HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1989-09-05 FILED
Y TOWN OF ITHACA
Date a -40
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk
SEPTEMBER 5 , 1989
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , September 5 , 1989 , . in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia Langhans , James
Baker , Robert Miller , Stephen Smith , Montgomery May , Robert
Kenerson , William Lesser , John C . Barney (Town Attorney ) ,
Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , George R . Frantz ( Assistant
Town Planner ) , Sally S . Olsen ( Town Engineer ) ,
ALSO PRESENT : Sara Beth Canady , Harrison Rue , David J . Stotz , Rich
Holt , Ray Ackley , Ronnie Young , Richard & Allison
Puczkowski , Pat & Wayne Barr , Barb Holt , Shane &
Michele French , George Schlecht , Doug & Jodi Dake ,
Dennis Morrison , Elizabeth R . Blackmer , Florence
Wrisley , Mary S . Eldridge , Judy Newhart , Marty Newhart ,
Kinga M . Gergely , Doug Dylla , Carl Morse , ( name not
legible ) , Sandra Rogers , Myrtle & John Whitcomb , Ron &
Bonnie Simpson , Elliott Lauderdale , Slade Kennedy , Jean
Brockway , Tammo Steenhuis , Peter Hillman , Nancy Ostman ,
Laura Marks , Ed Austen , Gayleen Austen , Les Reizes ,
Dennis Spencer , Kitty & Max Mattes , Ann Clarke , Edward
J . McArdle , Peter Trowbridge , Don Sweezy , Attorney
Shirley Egan , Attorney James Salk .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30
p . m . and accepted for the record the- Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and Ithaca
Journal on August 28 , 1989 , and August 31 , 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 Department of Public Works , upon the
Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , upon the Clerk of the Town
of Ulysses , and upon the applicants and / or agents , as appropriate , on
August 29 , 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 .
AGENDA ITEM
DISCUSSION OF PLANNING BOARD DESIGNATION AS TOWN OF ITHACA COMPLETE
CENSUS COUNT COMMITTEE .
Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion . on the above - noted
matter at 7 : 30 p . m .
a
Planning Board - 2 - September 5 , 1989
Mr . Lesser stated that he thought this matter was coming at a
difficult time for the Board , because of the regular activities , plus
the . Comprehensive Plan is soon going to be before the Board .
Ms . Langhans , directing her comment to Ms . Beeners , wondered what
exactly had to be done . Ms . Beeners responded that the Board does not
really have to get out and count , adding that she thought the Board
would be receiving some kinds of public relations material . Ms .
Beeners noted that it is probably more geared to cities where people
might be reluctant to actually participate in the census , adding that
she was not sure there was a problem in Ithaca . Ms . Beeners stated
that she felt the best the Board can say right now is that the Board
would have progress reports on the pre - census review , and other
things . Ms . Beeners commented that maybe some buttons and banners
would be sent to the Town . Mr . Frantz stated that Census Day is March
31 , 1990 - April 1 , 1990 . Mr . Frantz offered that the County Planning
Board is being designated Complete Census Count Committee for the
entire County , which may relieve some of the pressure on the Town
Planning Board . Mr . Frantz noted that the Town Board decided to go
ahead and designate the Town Planning Board Complete Count Census
Committee and , if anything , just to make sure that the count is
complete and accurate . Ms . Langhans remarked that when one thinks
about it , it would be better to have the Tompkins County Planning
Board , because of the different Towns . Ms . Beeners offered that the
Planning Board would just be canvassing the Town . Ms . Beeners said
• that in the spirit of trying to improve communications and public
relations between the Boards and the Town residents , it is her feeling
right now that there probably is not going to be one - tenth of the
amount of stuff that is proposed to happen , happen here . Ms . Beeners
commented that , if at this time the Board would prefer not to get
involved in this because of other matters , then the Board is free to
decide that , and the Board would be kept posted as to what the County
is doing .
Chairperson Grigorov noted that the Board does not have to do
anything to accept , it can just be let go for the moment . Ms . Beeners
agreed with Chairperson Grigorov , in that the Town Board has already
designated the Planning Board ,
Mr . Kenerson offered that it seemed to him as he read the
material that there is a lot of promotional stuff , to encourage people
to be cooperative with the census taking , and wondered if that was the
Board ' s role . Mr . Frantz offered that he thought the idea was that
the local Boards , and others , have a sense of the community , in that
if there are any real glaring mistakes they can catch them right off ,
adding that the Planning staff has an idea of the number of dwelling
units and the like in an area . Ms . Beeners noted that a pre - census
local review would be conducted in November , and then also sometime in
mid - spring , when the County would be sending some estimates , at which
time it has to be decided whether it is pretty much on track or not .
Ms . Beeners commented that the staff has been involved in making sure
that the boundaries shown for the different tracts and blocks are
correct . Ms . Beeners noted that there have been a couple of glaring
errors which have been so noted to Gary Evans , of the County Planning
e
Planning Board - 3 - September 5 , 1989
• Department , commenting that it is assumed corrections are being made .
