ms . Whitcomb presented the first
slide , and stated that she thought a number of interested people had
been up there by the site . Ms . Whitcomb stated that she thought it
was a magnificent panoramic view . Ms . Whitcomb presented the second
slide and stated that the slide was taken just across the road ,
standing almost on the Chase Farm property . Ms . Whitcomb stated that
what she has done , and in the interest of time would not measure to be
exact , but a scale of houses was prepared , commenting , please forgive
her , she is not professional either . Ms . Whitcomb said that ,
centering on this tree , which is somewhere near approximately where
the first row of houses would be built , she put together , with a
minimum side yard , because that was her understanding that that was
the proposal . Ms . Whitcomb noted that " this " is the first group of
houses approximately somewhere near where it is going to go . Ms .
Whitcomb stated that her understanding of the plan was that there is
going to be a service road " here " , and then trees . . . Mr . Auble
interjected with , two rows of trees . Ms . Whitcomb said that " this " is
the first row of side yard houses . Ms . Whitcomb stated that it is
fairly apparent that when she superimposed the houses on " here " that
it would make a visual impact at " this " point . Ms . Whitcomb said that
what is hard for her to do " here " is to try to demonstrate perspective
points , but it is her understanding that it is probably going to
create a tunnel like vision down through " here " , and one will actually
see parts of other houses , etc . Ms . Whitcomb said that , ultimately ,
on the back side will be the development ' s one - story single - family
homes , noting that unless one is very very high up , probably in the
Chase Farm property , one would have some visual impact from this . Ms .
Whitcomb noted that once all of the houses are in " here " , and this is
the concern of. the Community Association anyway , what is drawn on
plots , and what one looks at in terms of sketches similar to what
happened with Deer Run in that everything looked very , very good when
it was presented in that form , then when the buildings actually went
up there certainly was a very strong visual impact , not only for the
neighbors bounding on " this " side of the road , but also , in the case
of Deer Run , from other perspective points all over the County ,
adding , Deer Run has become the butt of a lot of jokes on South Hill ,
commenting that , personally , she would hate to see the Chase Pond
• project suffer the same fate . Ms . Whitcomb ended her presentation .
Planning Board - 35 - August 1 , 1989
• At this point , Board Member Robert Miller wondered what Ms .
Whitcomb thought Mr . Auble should do , instead of building the houses .
Ms . Whitcomb responded that , ultimately , in the end she had a
statement , and If everyone would hang loose for that , adding that SHCA
has something positive to offer , they hope .
Ms . Whitcomb offered that the other visual aid she has is a
20 - foot string'; . Ms . Whitcomb stated that she has a hard time
envisioning distances , commenting , she thought that was probably
something women have a problem with anyway . Ms . Whitcomb , using the
string , demonstrated what the 20 - foot side yard looked like .
Chairman G'rigorov stated that it was getting awfully late .
Laura Marks spoke from the floor and stated that when she was
done with her presentation she was going to bed at 302 E . King Road ,
Ms . Marks stated that she did not know if the Board had ever stopped
to consider that , while SHCA is in the process of waiting for the
Comprehensive Plan to be drawn up , the Board is the de facto
Comprehensive Planner . Ms . Marks mentioned that Susan. Beeners and
George Frantz do their full time job ; they have a lot of training in
it , and the Town has decided that they do not have the expertise to
comprehensively plan without. the assistance of , specifically , Brown
Associates , Mr . Frantz responded that he thought it was a time
factor . Attorney Barney stated that he thought Ms . Marks ' comment was
• a little unfair , we have the expertise , but there are other chores to
be taken care of . Ms . Marks stated that she was sorry , she did not
mean to step on anyone ' s toes .
Ms . Marks wondered how many times in the past year anyone has
heard from the Community Association that they do not want -patchwork
development ; they want continuity within neighborhoods . Ms . Marks
said that she was going to take off from Shirley Egan ' s comment that
we need to start from the beginning on planning the subject site . At
this point , Ms Marks stated , let ' s play Comprehensive Planner . Ms .
Marks said that the first step , which has already been done , by doing
all of this , is to listen to the neighbors ' concerns . Ms . Marks noted
that the Board has heard both pro and con , and thought that all of the
people that have put forth concerns tonight were very much in favor of
the Chase Farm '' site ; they stood up and unanimously supported Dave on
that project . Ms . Marks remarked that they are not just kind of off
the wall here . Ms . Marks noted that the second thing , as a
Comprehensive Planner that needs to be done , in starting from the
beginning on this site , is to get out and look at the neighborhood .
Chairman Grigorov wondered if Ms . Marks thought the Board did not do
that . Ms . Marks responded that she was just running through quickly ,
just a few minutes .
Ms . Marks stated that she was addressing the density issue .
Pointing to the appended map , Ms . Marks said there is Frank Hornbrook
" here " , who is 80 years old , and has an acre for every year that he
• has lived . Ms Marks said that she and her husband own 9 - 1 / 2 acres ;
" here " , at the corner , Florence Wrisley owns one house on 3 . 13 acres ;
Elizabeth Blackmer owns one house on 3 / 4 of an acre ; John and Myrtle
t
Planning Board - 36 - August 1 , 1989
• Whitcomb own one house on 6 acres . Ms . Marks noted that , along E .
King Road and Troy Road there is mostly shoestring development that
has happened ; it is mostly one house on 1 / 2 acre lots . Ms . Marks said
that the next thing to do as Comprehensive Planners , is to look at the
impact on the existing developments in the neighborhood , mainly Deer
Run and Chase Farm , as we have seen it nearly completed .
Ms . Marks commented on the density of the E . King Road proposal .
Ms . Marks remarked that the existing Deer Run project has a gross
acreage of 120 acres . Ms . Marks said that Ed Hallberg has , actually ,
158 units , he is not building three of the units . Ms . Marks said that
the density involved is 1 . 3 dwelling units per acre , or if one
considers the developed area after he has donated 400 of his land ,
there is a developed density of 2 . 2 dwelling units per acre . Ms .
Marks [ indicating on map ] stated " this " is Chase Farm , and , of course ,
every piece of land is individualized , noting , it is kind of hard to
compare everything , because it is individualized . Ms . Marks stated
that , in this case , there are 68 acres ; there is a one acre park ; one
acre toward trail site , which has been improved with $ 40 , 000 . 00 worth
of asphalt , so „ SHCA has given Dave the credit for having 13 acres ,
even though it is really only 2 actual earth acres that he has
developed here ; that is 19 % that he has donated to green space at the
density of 1 . 47 or 1 . 52 per acre . Ms . Marks felt that the proposed
site is way out of line , there is 4 . 27 or 5 . 17 dwelling units per
acre , comparing these two . Ms . Marks said that there is already an
• okay to put 86 units on the site , which come down to being 3 . 09 or
3 . 73 dwelling units per acre . Ms . Marks stated that what she has
done , which is not on the sheet of paper before the Board , is that she
has averaged " these " two numbers , 1 . 34 and 1 . 47 of the surrounding
developments in the neighborhood , divided it by the 27 . 85 acres and
came up with a number that Mr . Auble should be putting 39 houses on
the site , or , if one does a developed acreage , there should be 44
total dwelling units on the site . Chairman Grigorov mentioned the MR
zoning . Ms . Marks responded that we are talking about starting from
scratch , and playing Comprehensive Planner , we are trying to have
continuity in the neighborhood , and not piecemeal development .
Chairman Grigorov stated that being Chairman , she really is in a
difficult position here , she is the one who has to be mean about this ,
but we really cannot go on until midnight . Ms . Marks said that she
understood , she needs to get up in the morning also ; she has a living
alarm clock at home .
Ms . Marks presented the draft of how out of proportion the
proposed site is , compared to the Deer Run and the Chase Farm
proposals . Ms . Marks indicated the average between the two , and
" this " is how out of proportion what is being proposed is , compared to
what is already in the neighborhood .
Ms . Marks stated that she was going to give everyone another
thing to look at , which is the game board for playing Comprehensive
• Planner in the neighborhood . Chairman Grigorov said that we cannot go
on like this . Ms . Marks stated that this is what is being proposed
tonight compared to the surrounding neighborhood . Ms . Marks ,
t
Planning Board - 37 - August 1 , 1989
• referring to the game board , stated that there are 119 little red
blobs there . Ms . Marks pointed out that " this " is 86 , which Mr . Auble
already had approval to do last spring ; " this " is ' the average of 41 ,
and it fits in ; really nicely with the neighborhood , and " this " is her
favorite - a picture of a flower . Ms . Marks thinks that Mr . Auble
should donate the land to Cornell or to the Finger Lakes land program .
Ms . Marks : stated that she thinks the density is a key question
here . Ms . Marks mentioned the issue of the covenants ; the more people
there are per , acre , the more one needs to have deed covenants in
place , it attacks the environmental concerns . Ms . Marks stated that
this should be considered as to whether this is appropriate for the
neighborhood , and whether this would go through if we were starting
from scratch , and if there were a Comprehensive Plan in place .