Ms . Beeners said , basically , what is in store for the Planning Board
would be looking at the pre- census estimates , and then also at the
ones a couple of times after April , on a block by block , or parcel by
parcel basis , then deciding whether they are correct or not , noting ,
she had the pleasure of doing that when she began employment at the
Town in 1980 . Ms . Beeners offered that , over the summer , the Town
Planning Department , in anticipation of the Complete Census Count ,
knows about 3 / 4of the Town , by parcel , exactly what that parcel is
being used for , whether it is a single or two - family dwelling , or
vacant land , commenting , that can be used , plus Building Permit
records from Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement
Officer , and , hopefully , can come up with some fairly instant
responses . Mr . Lesser mentioned that it could be very time consuming ,
with Ms . Beeners agreeing . Ms . Beeners stated that it is time
consuming , but projects that it will be a lot easier than it was in
1980 , given what is available and what Mr . Frost is developing .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairperson Grigorov
closed the discussion of Planning Board Designation as Town of Ithaca
Complete Census Count Committee at 7 : 45 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 RIDGEC REST ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO ,
6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 311 , MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . DAVID C . AUBLE , OWNER ;
BUTTERFIELD ASSOCIATES I , APPLICANTS . ( PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED FROM
AUGUST 1 , 1989s )
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 45 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Chairperson Grigorov announced that it would be in order to start
with a brief review of the project for the benefit of those who were
not present at the August 1 , 1989 meeting .
At this time , Mr . David Auble , developer of the project ,
introduced the following consultants for the project : Peter
Trowbridge will open with the review of the site and note some of the
changes that have been made . George Schlecht and Don Sweezy ,
Consulting Engineers for the project , will be supporting Mr .
Trowbridge , Mr . Auble stated that questions regarding community
association and legal matters would be referred to Attorney James
Salk .
At this time , Mr . Auble stated that he wanted to thank the
Planning Board members who viewed the site , adding that he appreciated
their time in reviewing the program that Auble Metropolis Group is
presenting . Mr . Auble stated that he also wanted to thank a number of
neighborhood supporters , commenting that , since the last meeting , AMG
felt that it might be important to the Board to provide an opinion of
r
Planning Board - 4 - September 5 , 1989
• a cross - section of the neighborhood . Mr . Auble stated that AMG took
the time to do a sampling , but definitely not door to door
solicitation , of the folks in the South Hill area , noting that letters
have been presented , along with a list of the supporters . Mr . Auble
said it had been mentioned to the supporters that , if they were able
to attend the meeting to give some evidence of their support , and were
interested in hearing more details of the plan , the meeting would be
held on September 5 , 1989 at 7 : 45 p . m . At this point , Mr . Auble asked
the supporters to show their support by standing . Mr ., Auble noted
that there are over 100 signatures in support of the proposed plan .
Mr . Trowbridge approached the Board , appended maps , and stated
that in the last two weeks AMG has tried to respond to some of the
questions that the Board and the planning staff have introduced over
the last several weeks , as well as issues and questions that were
raised at the last public hearing , which was August 1 , 1989 . Mr .
Trowbridge noted that this is the fourth time this project has been
before the Board . Mr . Trowbridge said that he would make some
summaries of new material , because much of it has already been
presented .
Mr . Trowbridge noted that the things that were not made clear
last time were : as one looks at the site plan , there are 4 different
kinds of units that are expressed . Indicating on the appended map ,
Mr . Trowbridge said that there are a number of townhouse units that
are expressed ,, and " this " is a typical elevation of " this " section ,
looking at it from the green space , noting that the grey - toned
buildings are the single - family detached side yard units , and " this "
is an accurate scale drawing of " this " section , as one sees them from
E . King Road , ', as well as the placement of the structures and the
spaces between ,, those structures . Mr . Trowbridge pointed out an end
section , which one would see from E . King Road , commenting , one would
see an end unit " here " and " here " . Mr . Trowbridge offered that , as
one drove along E . King Road , the image would be a series of
single - family detached side yard units that look like ''' this " , and a
cross - section of the townhouse section in " this " particular location .
Mr . Trowbridge noted that a couple of things about the plan that he
felt were rather important was that AMG tried to preserve the views .
Mr . Trowbridge ,' responding to some of the issues that were raised last
time , stated that " this " is a slide which represents standing on Chase
Farm Road , with Chase Lane across the street about " this " location ,
looking directly on access up " this " view corridor . Mr . Trowbridge
noted that " these " two columns are 70 feet apart at " this " location ;
the townhouses '. are approximately 170 feet apart , so in the view that
one is seeing standing on Chase Lane , the townhouses would not start
until someplace off the drawing . Mr . Trowbridge noted that there is a
large central corridor as one moves along E . King Road and past that
central green space , as well as standing on Chase Lane . Mr .
Trowbridge noted a couple of other pretty spectacular views that are
remaining and have been enhanced through the development , adding ,
another slide has been taken of the pavilion and deck area . Mr .