Ms . Whitcomb again approached the Board and stated that after she
had left the copies of the SHCA response to the proposed project at
Town Hall , and ' left a copy off at Dave Auble ' s office , she went home ,
sat down , and, reviewed the correspondence again . Ms . Whitcomb
commented that 'ishe was struck by the negative and reactive focus . Ms .
Whitcomb personally likes to think she is a positive person who would
rather pro - act rather than re - act . Ms . Whitcomb said that the members
of the executive committee , and most of the members of the Association
also share this characteristic , therefore , she stated that she would
like to address' some positive aspects .
• Ms . Whitcomb stated that , as everyone is aware , the SHCA
supported Mr . Auble ' s Chase Farm project . Ms . Whitcomb stated that ,
at this point , they feel that he has begun to bring this development
to life , much as they have envisioned that it would . Ms . Whitcomb
stated that , thus he has begun to earn their trust and their respect .
Ms . Whitcomb stated that SHCA has also supported the ButterField plan
last year ; they were impressed with Mr . Auble ' s voluntary reduction in
density and his stated sensitivity to the quality of the neighborhood
and the community life on South Hill , Ms . Whitcomb stated that the
SHCA participated in the planning " Charette " with Duany / Plater- Zyberk ,
and for the most part endorsed the concept of their philosophy of
planning . Ms . Whitcomb stated that the SHCA has looked forward to
seeing this philosophy come to life . Ms . Whitcomb stated that on
several occasions , she , personally , has indicated to Mr_ . Auble that
the site for the first Duany / Plater - Zyberk project should be chosen
with care , and that the site and the plan should be entirely
appropriate . Ms . Whitcomb said that they also discussed the
possibility of the Community Association ' s support for assignment of
development rights and / or inclusion of commercial zoning to provide
the right site with the appropriate mix of housing types , and to
create a contained community . Ms . Whitcomb stated that she knew , and
knows , that others have also made similar statements . Ms . Whitcomb
commented that , ° as the Chase Pond plan was reviewed , they became aware
that the plan itself was generally a good one ; it was ;the site that
was inappropriate . Ms . Whitcomb offered that this particular site did
• not lend itself to the opportunity to totally develop the
Duany / Plater- Zyberk dream . Ms . Whitcomb , referring to her statement ,
stated that Mr . Auble has purchased or is in the process of purchasing
Planning Board - 38 - August 1 , 1989
• considerable contiguous acreage between Chase Farm and Sam Peter ' s , on
Route 96B . Ms . Whitcomb stated that the SHCA felt that that area
would be more appropriate for the type of project envisioned . Ms .
Whitcomb remarked that there would be sufficient acreage to be able to
comprehensively plan a centered community that would embrace all of
Duany / Plater- Zyberk ' s philosophy , rather than merely choosing bits and
pieces , and the SHCA would be willing to discuss the support of such a
plan . Ms . Whitcomb stated that the above ends the presentation that
SHCA has , and they do hope that the Board will treat with serious
respect and consideration the concerns that SHCA has raised , both in
their written response and at tonight ' s meeting . Ms . Whitcomb
commented that , if there is such a thing , since the lateness of the
hour , that this is not going to come to a conclusion tonight , the SHCA
would respectively request that the public hearing not be closed , but
be postponed , if indeed , the Board is . going to postpone consideration
and the decision -making process , so that they might be able , not only
to perhaps work with Dave in the meantime , and resolve some of their
concerns and considerations , but also work with the Planning Board as
well .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at
11 : 00 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Chairman Grigorov asked the Board Members if some of the points
• should be discussed tonight , and if there was anything specifically
they wanted to address . Robert Miller stated that he could not digest
all of the material tonight , unless everyone stays up 2 - 3 more hours .
At this time , David Auble addressed the Board and commented that
he felt it has been a little bit of an unfair treatment by the
Association to take the time of the Board , and with many things that
could have been presented in other ways , adding that his impression
has been that this has been sort of a filabuster type of action ,
commenting , he is very disappointed in their way of dealing with AMG
on the whole issue . Mr . Auble stated that he thought AMG has taken
great pains to include the community in their planning process ,
noting , he thought it was a little naive to expect the kind of results
that they are asking for from his planners in 90 days after they have
been here , when even the Town itself has had a planner working on the
Comprehensive Plan for many more months . Mr . Auble stated that he
thought there was a deliberate attempt to cause AMG to miss a building
season , and that is going to cause AMG very substantial financial
damages , and felt that it is unfair , adding that AMG has done their
homework and have been before the Board 3 times on the subject . Mr .
Auble stated that this particular project has been engineered and
re - engineered to the point where all the Board members are quite
familiar with it . Mr . Auble commented that some of the kinds of
concerns that were brought out , and the way they were dealt with , he
did not think was fair to their organization ; they were not approached
by this group at any point along the line with their concerns until
• the very last minute when AMG actually wrote them a letter about 5
days ago saying that AMG has not heard from them , after trying to
contact them many times , then all of a sudden Myrtle comes roaring
Planning Board - 39 - August 1 , 1989
• into the office on a Saturdary when there are customers present ,
screaming for an hour , and castigating AMG about their actions . Mr .
Auble stated that he felt the way things were dealt with tonight has
been handled very poorly , commenting that he would hate to see the
Board concede to these kinds of actions . Mr . Auble stated that he
thought AMG has a lot more support in the community , and if AMG has to
attend the next meeting with everybody that is interested in support
of AMG , then it can be done , although he did not think that is the way
everyone wants to handle things ; AMG has put their cards on the table
fairly , and they expect fair treatment from the Board .
Chairman Grigorov stated that the Board does want to hear from
everybody who wants to speak about the matter . Mr . Auble remarked
with , not 5 times . Chairman Grigorov offered that it is a very
complicated project , and there are a lot of questions that have to be
discussed . Chairman Grigorov , directing her comment to Attorney
Barney , said that Attorney Shirley Egan had brought up , again , the
idea of the parcel needed to be zoned multiple again , because of the
requirements laid down in the original Manos ' rezoning . Chairman
Grigorov wondered if that was still an open problem since it seemed to
be pretty settled . Attorney Barney said that , quite frankly , it was
his impression , but in light of Attorney Egan ' s comments he should
take a look at it , but it is his impression that it has been zoned
multiple residence and it maintains its zoning status , but any change
in the plans from those plans that are used to obtain the rezoning in
• the first place must come before the Planning Board for approval .
Chairman Grigorov inquired about the Town Board . Att orney Barney
responded that because of the nature of what is being asked here , the
Town Board is going to be involved with the acceptance of the public
facilities , the roads , and possibly involved in the Restrictive
Covenants , because , technically , the Town Board normally does review
those , but he ^ was not quite sure , in this particular situation ,
whether it is necessay , but would guess that they probably would take
a look at those . Attorney Barney offered that , under the Subdivision
Regulations there are 2 or 3 waivers being asked of the Planning
Board , relative to side yards , and such other items . Attorney Barney
stated that under the Subdivision Regulations the Planning Board has
the power to grant those waivers , but they must be reported to the
Town Board after they have been granted . Attorney Barney said that he
did not think ' the initial re - zoning process would have to be gone
through all over again .
William Lesser asked that the waivers be described very
specifically , as to what the Board is being requested to do ; he
thought he understood , but just wants to be sure . Mr . Lesser noted
that there are , 3 waivers being requested .
Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that the waivers are ,
apparently , from the request for waiver sheet that the Board received
July 26 , 1989 . Ms . Beeners said that there is a request to waive the
30 ' distance between buildings , and a request to waive the maximum of
• 6 units per building . Ms . Beeners stated that the maximum 6 units per
building waiver, request would appear to her to be requesting a maximum
of 13 attached units in the very western part of the site , if one
t Planning Board - 40 - August 1 , 1989
• considers that the covered walk - way attaching carriage - units makes
those carriage - units part of the structure , which is , apparently , what
the designers are trying to employ , commenting that she thought 13 was
the maximum there , as far as a number ; there are some others with 11
and 7 . Ms . Beeners stated that , as far as building distance goes ,
which she has not found to be terribly well -documented so that it can
be understood by the Board and staff , that pertain to such things as :
only 20 feet between the units to the bay , adding , 20 feet is not a
normally accepted distance in a Multiple Residence Districts it is
really only if one had a bay window or another projection and it was a
small percentage of the entire side . Ms . Beeners mentioned the 25
feet between carriage - house units ; 20 feet between the backs of the
carriage units ; 8 feet between a carriage unit and a garages 18 feet ,
apparently , but she was not sure , between two garages . Ms . Beeners
stated that there are a bunch of different building distance waivers ,
which , in looking at waivers previously granted at Eastwood Commons
and at Black Oak Lane , that was a very different situation and much
smaller magnitude of waivers . Ms . Beeners said that she was operating
under the assumption right now that , in a Multiple Residence District
with fee simple lots like mentioned before , the multiple zoning
requirements would have to pertain to each lot , commenting that , in
trying to look at the project , and with that whole aspect of it aside ,
she , unfortunately , cannot tell from what information has been
submitted , what building heights are being talked about ; what
distances there really are , to see even if it would conform in a
• Multiple Residence situation , adding , this pertains , she thought , to a
partly urban architectural design standards sheet in the booklet that
is before each Board member . Ms . Beeners stated that she has a hard
time understanding that this is really true , in what numbers they
show , to what is being shown on the plans . Ms . Beeners stated that
that , basically , pertains to her recommendation that , not only there
be a much more accurate or adequate demonstration of what the spatial
relationships are between the buildings , their heights , and what the
proposed yards are . Ms . Beeners stated that also , per her looking at
the request for waiver sheet , and some of the other materials , that
there really should be some more information submitted about : why
can ' t there be some alternative platting on the site ; why can 't there
be a different distribution of units ; why can ' t some of the houses
actually be side - by - side duplexes with very nice architectural
controls , or be houses with accessory apartments right within it ,
instead of attached by a loggia ? Chairman Grigorov wondered if that
was for the reason of gaining larger side yards . Ms . Beeners replied ,
yes , but she was not convinced , given the material she has seen , and
the waiver submission requesting the waivers , that all options have
really been explored in re -platting or in re - distributing the dwelling
unit density , commenting , part of that concern also pertains to the
number of units that are right on the western edge of the site . Ms .
Beeners noted that , back when Beacon Hills was approved , there were
about 16 dwelling units shown to the west side of a swale , which
[ indicating on map ] gets right into the pond " here " . Ms . Beeners said
that was when the Beacon Hills plan was R- 15 , they were going to be
• rental units . Ms . Beeners stated that when the site was rezoned to
multiple , there were no units shown to the west of " this " swale , and
it appears , from the history of the agreement , there was some
Planning Board - 41 - August 1 , 1989
• attention thatthe Manos ' buffer agreement pertains somewhat to how
this land was maintained . Mr . Auble wondered if Ms . Beeners was
saying that the Manos ' project was a better design . Ms . Beeners
responded with , no , she was just expressing some concern about the
evolution of some environmental and site plan concerns relating to
what is really happening in the western area over " here " . Ms . Beeners
said that in " this " plan there was conformance pretty much to what the
Manos ' plan showed , Ms . Beeners remarked that when the ButterField
plan was approved , and the Trowbridge plan , back in 1987 , there were a
few units shown to the west , but there was a condition related to
that , basically , which reflected the Planning Board ' s concern as far
as development in that vicinity . Ms . Beeners said that when the plan
came in for the duplexes , a full development was shown all the way
around the whole site , however , that plan received absolutely no final
approvals , commenting , what was approved was the Preliminary plat , and
then final for . one section showed nothing in " this " vicinity , Ms .
Beeners stated ', that the main gist is related to the waiver request ,
and felt that more information is needed on what possible re -platting
there is , and also have more information on really what the hydrologic
or proxmity impact to the buffer would be when , essentially , all of
the buildings within that western area , west of the swale on the new
plan , require waivers ,
William Lesser , directing his comment to Ms . Beeners , referred to
NOTE : Building layout for illustrative purposes only . Mr . Lesser
wondered if that meant that this is not really the final plan .
Attorney Barney responded that he would view this as the rezoning
process , one goes through a general plan for rezoning , and then final
detailed plan , ' Attorney Barney commented that , since we have gone
through the initial rezoning , he would view this as a general initial
plan . . . Mr' . Lesser remarked that it is not exactly metes and bounds .
Attorney Barney noted that there is a lot of detail that one would
expect to see on a final plan . Ms . Beeners said that there is a
subdivision preliminary plat that was submitted by AMG , adding , one
should note that there are a lot more carriage houses shown on the
site plan than what would really be permitted . Ms . Beeners thought
that the intent was for them to show possible locations .
Chairman Grigorov wondered if anyone would argue with the scale
of the silhouette houses that Ms . Whitcomb put on the slide . Mr .
Trowbridge responded that the problem is , one needs to really
carefully re - scale that , and be much more sophiscated about doing it .
Mr . Trowbridge said that there was a good stab at it , but their
feeling was that there are big corridors ; the intent always has been
that view corridors were maintained all the way through the site , of
which there are,iseveral of those . Mr . Trowbridge stated that the idea
is , in a project that is developed like this , one is not going to
maintain existing views , there is no question about it , adding that he
was not trying « to hide that to dissuade the Board , but the view will
be altered . Mr . Trowbridge said that AMG is attempting to enhance the
main view corridor moving through the project , commenting that he
• thought that was important , and that there is also some kind of space
between buildings , noting that this , compared to many of the plans
that Ms . Beeners was looking at , which were former MR units , even
t
Planning Board - 42 - August 1 , 1989
early plans that AMG did that ganged 8 - 10 units together and put that
in " this " direction toward the view , so one was really looking at a
Chinese wall , Mr . Trowbridge said that the intent " here " was to
always put th ''in ends at the street to get as much potential
transparency versus taking that sort of unit and turning it to the
street , so the logic has been , with a project of this size , to enhance
the view as much as possible ,
Chairman Grigorov asked what the Board ' s preference was at this
point .
Mr . Lesser, stated that his feeling was to follow along with what
Ms . Beeners was saying , that if she does not feel that the Planning
staff has sufficient information on some of these points to make a
full recommendation to the Board , he would find it difficult to
proceed .
Mr . Auble wondered if he would be given the opportunity to be
assured of being on the next Agenda for September 5 , 1989 , and also at
an appropriate time , when , if there is a delaying action of this type ,
AMG can still ,' have a full review by the Board . Chairman Grigorov
stated that he would be on the next Agenda . Mr . Auble requested that
they be first on the Agenda , which he felt was a fair request . Mr .
Lesser stated '' that that sounded reasonable . Chairman Grigorov
responded that it would be a matter of when the request comes in . Mr .
Auble said , right now . Ms . Beeners offered that this matter could be
adjourned until ' September 5 , 1989 at 7 : 45 p . m . Mr . Lesser wondered if
that would allow sufficient time to collect the information required .
Ms . Beeners replied , no guarantees , adding that the material that has
been submitted liso far she would not consider that it was received in
any comfortable timeframe to review it , and cannot make any guarantees
that the Town staff will be able to review it , and make a full
recommendationby that time ; it will be encumbent on AMG , having heard
all of this , to produce some additional information and fill in some
of the incomplete spots in their previous submissions . Ms . Beeners
stated that she did not see any reason why there could not be another
public hearing on it .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chariman Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Stephen Smith , seconded by Robert Miller :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the Public
Hearing in the matter of Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed " Chase
Pond " development be and hereby is adjourned until September 5 , 1989
at 7 : 45 p . m . , to allow time for the developer / applicant to present
some additional' information .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Miller , Smith , Baker , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
t Planning Board - 43 - August 1 , 1989
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Grigorov indicated that , for everyone ' s information , the
above MOTION constituted Notice to the public that the Public Hearing
is adjourned until September 5 , 1989 at 7 : 45 p . m .
Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of Consideration of
Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the
proposed " Chase , Pond " development duly adjourned at 11 : 35 p . m .
AGENDA ITEM : PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Ms . Beeners reported that the Comprehensive Planning Consultant ,
Stuart I . BrownilAssociates , stated that the report would be mailed to
the Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee on Friday , August 4 , 1989 .
Ms . Beeners noted that the delay has been because of some litigation
involving a park site . Ms . Beeners stated that she has been calling
them on a follow- up call on a weekly basis all through the whole
process . Ms . Beeners stated that the firm has not been paid any
money . Ms . Beeners offered that there will be a meeting with the
Comprehensive Planning Subcommittee on August 15 , 1989 , adding that
another meeting is scheduled on August 22 , 1989 , at which Stuart I .
Brown Associates will be present .
Ms . Beener+s reported that Assistant Town Planner George Frantz
• will be attending a conference in Boston this coming weekend on
geographic information systems for local and regional governments .
Ms . Beeners stated that the Planning Department is getting a good
selection of maps together , including ones on the different stream
corridor-s , i . e . , Fall Creek , Six Mile Creek , and Casca.dilla Creek ,
plus some real progress has been made on Town base mapping , commenting
that the maps are being done manually .
Mr . Frantz reported that the City of Ithaca Planning Board and
Development Board , last Tuesday , July 25 , 1989 , approved the site plan
for the 1800 feet of the South Hill Recreation Way that runs through
the City of Ithaca .
Board Member Kenerson mentioned the Mancini property , along with
other properties on Elmira Road , and wondered if there was anything in
the works to seriously take a look at the zoning along the Elmira Road
corridor . Mr . Kenerson commented that that area is beginning to be
piecemeal . Mr . ' Kenerson felt that there should be some kind of a look
at it .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairperson Grigorov declared the August 1 , 1989 ,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 50
p . m .
• Respectfully submitted ,
Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
t
( Attachment to
Hackberry Lane Sub .
• THE HACKBERRY PROTECTION AREA Deed Restrictions )
The Hackberry Protection Area, part of the development along Hackberry Lane and Coy
Glen Road, is an area set aside to protect and preserve a population of Hackberry trees, (Celtis
occidentalis), and two butterflies that feed exclusively on Hackberry. These trees are important to
biologists and naturalists because the species is locally scarce. By a locally scarce species we mean
a species, (in this case a kind of tree), which is found on fewer than 10 sites in the Cayuga Lake
Basin. Locally rare species are found on fewer than five sites in the area. In careful
investigations, we have found six sites with Hackberry in this area.