• Trowbridge offered that one view is looking directly up -the access of
the pond in " this " direction , and another one is looking off toward
the woods , and ;both of them would remain exactly as they are , with no
Planning Board - 5 - September 5 , 1989
• development within those views . Mr . Trowbridge stated that the plan
has attempted to be transparent in the places that have significant
view . Mr . Trowbridge noted something about the street character , in
that all of the garages are off the street , no garages face onto the
roads , and the impression one gets is all architectural facades ,
adding that the intent of the facades is in keeping with the project
across the street . Mr . Trowbridge said that the pedestrian areas are
left through the project ; there is a recreation trail that comes off
Chase Lane Phase I , and would terminate as a limestone dust walk at
the intersection of E . King Road and Chase Lane , and continue as a
sidewalk , and as a bikeway on the street until it gets to [ indicating
on map ] " this " point ; at that point it would revert back into a
recreation trail that will connect into the Deer Run project .
Mr . Trowbridge noted that a couple of other issues brought up at
the last meeting were issues of scale and view , commenting , AMG did a
little study piece that gives one a feeling about some of the scale
issues that relate to neighboring development , and how that relates to
this particular project . Mr . Trowbridge , pointing to one of the
appended slides , noted the two raised ranch houses that sit
immediately to the east of the Chase Pond site , adding , the houses
have been measured and scaled to give one a feeling as to how large or
how small certain things are . Mr . Trowbridge overlayed the slide of
the relatively new homes on a set of elevations of the townhouses ,
noting , it approximately expands from end to end with a 26 - foot space
between the two garages , adding that , when one looks at the green
space that exists from townhouse to townhouse , one can , approximately ,
fit those two homes in the park space between the townhouses on a face
to face basis . Mr . Trowbridge said that the two houses would take the
same space as four side yard units , which gives one a sense of
relationship of density . Mr . Trowbridge offered that , most
importantly , is the extent of the townhouse development versus the
length of the two houses , and the exact scale and relationship of the
houses as they sit on E . King Road , Mr . Trowbridge stated that the
townhouses will step down ; they will not have a continuous roof line ,
but since the topo falls slightly toward the north " these " will be
broken down and the townhouses will step as they move toward the
north , noting , , every few units there will be a stepping to give more
architectural detail .
Mr . Trowbridge stated that the Phase I plan the Board is
currently looking at includes " this " area of single - family side yard
unit homes , " this " group of townhouses , and " this " second group of
side yard units , which consists of approximately 36 units , and the
whole first phase of roadway development that would approximate " this "
road near " these " townhouses to the east where " this " one -way road
occurs , so there would be a continuous loop of roads . Mr . Trowbridge
noted another important issue is that AMG is building and improving
the parks as a part of Phase I . Mr . Trowbridge said that it is
proposed for the project to develop the open space , both as a
marketing technique , and also as a way of developing important green
• space .
Planning Board ' - 6 - September 5 , 1989
• Mr . Trowbridge stated that AMG is asking for two waivers in the
project . Mr . " Trowbridge stated that the August 1 , 1989 minutes
suggested that �l AMG was asking for three waivers , but AMG is only
asking for two , and they are : one , having more than six units
attached , and second , looking at less than 30 feet between any two
buildings . Mr . Trowbridge said that both of the waivers are only
necessary because AMG is looking at a cluster overlay in an MR zone ,
adding , neither of those overlays would be required , by right , in the
current zone , they are only being asked for because of the cluster
overlay on top ' of the MR . Mr . Trowbridge remarked that the project
could be built in a by right manner , without the cluster , and if it
would be just the straight zone requirements . Mr . Trowbridge
commented that the buildings have a building face to :building face
set -back that is consistent with the MR zone , and noted that , clearly
the MR would allow AMG to put together the number of townhouses that
are represented in the plan and elevation .
Mr . Trowbridge noted another issue that was brought up last time
was alternate plats... Mr . Trowbridge said that over the last couple of
years the developer has developed several different schemes , of which
some have previously been approved , commenting , in all of the schemes
there have been at least eight units that have been pulled together ,
again , as by right in the MR .zone under rental housing .
Mr . Trowbridge stated that what AMG is looking for in terms of
the waiver is not an issue of health , safety and welfare : it is not an
issue of Building Code , it comes down really , to harmony and
aesthetics , as AMG reads the Subdivision Regulations , commenting that
it is a waiver request that has more to do with consistency of the
visual quality ' of the neighborhood , and the surrounding area . Mr .
Trowbridge stated that he hoped AMG could suggest that the kind of
development , particularly from a point of view of a passerby on E .
King Road who would see the development , as being very consistent with
the kind of density in the surrounding area . Mr . Trowbridge noted
that it was true , if one is in a townhouse looking directly across the
street , that it would be a different view than passing along E . King
Road , but people who choose to live in the project will have a visual
relationship to their neighbors that is not going to , necessarily , be
the same sort of view that the public will view on E . King Road ,
Town Planner Susan Beeners asked Mr . Trowbridge to discuss the
parking arrangements . Mr . Trowbridge replied that each primary
dwelling unit has at least two on - site parking spaces . Mr . Trowbridge
said that the carriage - type rental units over garages , when they are
associated with the side yard units , which they are , in five cases ,
all of that parking is on the homeowner ' s site . Mr . Trowbridge noted
that in six other cases where there is a carriage - house unit attached
to a townhouse there is not a parking space , but parking would be
allowed , and AMG is suggesting some parking on the street , adding ,
again , that would be for visitors for some units . Mr . Trowbridge
offered that all the side yard units have extensive driveways where it
• is possible to park six to twelve cars , probably side -by - side . Mr .