The Hackberry population along Coy Glen Road is by far the largest local „roup of
Hackberry trees. These trees along Coy Glen Road are especially important to us because they
support a population of the Tawny Emperor Butterfly, (Asterocampa clyton). This butterfly is
scarce in New York State; and this is the only known Finger Lakes population. Because the
species feeds only on Hackberry, safeguarding Hackberry is essential to the survival of the
butterfly. Another Hackberry feeder, the Hackberry butterfly (Asterocampa Celtis), has also been
reported at this site. This butterfly is even more scarce in upstate New York than the first one.
To preserve these Hackberries and also the butterflies, it is essential that the Hackberry
Protection Area remains undisturbed. Hence, there are deed restrictions on this area regarding
construction and the cutting of Hackberry or other trees which would disrupt the natural habitat.
- Other natural vegetation should also be left in place whenever possible. We discourage you from
planting anything in the Protection Area. Because. the butterflies will be feeding and pupating in
this area it will also be important that the use of herbicides and pesticides and other chemicals is
very limited in or near this area. In particular, we would discourage the use of general or organic
- caterpiller killers such as Di pel' or 'Bf which contain Bacillus thuringensis . These insecticides
will kill the larva of all moths and butterflies (not just gypsy moth). Hence, aerial spraying of the
area for gypsy moth would also destroy these (and other) butterflies. The caterpillars only eat
• Hackberry leaves, so they are never expected to be lawn or garden pests.
Because the two butterflies are scarce it is possible that home owners whose property
includes part of the Hackberry Protection area may receive requests from scientists or naturalists to
visit the protection area to see these butterflies occasionally. Because nearly all of the Hackberry,
and hence the butterflies, are found in the Hackberry protection areas we hope home owners will
not find these visits invasive of their privacy.
To assist in the protection of the trees and butterflies, -home owners will want to be able to
identify them. The Hackberry trees on the site range in size from very small to very large trees .
They can reach a size and general shape similar to that formerly attained by American Elm. The
very warty, light-gray bark of the trees is the most distinctive character. The leaves are oval and
slightly asymmetrical at the base and long-pointed at the tip. The fruit is an ellipsoid or nearly
globose drupe (that is, the fruit is berry-like in size and shape with one big seed like a cherry) . The
--fruit is dark red early in the season but becomes blue-black when mature.
The two butterfly species look and behave much alike. (This information comes from
Insects that Feed on Trees and Shrubs by Warren T.Johnson and Howard H. Lyon). The adult
butterflies are found in July. The butterfly is a golden-orange with dark, almost black edges and
rows of spots along the edges of the wings. The two species lay whitish eggs in clusters on the
underside of Hackberry leaves, one spherical egg on top of another. There may be more than 300
eggs in a cluster and all eggs in a cluster hatch about the same time. The very young caterpillars
are whitish with a black head, but become greenish as they feed on the leaves. There are no hairs
on the caterpillar, even on the mature larvae. When they have finished feeding, the larvae migrate
down to the ground and then climb other vegetation or posts to build their chrysalis for pupation.
In Northern regions like Ithaca the species usually overwinters as larvae. -
- We hope this information will-be useful to you. If you have questions about these or other
issues regarding the preservation of the Hackberry Protection. Area the Natural Areas staff at the
Cornell Plantations (607-255 -3020) will try to advise you.
EXHIBIT 1
• PROPOSED DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR
HaCKBERRl LANE SUBDIVISION
Subject to the following covenants , rest _ ictions ,
licenses and easements which shall ru :i with the land ,
bindin the Grantees , heirs , successors and / or assi : ns .
1 . The Grantee , their successors , assigns , agents or
• li. censee ' is shall remove no trees ( by cutting or otherwise )
greater than four ( 4 ) inches in diameter nor aria• Hackuerry
trees unless such tree or trees are dead , diseased or ha % e
limbs which pose a hazard to primary structures oa the
premises or which may , if left in their then current state ,
cause a serious ph %- sisal injury to persons walking near
them . This restriction. sha _ be limited to the area marked
" Hacl: herr'%F Prete ^ tion Area " on the survey map referred t �
above . The Hackberr ;: ' rotes: tion area contains a
significant population o Hackberry trees ( celtis
ocridenta„ l } and two . rare s.p_ec. ies of butterflies a. ssoria . ec
with them . a des _ ription of these species is attached .
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 comp : v ' with the Town of Ithaca
• Zoning, Ordinance . any residenA errected on the premises
shall be; occupied b % on ' :- one family . For this purpose a
" family ” shall be ( a ) an individual or ( b ) two or more
persons related b �• blood , marriage or legal adoption , or
( c ) up to three unrelated persons .
1 For Lots 3 and 4 )
r
3 . 1 - o _ withstandin the set' back requirements provided
8 q
for in the Zoning Ordinance , no improvements shall be
constructed ( for Lot 4 : within 35 feet of the northerly
line of the, premises deeded to Cornell University by coy
Glen associates , Inc . } ( for Lot 3 : within 40 feet of the
southerly-, boundary of the lands conveyed to Cornell
University . bv Coy Glen Associates , Inc .
•
y
TOWN OF ITHACA
• LOCAL LAW N0 . FOR THE YEAR 1989
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO THE OCCUPANCY OF
DWELLING UNITS
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as
follows :
Section 1 . . Legislative Findings .
The Zoning Ordinance of the Town - of Ithaca permits
residential uses and establishes residence districts in the Town .
consistent with the Town comprehensive plan . One purpose of this
part of the Zoning Ordinance is to preserve the Town ' s
residential character and protect residents from overcrowding , an
excessive volume of traff ic , parking problems , and excessive
noise which deprives them . o•f the privilege of quiet - residential
neighborhood communities . Residential districts are designed to
allow people to reside in peaceful environs undisturbed by the
disruptions attendant to business , industrial and other intensive
uses .
The U . S . Supreme Court has -found that a quiet place where
yards are wide , people few , and motor vehicles restricted , are
legitimate guidelines in• land , use . plans . Further , the police
• -power is not confined - to • eliminat. ion of : filth , - stench and
unhealthy places , but it is proper to lay out zones where family
values , youth values , and blessings of quiet seclusion and clean
air make the area a sanctuary for - people .
The Court of Appeals of the State of New York has also
recognized the validity of these governmental purposes , provided
there is a reasonable relationship between the purpose and the
regulation utilized to achieve that purpose .
In recent years town officials have . been inundated with
complaints about the overcrowding , noise , and parking problems in
many residential neighborhoods caused . by _large _ n-umbers of persons
occupying residential dwellings on a transient basis , primarily
as student housing for a semester or academic year . The vast
majority of these complaints are received during the school year .
The Town has two institutions of higherlearning with a large
population of students . UnYortunately , the _ - housing
accommodations provided by these institutions of higher learning
are inadequate to meet the housing needs of all of the students
enrolled in these institutions , thereby causing students to look
for housing in what are otherwise primarily long term residential
neighborhoods . The effect of these problems is to convert
dwellings insuch resi -dential , _ne. ighborhoodsinto rental ., non
owner - occupied properties occupied by large numher9 of students .
• These occupancies are usually not individuals living together as
a single housekeeping unit , but are more reflective of transient .,
ENHBIT 2
UM@a1111 � . aLI1..� , , i / d4 :) / ny iL : ubpm
seasonal ( including semester or academic year ) occupancies .
This trend threatens the stability and integrity of
residential neighborhoods . This practice interferes, with the
goal of providing quiet and peaceful residential neighborhoods .
It also results in the hazardous overcrowding of residential
dwellings .
. The Town recognizes that quasi - multiple dwellings are an
integral part of the community . However , if legitimate long - term
residential units continue to be converted from long - term
continuous ' occupancy to rental occupancy on a semester by
semester basis for short - term economic gain at the expense of the
rest of the community , the character of the Town ' s residential
neighborhoods will be destroyed ; - Rather than a place where- long
term stabilized neighborhoods exist where residents can have
peace and solitude , they will become a haven for students whose
part - ies , ' driving , and ' other activities disturb residenti- al
tranquility .,, Such type of occupancies are better accommodated in
multiple residence districts and special land use districts
permitting same . The Town does , provi . de substantial
accommodations for this type. . of occupancy in its multiple
residence and special land use district areas .
The protection of residential values must be achieved by
regulations which are reasonably related to this goal . The Court
of Appeals °decision in McMinn v .• Oyster Bay , ( 66 N . I! . 2d 5441
1986 ) is illustrative of this fact .
It is the purpose of this local law to protect the Town ' s
residential neighborhoods by reasonable regulations .
Specifically , this local law redefines " family " in compliance
with McMinn ,, ( supra ) .
Overcrowding of residential dwellings and properties is also
regulated based on habitable floor .. area and by limiting the
number of permitted vehicles at each dwelling ._.
By --such regulations the Town hopes to give effect to its
zoning ordinance code and -the goal of preservation of residential
neighborhoods by insuring that residential neighborhoods continue
to be populated by year round , long - term residents , while
transient student visitors are properly located in zones intended
for multiple and transient accommodfitions .