Trowbridge commented that the townhouse units have , in each case , at
least two parking spaces per unit , if there were additional guests
Planning Board - 7 - September 5 , 1989
• they would have to park on the street . Mr . Trowbridge remarked that
cross - sections of streets have been designed where there is at least
one parking lane on each side of the street , except in the case of
[ pointing to map ] " this " one -way cuplet at the extreme west end . Mr .
Trowbridge offered that , in some cases , as in " this " section , there is
parking on both sides of the street , commenting , AMG is not
encouraging parking on both sides , but just suggesting that parking
could occur on both sides . Attorney Barney wondered if all of the
roads were to be dedicated to the Town , with Mr . Trowbridge answering ,
yes , that is the intention .
Board Member Robert Miller wondered what the set -backs were
between the street curb and the houses along any of the roads . Mr .
Trowbridge responded that it varies about 20 + feet on the
single - family . Mr . Miller asked about the interior road distance .
Mr . Trowbridge replied that the interior road is about 20 feet to the
building face . Mr . Trowbridge said that the set - back from E . King
Road would be about twice the distance of " these " two units .
Jean Brockway , of 166 Ridgecrest Road , a member of the public
present , spoke from the floor and stated that she thought Mr .
Trowbridge should clarify what Phase I is . Chairperson Grigorov
responded that Mr . Trowbridge did , but asked him if he would do it
again . Mr . Trowbridge stated that Phase I includes all the units that
[ indicating on map ] are outlined : " this " side yard set of
• single - family detached homes ; " these " townhouse units ; " these " side
yard single - family detached units , with a road network that needs to
be negotiated to complete a road network that would make some
comprehensive sense , such that one could drive around and not get into
dead -end or cul de sac situations . Mr . Trowbridge said that the green
space includes " this " park , as well as the development of the large
part of Phase I .
Mr . Lesser asked about the acreage of the pond . Mr . Rue answered
that the pond is two acres . Mr . Lesser wondered , when the
calculations are made of plotting and density , is the pond being
included as part of the area of the development ? Mr . Lesser mentioned
28 acres as being the entire area inside the boundaries . Mr .
Trowbridge said that the 119 units were originally established
included both the area that has been exacted to Cornell , as well as
the Manos ' property , and if the density was really looking at larger
area , that area has already been sort of exacted and pulled away , in
effect , so , when one looks at the site and the overall density , the
additional green space that has been previously exacted should be
included .
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or
questions .
Chairperson Grigorov stated that there was an extensive comment
• period , at the August 1 , 1989 meeting , and asked that there not be any
repeat comments . Chairperson Grigorov noted that in the interest of
Planning Board - 8 - September 5 , 1989
• time , if someone else has raised a question , then no one else need to
raise the same question .
Elliott Lauderdale , of 381 Stone Quarry Road , spoke from the
floor and stated that maybe he would like , in the beginning , to have a
clarification , if he could , about the zoning status of MR with a
cluster overlay . Mr . Lauderdale noted that the question , in specific
terms , is that it seemed to him that the way Mr . Auble would like to
build a piece of property is selling each individual unit fee simple
rather than as , rental property , which forces him , which is his ( Mr .
Lauderdale ) understanding , by rules of front yard set - back , into
adhering to a cluster overlay , adding that it seemed to him that a lot
of the statements in the response to his concerns that Mr . Auble gave
him , and a lot . of issues which are of concern to Mr . Lauderdale , have
to do with his going to a lot of trouble to make these units " For
Sale " , for the kind of covenant requirements that are reasonable to
expect Mr . Auble to adhere to . Mr . Lauderdale , wondering about his
first question , asked if he was inaccurate in saying that the plan , as
presented , forces an MR with a cluster overlay , or is Mr . Auble
voluntarily practicing this mixed zoning type of MR with a cluster
overlay . Attorney Barney responded that Mr . Auble is doing this
voluntarily , he is not forced to do anything . Mr . Lauderdale asked
about row townhouses , in that which front yard requirement is being
asked that the '' row townhouses adhere to ; what zoning type is defining
how far the set - back must be for the townhouses ? Attorney Barney
answered that it is a Multiple Residence zone , and , as such , has
• certain requirements , i . e . , if all of the buildings were owned by one
owner , those requirements would probably be met just along the
perimeter of the entire property , adding , when Mr . Auble chose to go
to a " For Sale " situation where each unit was going to be sold , that
required obtaining Subdivision Approval , commenting , once one does
that , then the requirements apply basically to each individual lot .