Section 2 . The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as
readopted , amended and revised , effective February 26 , 1968 , be
further amended as follows :
1 , Article I , Section l , - Subparagraph 5 is amended to read
• EXHIBIT 2
2
'- DwelIing . lth3 , , 7 / 25 / 89 12 : 13pm - - -- -
• " 5 . A * family ' consists of
( a ) Two or more persons occupying a single dwelling
unit , related by blood , marriage , or legal adoption ,
living and cooking together as a single housekeeping
unit , or T
( b ) Any number of unrelated persons , occupying a
single dwelling unit , not exceeding two ( 2 ) , living and
cooking together as a single housekeeping unit .
( c ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph ( b ) of
this definition , a group . of unrelated persons numbering
more than two 2 shall be considered a family upon a
determination by the Zoning Board o•f Appeals that the
group is a functional equivalent of a family pursuant
to the standards enumerated - in paragraph ( e ) herein .
( d ) Before making a determination whether a group of
more than two unrelated persons constitute's a family
for the purpose of . - occupying a dwelling unit , as
provided for in paragraph ( c ) of this definition , the
Zoning Board of Appeals shall hold a public hearing ,
after public notice , as is normally required for the
obtaining of a variance . . The fee f or such an
application shall be the same as is � required for an
i application for a variance . Said . application shall be
on a f orm provided ' by the Zoning Board of Appeals or
Zoning Enforcement Officer .
( e ) In making a determination under paragraph ( c ) the
Board of Appeals shall . find :
( i ) The group is one which in theory , size ,
appearance and structure resembles a traditional
family unit .
( ii ) The group is one which . will live and cook
together as a single housekeeping- unit .
( iii ) The group is of a -permanent nature and is
neither a framework for transient or seasonal
( including as " seasonal " a period of an academic
year or less ) living ] nor merely an association or
relationship which is transient or seasonal in
nature . In making this finding , the Zoning Board
of Appeals may consider , among other factors , the
following : '
( a ) Whether expenses for preparing of food ,
rent or ownership costs , utilities , and other
• 3
EXHIBIT 2
y - uwelting . itn � , / [ :) / bg Iz : l / peg - - - - -- - - --
• household expenses are shared and whether the
preparation , storage and consumption of food
is shared .
( b ) Whether or not different members of the
houbehold have the same address for the
purposes of
( i ) Voter registration .
( ii ) ' Drivers - license .
( iii ) Motor vehicle registration .
( iv ) Summer or other residences .
( v ) Filing of taxes .
( c ) Whether or not furniture and appliances
are commonly owned by all members of the
household .
( d ) Whether or not any children are enrolled
in local schools .
• ( e ) Whether or not householders are employed
in the - local area . .
( f ) Whether or not the group has been living
together as a unit for an extended period of
time -9 whether in the current dwelling unit or
other dwelling- units .
( g ) Any other factor reasonably related to
whether or not the group of persons i s the
functional equivalent of a family .
( iv ) A group of - individuals living in the same
dwelling unit shall be' presumed not to be a family
as defined in this . section if such dwelling unit
contains four or more college students over the
age of 16 years . For this purpose the following
rules shall apply :
( a ) A college student is a person, who
attends at least half time any college ,
university or other - institution authorized to
confer degrees by the State of New York .
( b ) For this ' purpose of this presumption ,
minor dependent children of any other person
• 4
EXHIBIT 2 - —
,- pw -11 ng . lth3 , - -, i / 25169 -12- * 22pm - - - - - -
living in the dwelling unit shall be excluded
• in calculati-ng the number of college students
in the dwelling unit .
( v )- A group of individuals living together in the
same dvelling unit shall be presumed not to be a
family as defined herein if it is occupied by four
or more adults over the age of eighteen years and
is not occupied by minor , dependent children .
( vi ) ft The presumption set forth_ in subdivisions
Liii ) and Liv ) above may be ' rebutted by sufficient
evidence of the characteristics set forth in
subdivision Liii ) above ,
( vii ) In making determinations under this
section , the Zoning Board of Appeals shall not be
- required to consider the matters set forth in
Section. 77 of this Ordinance .
( f ) Notwithstanding the provisions elsewhere provided
herein , if the follo..winA limitations result in a lesser
permitted number of occupants . than would be permitted under
the definition of family set forth above and the regulations
of each zone set forth later in this ordinance , the number
of occupants , related or othewise , shall not exceed the
maximum numbers determined -on . the basis of floor area of
each conventional bedroom as follows ,
( Less than 80 square feet 0
( ii ) At least 80 but less
than 120 square feet 1
( iii ) 120 square feet
but less than 160 square
feet 2
( iv ) 160 square feet
but less than 200 square
feet 3
( v ) 200 square feet or
more 4
Areas - utilized for kitchenettes , bath , toilet , storage ,
utility space , closets , and other service . or . maintenance space
shall be excluded . "
2 . Article 3 , Section 4 , Subdivision 1 , is amended to read
as follows :
• 5
- — - EXHIBIT 2
Ioweliing . , tna , - 12 : bpm _ - - - - --
• _ '^ 1 . A one - family dwelling . A one 4amily dwelling may be
occupied by not more than
( a ) An individual , or
( b ) A family , or
( c ) A family plus up to one boarder , roomer , lodger or
other occupant . '_
3 . Article 3 , Section 4 , Subdivision 2 ( a ) is amended to
read as follows :
" 2 ( a ) . A two - family dwelling shall be occupied by not more
than two families .
4 . Article 4 , Section 11 , Subdivision 1 , is amended to .read
as follows :
" A One - Family Dwelling . A one - family dwelling ma .y be
occupied by not more than
( a ) An individual , or
( b ) A family , or
• ( c ) A family plus up . to , one b -oar'der , roomer , lodger or
other occupant . "
S . Article 4 , Section 11 , Subdivision 2 ( a ) , is amended to
read as follows :
" 2 (. a ) . A two - family dwelling shall be occupied by not more
than two families .
6 . Article S , Section 18 , Subdivision 1 , is amended to read
as follows :
" 1 . A One - Family Dwelling . A one - family dwelling may be
occupied ° by not more than
( a ) An individual , or
( b ) A family , or ,
( c ) A family plus up to one boarder , roomer , lodger or
other occupant . "
7 . Article S , Section 18 , Subdivision 2 ( a ) is amended to
read as follows :
• 6
EXHIBIT 2 - - - - -
`s. uwei -i iris tns ;— , ir,4 �-lay rz : zespm — - - - - - -
• " 2 ( a ) . A two - family dwelling shall be occupied by not more
than two families . "
8 . Article 6 , Section 26 , is .hereby amended by adding a
paragraph at the end thereof reading as4ollows :
" Each dwelling unit in a multiple residence shall be
occupied by no more than
( a ) An individual , or
( b ) A family . "
9 . There is hereby added a new section , to be Section 69 - a ,
reading as follows :
" Sec •tion 69 - a . Notwithstanding any other terms of this
ordinance , in residence districts R5 , R9 , R15 , R30 , and
Multiple Residence District , there - shall be. the following
maximum number of vehicles permitted on a permanent basis at
the following types of houses : .
( a ) One family dwelling 3
( b ) Two family dwelling 4
• ( c ) Multiple family dwelling 2 vehicles per
dwelling unit
The maximum number of parked vehicles may be increased by
Special Permit of the Zoning Board of . Appeals after consideration
of the criteria set forth in Section 77 , Subdivision 7 . Such
permit may be indefinite or for limited period of time only .
Section 3 . Pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law and the
statute of local governments , this Local Law shall supersede any
inconsistent provisions of the Town- . Law .
Section 4 . In the event any portion of this law is declared
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction , the validity of the
remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of
invalidity .
Section 5 . This local law shall take effect , ten days after
its publication pursuant to applicable . provisions of law .
• EXHIBIT 2 7
! ( ►s; 11( '1I'l ) � )OlI1� � 10111 )
607-2 73-4221
I' 1 .\ 607.27:1.5290
July 29 , 1989
Dear Neighbor :
When we decided to modify the Butterfield Townhouse project on East King
Road ( now called " Chase Pond " ) , we invited the South Hill Community
Association ( SHCA ) to review our plans , This dedicated group of
Individuals has spent a great deal of volunteer time on this review ,
Enclosed Is a list of the SHCA Development Committee ' s " preliminary
Executive Summary " and our responseto the Committee ' s concerns. We hope
that you Will let us .. know if yo.u . . , have additional concerns beyond what the
• Development Committee has presented , The preliminary approval meeting
will be at the Town Hall at approximately 8 : 00 p . m . on Tuesday , August 1 ,
1989 . We hope to see you there ,
Sincerely ,
Dave Auble
DCA : jds
cc : Planning Board Members
Town Board Members
Susan Beenera
•
ryIIBIT 3 -
• CHASE POND DEVELOPMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The South Hill Community Association has spent a considerable amount of time and
effort studying the somewhat limited amount of material that Auble Associates
11
has made available to us .
- We hope to present a more comprehensive oral and written review of the Chase Pond
site plan at the Public Hearing on August 1 . However , below is a summary of
our concerns .