Attorney Barney said that is why the Board is here looking at a
cluster arrangement , which can be done in the context of waiving some
of those requirements , and allowing buildings to be closer together
than they would otherwise be under an individual lot by lot
requirement . Attorney Barney stated that he did not think using the
word " force " is necessarily an appropriate word . Mr . Lauderdale
stated , given the choice to sell fee simple lots , then the waivers are
forced rather than voluntary , and given Mr . Auble ' s choice to sell fee
simple lots rather than develop it as an MR , then the waivers and
increase in requirements over what would be required of an MR zone
must apply . Attorney Barney said that he did not want to confuse the
issue more than it has already been confused , but the Multiple
Residence zone , which is what this is , has certain requirements and
each lot in a Multiple Residence zone must meet those requirements ,
commenting , if ,this were treated all as one lot the requirements would
be around the perimeter . Attorney Barney noted that the choice is to
try and subdivide it , therefore , each subdivided lot must meet those
requirements . Attorney Barney stated that , again , he did not want to
quibble with Mr . Lauderdale over the word " force " , but it is not any
different , in many respects , from a subdivision in an R- 15 or an R - 30
zone : a developer comes in ; they have certain lot requirements , and in
many instances the Planning Board chooses to suggest that a cluster
Planning Board - 9 - September 5 , 1989
• subdivision be in place , rather than the difficult grid arrangement ,
and when that clustered subdivision is put in place , in that
circumstance , a number of the lots are deficient in the traditional
side yard , front yard , or rear yard requirements , that is the nature
of cluster ; in fact , that is the very reason there is cluster ; to
reduce the feet between buildings , but increase in some other place on
the site , the area of green space . Mr . Lauderdale stated that the
difference to them , as a community organization concerned with
precedence on a lot of different issues , is that in a cluster zoning
situation there are very clear expectations in regard to rental / owner
mix covenant . . . Attorney Barney interjected , there have been on South
Hill , where there has been development reasonably close to Ithaca
College , and where the fear of the neighbors was that the houses ,
while they were coming in as clusters , and , theoretically , were going
to be individually owned , might turn into a group of rental houses .
Attorney Barney offered that , in those circumstances , with the
cooperation of the developer , covenants have been placed in deeds
restricting the occupancy to , basically , owner occupancy for 3 out of
every 5 years , adding , that is not a zoning requirement , per se , that
is a requirement that has been either agreed to , or , he thought , in
one instance , may have been imposed by the Planning Board or Town
Board , Mr . Lauderdale noted that his experience in going through the
history , in general , developments of this sort in our neighborhood
have had the covenant restrictions ; the kind of sabbatical clauses
attached to houses which , in effect , guarantee that someone could not
• buy all the townhouses , given changes in the economic situation in the
Town , and then rent all of those townhouses . Attorney Barney
responded that that is correct , except for one significant difference ,
i . e . , in each instance that the event has occurred , the property has
been zoned basically single - family / two - family residential , and it has
been a subdivision in an area that is not already zoned Multiple
Residence , but in an area where it was zoned R- 15 or R - 30 . Attorney
Barney remarked that the subject subdivision is zoned Multiple
Residence . Attorney Barney said that Mr . Auble could come in with a
site plan , the Board would review it , and if the plan were acceptable ,
the Board could approve a multiple residence plan with 119 units , and
which could be all rental units . Mr . Lauderdale mentioned that Mr .
Auble has an MR plot already approved , and he could have done that ,
but he chose instead , for some economic reasons or his own choice , to
go to this particular arrangement . Mr . Lauderdale stated that the
problem seemed to him to be somewhat legally confusing in that : if he
sells fee simple individual lots , then he seems to be gaining some of
the characteristics , or changing the development in such a way that it
is looking more like a clustered multiple residence development , but
is avoiding some of the restrictions that are typically put on that
kind of a development by this sort of mixed MR cluster category .
Chairperson Grigorov said that it is not impossible to put
restrictions on rental times , as has been done in , e . g . , Commonland .
Chairperson Grigorov noted that it is restricted as to how long a time
a unit may be rented , and how many of the units can be rented by the
developer before they are sold . Attorney Barney said that Eastwood
• Commons development does not have a limitation , adding , that
development is actually probably the closest development to AMG ,
because that also is a MR cluster subdivision kind of thing . Ms .
Planning Board - 10 - September 5 , 1989
• Langhans wondered about waivers in Eastwood Commons , with Attorney
Barney replying that he did not recall , but there probably are .
Attorney Barney said that the other one that comes to mind is one of
the South Hill developments , commenting , there really has not been as
much impetus to put those limitations elsewhere , because the theory ,
quite frankly , is an effort to reduce the student occupancy . Mr .
Lauderdale commented , in that case Eastwood Commons is , in general , an
East Hill question , and secondarily , in the minutes on Eastwood
Commons the Planning Board decision was that , because the first phase
of Eastwood Commons was established long ago as a stable residential
community , then there is less concern about that community being able
to change by a second phase of the same development , so the community
had established itself , where in the present case a whole neighborhood
is being plopped down in one place without any kind of guarantee about
what that character will be . Chairperson Grigorov offered that Mr .
Lauderdale ' s point was that he was concerned about the units becoming
rental units . Mr . Lauderdale responded that he thought it was a
possibility ; with economic changes it could turn into that . Mr .
Lauderdale noted that the other issue , and he would like to repeat
again and refer all the members of the Planning Board to what he
thinks is a serious community concern with affordable housing , and
stated that he would like to read Mr . Auble ' s answer . Mr . Lauderdale
noted that Mr . Auble stated that in keeping with the
Duany / Plater- Zyberk philosophy that it is very important for a
development to have a mixture of income types , adding , that is what
• Mr . Auble would like to develop in the combination of Chase Farm and
Chase Pond , however , one will notice that the bottom number on either
of the sites is $ 95 , 000 . 00 . Mr . Lauderdale said that 800 of the
medium income in Tompkins County would not be able to afford a house
in the mid - seventies , so that means half of the people in Tompkins
County cannot afford to buy a house in Mr . Aubles ' development ,
therefore , the ideal , which we would all like to support and adhere
to , of a mixed neighborhood where all kinds of people could live
together , rather than , as Mr . Auble says , a subdivision of a given
class is spoken to only in rhetoric , but not in actual practice . Mr .