* Density . We are concerned that the density of this project should be
reduced in proportion to the acreage removed from the project since the
original Mano ' s approval .
*
Environmental concerns . Given the sensitive nature of the South Hill
Swamp , a unique natural area , the Planning Board and staff should fully
assess all environmental impacts .
* Application for waivers . Since a new concept in building for our Town
is being presented , we feel the Planning Board should reserve adequate time
to study this proposal and its ramifications before making a decision
regarding waivers of its regulations .
• * Affordable housing . Mr : Auble and Duany/ Plater- Zyberk have publicly .
expressed considerable interest in the issue of affordable housing in
discussions with our Association . .. Unit sale prices of $ 100 , 000 to $ 135 , 000
are considerably more than any standard definition of affordable housing .
* Rentals . We are concerned - that this project may become a high density
rental project . Therefore , we will request this project be a For Sale only
project , with appropriate deed covenants administered and enforced by a
— mandatory homeowner ' s association . --
* View impact . Because of the proximity of the units to one another , we
fear that the majestic view enjoyed by South Hill residents will be all
but obliterated . In addition , the quality of the view of South Hill from
other areas has already been diminished by Deer Run , Chase Pond , in the
same area , and with a density of three times that of Deer Run will further
degrade the quality of view of South Hill from other areas .
* Connecting roadway to disperse traffic . According to the philosophy of
Duany/ Plater- Zyberk , - dispersal . of traffic throughout the community is
preferred rather than to . have " pod- like" developments emptying onto
collector roads .
*
Civic reservations . We need assurances that the parcels of the plan
presently " reserved for civic buildings " shall not , at some future point ,
• be utilized for additional units but shall always be reserved for civic
space or open space .
EXHIBIT 3
• Response to S11CA Summary of Concerns
Chase Pond Development 7 / 29 / 89
Density : The overall density of the project remains the same as the rental projects
approved for Bill Manos in 1982 and the Auble project in 1987 , i . e . , 119 units
approved on approximately 23 acres . . . Of the original 30- acre site , approximately 4 . 8
acres on the west end was donated to Cornell Plantations as a buffer to their land .
The approximate three-acre parcel to the east was retained by Bill Manos and is
restricted to one single - family home . Of the remaining 23 . 03 acres , 7 . 3 acres ( 32% )
are reserved for park land ; over 40% of the original project is open space counting
the buffer donated to Cornell .
This is not considered to be a high- density project : 119 units on 27 . 83 acres is 4
1 / 4 units per acre . In a standard suburb , this density would be lots just under a
quarter - acre . The key to the Duany / Plater- Zyberk group ' s planning is to concentrate
the density onto smaller lots , thereby reserving. large areas of usable open space .
These areas of somewhat concentrated development can then become a focus for community
activity and interaction , as well as collection points for an efficient mass transit
system ( both of which .do not happen in standard suburban sprawl . )
Environmental Concerns : We have negotiated with Cornell Plantations representatives
a workable solution to protect the South 11111 swamp , e . g . , pesticide restrictions ,
buffer plantings , non- invasive landscaping , etc . More importantly , we plan an active
community education effort so that residents will understand the importance of
protecting the ecosystem ; this could include permanent . signage , brochures used in
• marketing the project , and nature-education events held in the common parkland . In
addition , we have clearly demonstrated our concern for the environment in the
development of our existing Chase . Farm project . We have gone to great lengths to
mark and protect valuable trees , and have planted many more along King Road .
Application for Waivers : This type of plan is not new for the area ; it is simply new
for this time . The space between buildings will actually be greater than that in many
of the more charming areas of downtown - Ithaca , The long blocks of townhouses and the
small homes ( 22 ' -30 ' apart ) could have been built as rental units in the current
Multiple-Residence District ( where 20 ' is the minimum building separation ) . Since we
choose to have this project be " For-Sale " units , ( to fit into our neighborhood ) the
Town staff has recommended that we apply under the Cluster ordinance ( giving the
Planning Board far greater powers over architecture , landscaping , etc . ) .
The Cluster ordinance , for aesthetic reasons , calls for a minimum of 30 ' feet between .
buildings and no more than six units per building . Our plan has eight rows of
townhouses , from six to it units long , all of which front on greens or boulevards .
The effect of' this placement is precisely for the purpose of framing the green and the
view with a row of townhouses , creating a sense of place .
The plans and elevations presented to date clearly show the relationship of buildings
to each other ; because of careful siting view lines are maintained and the site does
not appear too _ dense . The number of previous development attempts on this site
clearly demonstrate that it is a difficult site ; 119 units is required to pay for the
Infrastructure installation through the rock and allow some profit potential . Strict
interpretation of the six- unit rule per building and 30 - foot rule separation would
result in the loss of 24 units , imposing significant economic hardship and effectively
killing the project in its present form . This results in either delaying the project
.M1IBIT 3
7
or converting it back to a rental project . If delayed , the new residents of Chase
• Farm homes will suffer , through more months of construction and an unsightly and
dangerous condition .
Affordable Housing : This project provides three distinct types of for - sale housing ,
addressing different markets than our larger . single- family project across the street . .
It also will provide up to 11 high-quality , reasonable cost rental units above the
garage in selected locations . These carriage-house units will also help defray the
cost of mortgage payments for the owners . We are currently engaged in discussions
with local experts about the feasibility of another development specifically dedicated
to this issue .
Rentals : Having a large rental project across from the entrance of our single - family
development would obviously affect our sales since this was approved in 1987 as a
rental project ; we are obviously going to a great deal of trouble and expense to get
it approved for subdivision as a " For-Sale " project . We see no need for any
additional covenants or restrictions .
View Impact : A tremendous amount of design effort has gone into the orientation of
streets , greens , parks , and buildings in order to preserve and frame several
significant views on- site . The view from: Chase Lane across the green and public space
towards the Cornell campus is the key focus for both subdivisions . Mr . Duany ' a
contention is ,;, that good planning serves to " frame the picture , " reserving key views
for the public , orienting the eye towards the vista , and creating a " sense of place " .
The best views have been maintained and reserved ` for the public ( around the pond in
particular ) . . These areas could .have been kept for premium-price units . Our
traditional color schemes " will , blend more withthe surrounding countryside than
• neighboring developments have in the past .
Connecting Roadway : Our plans for our future development do include more road
connections than this particular site . The elements under our control have been
closely coordinated ; the main entrance is set directly opposite the Chase Farm
entrance , and we have allowed for a recreation. trail connection with Deer Run at the
northeast corner . Potential road alignment into Deer Run appears to be problematic
because of the steeper grades leading down in that direction .
Civic Reservations : The entire common area will ' be subject to a combination of deed
restrictions and Community Corporation bylaws that will restrict or eliminate any
future building activity . These restrictions will be reviewed by the Town attorney
before final approval .
•
EiIBIT 3
SOUTH ' HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
233 troy We
Ithacn , 11Y 14850
607 - 273- 7322
lU : MEMBERS OF 1111= PLAI1111NG BOARD
TOWN PLANNERS
TOWN OF ITHACA
FROM : SQU I l l HILL C "1111U111 1 Y ASSOC I A r i.oi i
Executive Committee
Deve lovmr? iit Sturly Con►rni tte ?
Agri cu I tur r� ° nkat tura l Resource ; committee
DATE : August 1 , 191, 9
RE : CHASE POND
As you are aware , the South Hill Community Association has
participated in the planning, :charette and has met with Mr . Auble
• and his associates on several occasions to discuss Chase Pond . The
Association has generally been pleased with the willingness of Mr .
Auble and his staff to discuss the project and to seek our input .
However , this p 1 an has linen iii a constant, state or evolvement and
it has been difficult for . ras to maintain an accurate assessment of
all the aspects involved wi tl l i t . We have raised questions acid
concerns to Mr . Auble and expected , that , ultimately , these concerns
would be incorporated into the firial plari .
We were under the impression this project would bs on the September
agenda , therefore , we felt tiizt, identification of our concerns by
this rilvi ox imnto t imef r nmo viou Irl 61 low t imrn too rnePt with
the developer to disr. r.iss rind mediate our concernsit is
unfortunate that acceleration of the process precludes this step .
... _ _ . . . — __ _ - - - --. . . .
Everyone is under time rii - essure -in the approvnl process , the
developer is under pressr.ire to br - Trig together tri II the r► ecessary
materials to . comalete the application within the time limit . prior
to Planning Board r ev i eir . The p 1 nnn i rig staff is under time
pressure to evaluate the material and schedule a hearing . The
Planning Board members are under time pressuve to review and
critique the plan . 1110. community associations are under time
pressure to review and prepare a response . The latter is extremely
important if the " Public hearing " is to be more than an extraneous
• formality . We sire also hampered by 1 imi ted 1r, cnrc to material .