Lauderdale stated that Mr . Auble has been asked , very politely , since
last January , if he could make a specific arrangement and dedication
of just one portion of some of the units to be managed by an
affordable housing mortgage out of the State of New York , commenting ,
to this time , a compromise in numbers or anything , or any kind of
attempt on this particular site to build that balance , has not been
achieved .
Attorney Shirley Egan , Cornell University Counsel , stated that
she had raised the question at the last session about whether a
changed plan requires starting over in obtaining a zoning change from
R- 15 to MR , adding , she now has the relevant materials reviewed .
Attorney Egan stated that , while initially it seems clear that the
resolution passed did call for an automatic reversion to R- 15 in the
event of a change in plan , adding , that concept is not to be found in
subsequent changes to the Zoning Ordinance , however , what was manifest
• in each instance in the zoning changes was that the Town did reserve
the right to modify the zoning back to R - 15 , or anything else for that
matter , and there was no property right in MR zoning that was
Planning Board - 11 - September 5 , 1989
• guaranteed , and if indeed the plan changed or lacked guarantees as to
some of the concerns that were evident in the Town ' s resolution , the
changes in density without the Manos ' parcel it does , indeed , change
from the initial amount that was approved for Manos : type of
occupancy , other aspects like herbicide use , pet use , and certainly of
great importance to them is the intensity of use of open space or the
community house by other than the immediate residents of that area .
Attorney Egan stated that the above were all things that the Town had
indicated at that time were important to it and were considerations in
approving the MR zoning change . Attorney Egan noted that , based on
this from the' Town , she thought that neighbors and neighboring
property owners rightly place some reliance on the fact that any
change in plan would at least be as low in density , and at least as
sensitive to the environment and as sensitive to the amount of use
that that site should get , in terms of having a community house ,
Jogging path , or something like that , adding , in particular to the
environment of ,; the South Hill Swamp , since those were items that were
the basis for the zoning change ; those sorts of guarantees . Attorney
Egan stated that , perhaps , Bill Manos was never quite put to the test
of working with Cornell ' s concerns about South Hill Swamp , commenting ,
there was at least a more hopeful attitude toward working together
toward these things , and she would hope that this could continue with
Mr . Auble ' s ownership of the land , as Cornell still has quite a few
questions , such as : the community house and how is the development
going to be presented to the people who are going to be buying units
there , as far " as their use of all the open space . Attorney Egan
• stated that Cornell has a lot of questions about what restrictions
might be placed on that development ; physically , legally , and things
of that nature . Attorney Egan said that Cornell would certainly like
to work with Mr . Auble , but if that does not turn out to be feasible ,
then certainly " Cornell would want to look to the Town to supply at
least the same sorts of assistance that it manifested back in 1983
when Bill Manos came before the - Board , as to herbicides , pets , and
intensity of use of the open area by people who do not even live
there . Attorney Egan noted that the above were all concerns that
Cornell has . Chairperson Grigorov stated that the buffer protection
is another important issue , with Attorney Egan in agreement . Attorney
Egan said that : Cornell has a lot of questions about the community
house , as to whether it will become a country club or other residence .
Chairperson Grigorov stated that she did not think there was a
community house . Mr . Auble responded that they propose a pavilion ,
which is not very large , and which has not really been outlined and
described . . . Attorney Egan wondered if people across the road in the
other development would also be eligible for its use . Chairperson
Grigorov said that it is really not a meeting house , .it is just a
place to get out of the rain .
Mr . Aublell stated that he has not really had a request from
Cornell to discuss any of his considerations on the site ,, adding , any
time Cornell would like to have a discussion , then AMG would be more
than happy to sit down with them . Mr . Auble stated that AMG felt they
• have taken great pains to abide by the agreement that has been in
place , and the Town requirements placed on the site . Mr . Auble stated
that AMG would be perfectly willing to discuss other . matters as well .
Planning Board - 12 - September 5 , 1989
• Mary Eldridge , of 259 Troy Road , spoke from the floor and stated
that it sounded to her like sides were being just opposed to one
another . Ms . Eldridge remarked that everyone knows she is a great
animal lover as she has dogs and cats , commenting , she is really
worried about any organization that says : one can buy a home , but
cannot have a pet . Ms . Eldridge offered that , anyone who knows , even
nursing homes '' are encouraging people to have pets brought in ,
encouraging ownership of pets , and mental places are having pets . Ms .
Eldridge offered that she has a small grooming business in her home ,
commenting that she will never be without a pet . Ms . Eldridge stated
that she felt any time someone asks a family to move in someplace , and
does not allow them a pet , when they can have a four -wheel vehicle or
off - road vehicle . . . Ms . Eldridge mentioned that one of her students
she transports on a school bus was seriously injured by an off - road
vehicle , adding that she does not hear anyone saying anything about
any of the homes not being allowed to have an off - road vehicle ,
commenting , yet we are going to disallow or have the courage or nerve ,
or whatever it is , to disallow any pets . Chairperson Grigorov
remarked that the question is more leash . Ms . Eldridge responded that
the leash law is fine , anyone who sees her on the road , her dogs are
on leashes ; they are down in the woods sometimes , but they come when
they are called . Ms . Eldridge stated that she is more concerned with
the people who ' have the off - road vehicles , and who have the nerve to
come up 20 - 30 mph on her chain link fence , adding , if restrictions are
being talked about , let ' s talk restrictions on the motor vehicles , and
not on people ' s' lives , and not on impact of an animal in their home .
• Myrtle Whitcomb , of 233 Troy Road , addressed the Board and stated
that she was President of the South Hill Association . Ms . Whitcomb
stated that she has a couple of questions , and just a couple of
general comments . Ms . Whitcomb noted that the SHCA gave a rather
comprehensive report of their concerns at the August 1 , 1989 meeting ,
so she would not belabor those .
Ms . Whitcomb , directing her question to Attorney Barney , wondered
about the Manos ' property and the 4 + acres that went off with Cornell
when it was split from the original property . Ms . Whitcomb wondered
about the status of that in terms of zoning designation , is it still
MR or has it reverted back to R - 15 , or what happens when they are
split ? Chairperson Grigorov wondered if Ms . Whitcomb meant the part
that Cornell now has , with Ms . Whitcomb answering , right . Chairperson
Grigorov asked ' if there was any restriction as to what Cornell can do
with that . Attorney Barney replied that he did not know , but would
research it . Town Planner , Susan Beeners stated that it was her
opinion that that zoning still is MR on the buffer area on the west ,
which went to Cornell , and on the Manos ' parcel to the east , which is
restricted to one dwelling unit . Ms . Whitcomb wondered if it was a
hard - cast restriction to have one dwelling unit , even though it still
carries an MR designation . Chairperson Grigorov stated that it was
part of the original granting of MR that there would only be one house
on that part 'of the parcel . Ms . Bee ners commented , true , and it
• appeared at that time the zoning was fixed to be MR on both the buffer
and the single ''= family piece . Chairperson Grigorov offered that she
Planning Board - 13 - September 5 , 1989
• did not think anyone was worried about the Cornell part . Ms . Whitcomb
said that was just a question .
Ms . Whitcomb commented that another question she had was in terms
of the pond area , and not knowing exactly how the Not - For- Profit
corporation versus the Homeowners ' Association is finally going to
settle out . Ms . Whitcomb questioned the expense of maintenance of the
pond , if it should happen to become a very expensive project , then who
would be responsible , totally , for the cost ? Ms . Whitcomb stated that
what she is really driving at is * , is there any way which the Town
would ultimately , at some point , have to become responsible for some
of the maintenance ? Attorney Barney answered , no , as to the Town
becoming responsible . Ms . Whitcomb stated that she thought it was a
very good question , because sometimes when one talks about having
homeowners ' fees , or whatever fees , to join an organization , then if
it becomes a very , very expensive project , then everybody is sitting
out there saying : it ' s not my responsibility . Ms . Whitcomb noted that
when she made her visual impact presentation of the slides at the
August 1 , 1989 meeting she was sort of rushing through it , as everyone
was tired . Ms . Whitcomb commented that she neglected to say that the
houses she had ' done were to scale , because in the slide there was a
tree , and Dave , Auble helped John Whitcomb measure the tree and went
from there in terms of figuring scale , adding , in terms of the visual
impact of the houses that she was showing it was to scale on the
photograph , the only thing that one cannot show is the perspective ,
• the tunnel vision as one looks down through there . Ms . Whitcomb
stated that she wanted to point that out , because she neglected to say
that she did have a method with the presentation .
Ms . Whitcomb stated that she would have appreciated , she thought ,
the overlay that Peter Trowbridge talked about in terms of comparison
with houses in the neighborhood , adding that she would have been more
impressed had the duplex houses not been taken , which are really
oversized in the neighborhood anyway . Ms . Whitcomb thought that for
the most part the shoestring development that has come along the Deer
Run area , most of those houses are very , very large for their lots ,
and she would have felt a little better had everyone looked at also
some overlays in terms of maybe the Slades ' house or Florence
Wrisley ' s house , or some of the other homes that are also in the
immediate area . Ms . Whitcomb stated that she is appreciative of the
fact that , when talking about mature landscaping , and from the
pictures that everyone is seeing of what is happening within Chase
Farm , a project that SHCA did support wholeheartedly , that Mr . Auble
is really making a concentrated effort to work with the landscaping ,
and added that she was very , very pleased this would be done , and she
hopes the trees along the front are really going to be as mature trees
as possible , when they go in , because it takes a long time to grow a
tree .