By town policy , n► ater- inIs nie not avaiIahle to the public until
they 11 � ti e hnnn r1 i ^ gym i rr � 1 . �� � 1 i-. ( % them R 1 a ► ► n i r ► a Bon t fl nr0n ► hAr n . 1 ► ) th i
par L ic : rr I :► ► c ,� r: e . I . h � I ir ► i I ir ► I car nr .� t i � r ► i rr ; t , i fah Ira f F > r rr
EMTIBIT
• untl I Fro idayl July 1 J at the earliest , We have —field committee
meet r nq ^ and isolated our concerns based ori the car i q i na I layout
intor- mat, ron received from Mr . Auble :- We have been especially
interested in proposed deed covenants and restrict-ions and have
made repeated requests for a copy of these over the -last two
months : We understand that these were not available until
Wednesday , , July 26 . We feel we have not had adequate opportunity
to study the final materials and deed covenants , Nor have we had
time to study the EAF , Therefore , our response can only be
partial , Some of our concerns and suggestions may even be
addressed by the developer . We prefer to have adequate opportunity
to gather our information and prepare an intelligent , rational
response ,
This particular project is an extremely important one - as it
deviates from the norm and presents a new concept for our area .
Sevei • a i waivers are required . for example . We feP1 it is critical
that _the- _ p. l- ann_ i rrg _s- ta l f . , - P l. ann i ng _Board members _, . . _ arid -
_ commun ty
represeri tati ves have amp 1 e time to review , discuss and , if
necessary , modity this plan , We should not be pressured into hasty
decisions ,
The August 1 agenda contains a number of irnpor' tant items , We are
concerned that this important deve 'I opment r ev i ew and pub 1 i c hear i ng
• may take place at an extremely late hour , lhis would not be
conducive to effective presentations or decision making . If this
should be the case , we respectfully request a postponement of the
public hearing and preliminary approval until the following
Planning Board meeting .
ruIIBI '1' 4
A
CiIASE PUND DEVELOPMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
_ The South Hill Community Association has spent a considerable amount of time and
effort studying the somewhat limited amount of material that has been available
to us .
We plan to Present a more comprehensive oral and written r•ev i ew of the Chase Pond
site plan at the Public Hearing on August _ i .- ..Below _ is _a .summary of our concerns :
* Ve'nsity , We are concerned that the density of this project should be
reduced in proportion to the acreage removed from the project since the
original Mano ' s approval ,
* Environmental concerni , given the gpnsitivp natt , rp of the South Hill
Swarnh , a unique natural area , the Planninq Board Anri S-taff should fully
assess all environmental impacts .
* Application for waivers . Since a new concept in building for our Town
is being presented , we feel the Planning Board should reserve adequate time
to study this proposal and its ramifications before making a decision
regarding waivers of its regulations ,
* Affordable housing . Mr . Auble and Duany/ Plater- Zyberk have publicly
expressed considerable interest in the issue of affordable housing in
discussions with our Association . Unit sale prices of $ 1009000 to $ 1359000
are considerably more than any standard definition of affordable housing ,
* Rentals . We are concerned that this project may become a hiqh density
rental project , Therefore , we will request this nro .jprt be a For Sale only
Project . . with appropriate deed covenants administered and enforced by a
mandatory homeowner ' s association ,
Visual impact . Because of the proximity of the units to one another ,
we fear that the majestic view enjoyed by South Hill residents will be all
but obliterated . In addition , the quality of the view of South Hill from
other areas has zlready been diminished by Deer Run , cl � a � e Pond , in the
same area , and with a density of three Limps that Of Uppr Run will further
degrade the quality of view of South Hill from other areas ,
* Connecting roadway to disperse traffic , Accordinq to the philosophy of
Duany/ Plater- Zyberk , dispersal . of traffic throughout the community is
prefP,r• rPd rather . than to have " pod-. 11ke " developments emptying onto
collprrr� r• roads . . .
- * Cilic reservations . We need assurances that the rlicels of the plan
presently " reserved for civic buildings " sh311 not , at cn!nn future point ,
be utilized for additional units but shall always by rQ_ Served for civic
space or open space ,
•
EXHIBIT 4
a
• 1 N I RoUUl; 1 . 1 ( A.4
Several months ago , Uavid Auble commissioned the Uuany / P1_ ater -
Zyberk planning team to perform a ofcharetteof to comprehensively
Plan the tuture of Mr . Aub 1 e ' s holdings on South Hill , At the
time , tiere was Pxtensive participation by members of the
community , as well as elected and appointed officials . Generally ,
the members of the South Hill Community Association who
participated were favorably impressed with the philosophy as
presented by this professional planning team . We have awaited the
first project to be desigl ► ed under this philosophy , despite our
concern that their approach is better suited for extremely large
tracts of ] arid which lend themselves to a " city " design . . We
expected the first designed project would be placed appropriately .
After reviewing the materials available to date to us , we are
disappointed . It appears that the philosophy has been adhered to
in a I imit . ed mannor . Irrllny / PIat. er - Zyberk rintons t " pod - I il • e "
commuter oriented developments and envision self - contained
communities planned to alleviate the conventional pressures
development places on existing infrastructure . Yet , the Chase Pond
development is simply a very densely populated " pod " emptying onto
a collector road . The South Hill Community Association Development
Study Committee , therefore , presents the following concerns
regardinq the Chas= e Pond proposal .
•
ENV I RONMEN tAL COI-ICERi4S -
The quantity of runoff from the Chase fond site was discussed at,
length between Ms . geeners and Auble Associates during the sketch
plan review . We presume .that - the measures discussed adequately
address preserving the water balance on surrounding sites , notably
the Sour, h Ili .11 Swamp and the farmland belonging to Mr . Frank
Hornbrook one of the few active farms left in the area . iJothing ,
however , was mentioned as to what steps will be taken to retain the
current duality of water leaving the area .
In an effort, to protect these sensitive are : rare plant and
animal species , as well as the ground water- which still supplies -
many homes , the Agriculture and iflatura .l_ Resour • ces Committee of the
South Hill Community Association recommends- ,*--- --- --
- -
i . CHA and plowing rather than salt be used to keep roads
1 . and walkways clear of snow and ice .
2 . Creed restrictions on the use of herbicides and pesticides-
Am this site , Please -note the precedent in Southwoods
restr i ct. 'i n► is . l tiany organ i sins wou 1 d f a 1 1 i n to what some
would c l ass- i f y a, s " weeds " and " pests " . 1
3 . Water vvi ity tests be tali en bi - annus 1 1v at the pond
• collection site and filters , amendments , or any other
measures be taker ] to preserve the . current f h level of the
4latel - 1e -1v illq ( ; haeln Potid .
r . 11n G.ir' nrI rr ) vn1111i1 . " r'' I rlini hnim i riq
EXHIBIT 4
• r. .ais and cJc� gs or . as a minimum , strict, l � .rlslr IAws .
5 . A harrier to casual human foot traffic such as a fence ,
or , better yet , a dense , impenetrable hedge be set
between the development and the South Hill Swamp ,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
During the meetings- with Duany / Plater - Zieberk , we were impressed
with their concern for the issue of affordable housing . They have
extensive experience in dealing with the affordable housing problem
and crafting ownership covenants which work to achieve a stable
balanced offering of a complete range of homes for all buyers . At
Mr . Duany ' s invitation , the South Hill Community Association and
the Friends of Buttermilk arranged a meeting between Ms . Becky
Bi lderback of Bettor Housing for Tompkins County , the Duany / Plater -
Zyberk team and Mr . Auble . Doug Dylla , formerly of Ithaca
n
Neighborhood Housing also participated ithe planning event .
Both Better Housing for Tompkins County and Ithaca Neighborhood
Housing are more than willing to assist Mr .. Auble in applying for
funding . and administering its application for the provision of
affordable housing . State funding from the t1 . Y . S . Affordable
Housing Corporation and other state agencies is readily available
in amounts around $ 20 , 000 per . unit . Despite . - his stated interest
• in serving all parts of our community with affordable housing and
his awareness of both these programs and their directors , Mr . Auble
has not made any arrangement or commitment with either of these
agencies to take advantage of their. programs .
Given the e I orauAnce of the statements tn -tde tjy tit - , Auble and
Duany / Plater - Zyberl: about their desire . to prove that diversified
planned communities are feasible , we had expected some creativity
on the question of affordable housing . . It does not appear that any
serious solution to this problem - has been incorporated within this
development . For example .
w $ 1 uo v ol.► n $ 1 :35 , t ► '.rr + homes aro trot col,10 ,117A h l e with the
conr; ppt, !if. affordable .housing .
* The statement at the sketch plan review , Mr . Auble
indicated that he could build $ 75 , 000 homes on another
site " . This conflicts with • Duany / Plater - Zyberk ' s
philosophy to have a mix on every site .
We hope that tar . Aub 1 e ' ^ rnncsr• n is more than easy lip service .
If , indeed , lin wichns to provide a Duany / Platar-Zyberl: balanced
community , we suggest the following :
I * We recommend as a reasonable : an established policy for
our town , that a 1 1 developers dedicate 25 `•55 of their units
• .ns affordable Co residents at 70 % of. thg? mQdian income
ind I man I I v nii � i it o t-. hat thoqr� m i t. s r etmi i n off ordab 1 e to
>KiIBIT 4
• f m :1y hn WOrP r, tandar d
requi r- ement , vie f ee I that the percentage of Ithaca
residents who can afford a home at that .price is
unreasonably low . We also feel state funding is
sufficiently available that the 70 % figure is manageable .
2 . We urge Mr . Auble to seek readily available state funding
to further subsidize the cost of the homes for lower
I
ncome people .
3 . We urge partnering with Better Housing for Tompkins
County , Ithaca Neighborhood Housing , etce to utilize
their expertise .
4 . A homeowner ' s association with compulsory membership be
established to oversee various deed covenants as a legal
means for overseeing this social good , thus maintaining
the affordability of these homes .
COVEIJANTS
At this point , we are notcertain what has been proposed for deed
covenantG and restrictions . We are. concerned that this project be
F SAIL only and that some assurance be provided for a population
density cap . Therefore , ' vie suggest the following covenants :
1 . The uses permitted at the Chase . Pond development .
• ( a ) Detached one - family dwellings . One family dwellings may
be occupied by riot more than
( i ) nn individual , or
( ii ) a family , or
( iii ) a family plus one . additional boarder , roomer ,
lodger or other occupant , . or
( iv ) two individuals , boarders , roomers , lodgers or
other occupants .
( b ) Detached " carriage " house may be occupied by not more
than .
( i ) an individual , or
( ii ) a family , or
- ( i i i ) - - two individuals , boarders , roomers , lodgers , or
other occupants .
( c ) Attached single- family units aggregated together in one
or more buildings of up to 11 dwelling units . Each one - family
unit is said attached units may be occupied by
( i ) an individual , .. or
( ii ) a family , or
( iii ) two individuals , hc) :ir dors , r r% owni s , lodgers or •
• othnl ocrupallts .
MIMIT 4
t
• 1r11 All Of the riwelling units . excepting the " carriage "
I ► c � ► r -: �• � . �: 1 ► n I 1 hr+ nvn ► nr -- occi ► p i r• ri ^. ► rh . i nc t. LQ. f. h ^ f n 1 I ow i nd :
( i ) A unit *may be occupied by other 'than the owner
as long as the occupant is related by blood ( e . g . ,
- - - father , mother , grandfather , grandmother , etc . ) to the
owner .
( ii ) A unit may be rented by an owner for no more than .
a cumulative period of twelve months within any
continuous thirty - six month . period . Permission to rent
and / or sublet for a longer period of time shall be
obtained ' in writing from the Board of Directors or other
governing body of any homeowners association established
in connection with the community . Ire no case , however ,
may a unit be rented by an owner or owners for more than
24 months cumulatively in any five - year period .
Notwithstanding the foregoing , the developer
shall be allowed .to rent one or more units for a period
not to exceed two years in each case from the date of
issuance of the original certificate of occupancy for the
unit being rente. d , provided that at no time may the
developer have more than five units rented under this
provision at any one time .
• ( iv ) Any unit witha rented associated " carriage "
house must be owner occupied for the entire time the
"carriage " house is rented . .
( e ) Carr i ade Houses may be rented only if the associated
dwelling unit is owner occupied .
( f ) The owners of Chase Pond . development will automatically
become members of a " Chase Pond homeowners association " . The
association will be a self governing body designed to address
problems with .noise ; . occupancy , parking , garbage , etc .
CONNECTING ROADWAY
We feel it is in the best. interest of the Town to insist on a
roadway connecting Chase Pond and Deer Run . This issue was
Previously raised June 27 , at the Deer Run Phase III preliminary
subdivision approval , there was d-iscussion but no decision . It
is unlikely that the two developers alone will resolve this . If
this is possible from ari engineering standpoint , the Town should
mandate a connecting roadway for the following reasons :
w Wr% subscribe to Duany / Plater - 7_ yberle ' s philosophy that
tr .cif f i r: should bp d i spersed throudhnut the community
• r tither than hnva isolated pod - 1 i Ice dr:1vp lnpmsn is emptying
EXHIBIT 4
ti
k
• onto collector- roads . By connerti fig the two
developments , the traffic could exit onto either Troy
Road or King Road .
*
We assume there will be families with school children .
School bus safety may be enhanced by providing an
alternate route to service both developments .
+ The Chnse Ponr1 / Chase Farm intersection crates a High
traffic area within a short distance of the Ridgecrest
- intersection . This will be compounded by multiple
driveways when the houses are completed fronting the.
Chase Farm development . Will this not create a very busy
and a potentially dangerous stretch of road?
A connecting road would be consistent with town policy
to provide connecting roads between _developments and / or
developable property .
VISUAL IMPACT
The view from King Road for passersby currentiy is one of the most
beautiful in the county as the Town Planner , members of the
Planning Board snd Mr . Auble . have often stated . There is no
question that the proposed development with such a minimum of
sideyards will destroy that view , ' not only for passersby but also
for residents of Chase Pond and Chase Farm .
• We are . al 1 aware of the visual .- impact of Deer Pun which adjoins the
proposed Chase Fond development . Deer Run is highly visible from
many points throughout the county , as far away as Lansing and
Groton . The South Hill Community Association is very concerned
that Chase Pond will further detract . from the panoramic vistas .
The two developments are contiguous and may well give the
appearance of one giant mass .
Extremely narrow sideyeirds , combined with the grid like layout ,
high density and what appears to be a. very significant percentage
of the site covered with asphalt , will generate tunnel - like
passageways that will nearly obliterate the view from Chase Farm
and East King Road . We recall Duany / Plater - Zyberk expressed very
negative opinions about large amounts of asphalt . We also raise the
question of environmental impact as well as drainage effects .
DE
Several concerns addressed above are related to density . The
density of this project at 119 units is far greater than the
neighboring developments . For example , : the density of Chase Pond
is more than 3 t i mes that of Deer Run and Chase F a rrn . Please study
the Att-1rhed ciPnrz i t. y cownsir i sorts .
• Concerns have also been t a i sed that the a 1 I owah I o (Jnn , i ty of 1 1 9
EXHIBIT 4.
units was based on a larger total acreage . With a reduction it )
acreagF , it would sePin reasonable to reduce the a1lownble number
• of un t tr: hroport i on ,n tp l y ,
WAIVERS
At this point , we have not seen the application for waiver of sub -
division regulations that will be requested by the developer ,
However , we assume they willinclude :
* Waiver to increase the number of units within a contiguous
building .
Waiver to decrease the sideyard from 30 feet to 20 feet ,
Less than normal width for the roads ,
variances lar r, he cnrriage house apartment , - -
The South Hill Communi -ty Association has , on many occasions ,
stressed our strong conviction that variances be granted only after
careful consideration and only . when deemed to be clearly in the
public ' s best interest , We consider an application for waiver of
sub- division regulations to have the same effect as granting a
variance .
•
CONCLUSION
There is much about - tire. Uuariy / P later - Zyberk philosophy that is
appealing . However , Ivey elements of what is appealing in that
philosophy has not been incorporated in the plan for Chase Pond or ,
at best , seems inappropriate for that site , What we are left with
is an overly dense project , resembling a mini - city , placed
awkwardly within a rural . atmosphere , The project shows little
sensitivity to . the character of the neighborhood . There is a sense
of disappointment after the build up of expectation during the
Duany / Plater - Zyberk charette .
It appears there is still work, to be done to have a plan that will
come to l' i f e as beautifully as the site and the Ithaca community
warrant . Everyone , the developer , the planta ng staff , the Planning
Board , arid , not 'least of all , the residents of tills community ,
should have adequate time to review and study all materials and
work through the detailso modifying where necessary before making
a final decision .
•
EXHIBIT 4
J
• DENSITY OF EAST KING ROAD DEVELOPMENTS
PROJECT ACRES UNITS % OPEN DENSITY
DEER RUN
Gross .120 161 1 . 34
Open 48 40%
Developed 71 161 2 , 27
C; LASE ? uND t 1191 Units )
Gros3 21 . 85 119 4 . 27
Open 4 . 82 17 %
Developed 23 . 03 119 5 . 17
CHASE POND ( 86 Units )
• Gross 27 . 85 86 3 . 09
Open 4 . 82 17 %
Developed 23 . 03 86 3 . 73
CHASE FARM
- - - - - - - - - -
Gross 68 100 1 . 47
Open * * 13 19 %
Developed 66 100 1 . 52
* * The monetary value of the trail is equivalent to
the value of approximately 13 acres of this undeveloped
site . Two acres actually remain open as trail and park .
EXHIBIT 4
e
UNITS PER. . CRF
V3 M
4. • 1
r� Iv
rA _
ti� I I
•� � .....�.;.:+;1:I.,...p.:h..�:'.,..y..::r..�..:.,...�.+•r'•w•:•r-Z•.i_. .:b•...r.�T_�.,.._..:..,......':.,.+,-::,.. �.:..._,.sT..�.�......_:i.....:r... ........ '.I '
t17 r1 I _
17
�lTyr •.,, '.•.r t 1 ' ..
1 ..i..4•.is�IJ. _..i.i�:r.-:L�:. pr�.:1...:a.:,....r. �...L..i..:f.-iw..i.. !
1dawaa
I
,7 _ :
Mawi m
ry t
dam 0
Qmw
s —
{ 711
�T
la
-.'
. . . . . . . . . .
—EX—H- IBIT 4