Ms . Whitcomb said that the other points that she wanted to pick
out from the SHCA presentation are a couple of things that the SHCA
• felt very strongly about - one being the covenants , in that there is a
concern , no one knows what is going to happen to the market , and how
things are finally going to settle out , but there is a concern for the
Planning Board - 14 - September 5 , 1989
• utmost of protection for the community that one can possibly get ,
adding , SHCA really is advocating a strong hard look at the covenants
situation , in particular that they be owner - occupied at least two
years out of the five . Ms . Whitcomb stated that the SHCA is also
concerned , because they do have a record , she guessed , for
preservation and protection of the natural resources that are
available on South Hill : witness our concern for the Eldridge
Wilderness . Ms . Whitcomb said that the SHCA is also concerned about
the Cornell South Hill Swamp , and would like to reiterate their stand
in terms of making sure that every effort is made to protect that
natural sensitive area . Ms . Whitcomb stated that she would end by
making a statement that most of the people from the SHCA who attended
the planning " Charette " were very , very impressed with the
Duany / Plater - Zyberk philosophy and their plan . Ms . Whitcomb said that
the SHCA had looked forward , very eagerly , to seeing what they hoped
would be a Comprehensive Master Plan for Mr . Auble ' s holdings that he
has on South Hill , and being able to see the total picture , and how it
would all meld into " this " village concept . Ms . Whitcomb stated that
she thought one of the things that SHCA is feeling about this
particular project proposal with Chase Pond is that it appears that
this is the heart of that village concept , and the heart seems to be
placed in the ankle , rather than in the middle of large holdings with
the development , then progressing out around it , , commenting , that is
the concern the SHCA has ; we had hoped that there would be a
presentation , probably that would be requiring a Special Land Use ,
• which , by the way , members of the SHCA were prepared to support , in
terms of having a total development with some interspersing of
commercial , apartments over buildings , and the kinds of concepts that
Duany / Plater - Zyberk was talking about . Ms . Whitcomb said that the
SHCA concern is that this particular project took pieces of that
philosophy._ , placed it here , and the SHCA did not see how it was going
to fit into the total picture . Ms . Whitcomb remarked that the other
statement SHCA has is that , if there are any questions in terms of the
fact that the Town Board had reserved the right to review the status
of this particular property , and what kind of legal premises are going
on in terms of what Attorney Egan has raised and some of the other
concerns that have been raised . Ms . Whitcomb noted that , if that
seems to be appropriate , then the SHCA would urge that the Town Board
actually be consulted in the process , adding , the SHCA is , as always
with the association , taking a hard look at any variances that are
requested , because the SHCA believes that variances are something that
should be given only when it is clearly in the public interest . Ms .
Whitcomb stated that the SHCA feels that the Planning Board and the
people in the community have no responsibility for insuring the
profitability , but there is a responsibility to the community . Ms .
Whitcomb stated that she does not envy the Planning Board ' s review of
the plan .
r
Mr . Auble , commenting on the rental situation in Ithaca , stated
that everyone that he is acquainted with , and knows the real estate
market , is familiar with the fact that a lot of new rental units have
• come into the market in the last two years , adding , there is a lot of
concern by people in the apartment business that there is a severe
softening . Mr . Auble remarked that he thought there are probably
Planning Board - 15 - September 5 , 1989
• other units that will continue to come on line , which is partially
creating new affordability , but also a higher vacancy rate . Mr . Auble
commented that if there is a concern about rental , an emphasis on
rental in his development , he , obviously , does not intend to have
rental units , that is not his goal , but if that market is severely
softening , and not as strong a market , then the fear of the economic
changes creating a need to have rentals in his subdivision is probably
not a likely scenario . Attorney Barney noted that Mr . Auble is
pushing to have single - family and individual lot sale . Attorney
Barney wondered why there would be a concern then , to put in a
similiar type of deed restriction that basically allows rentals , but
only on a fairly limited basis , basically to encourage owner - occupancy
and rental two out of every five years . Mr . Auble , directing his
comment to Attorney Barney , stated that his first argument would be
that AMG is trying to develop a community that is similar to where you
live , ( Attorney Barney ) , where Elliott lives , or people across the
street that own their own homes that really do not have a lot of
encumbrances , adding , AMG would have deed restrictions the same as in
Chase Farm , and AMG considers Chase Pond as being part of the Chase
Farm community , and there is no reason why a person with a
single - family home in Chase Pond should have any more restrictions on
them , other than perhaps for environmental concerns . . . Attorney Barney
interjected , except that Chase Pond is a little different kind of
development . Mr . Auble responded that , it is , esentially , an
apartment zone where AMG would be selling the units . . . Attorney Barney
• said that the problem he has is that on one hand AMG is saying
single - family , and sell as individual lots , and if that is the case ,
then he cannot see any reasonable objection . . . Mr . Auble said that AMG
may not have an objection when they get to the phase of discussing ,
with you ( Attorney Barney ) , and the Board . . . Attorney Barney noted
that this was a pretty crucial item . Mr . Auble stated that , tonight
AMG is looking for preliminary site plan approval based on the
structures and 'layout of the site , etc . , adding that he felt those are
what he would call negotiable items , but he felt a little bit of
resistance to being pressured into that kind of restriction on a
homeowner , when he is not the homeowner , commenting , if he were the
person buying that unit , he would like to make his own judgement about
that matter , commenting that he thought it a bit unfair when , in
effect , the whole project could be a rental project , so it seems like
AMG is being asked to place unneccesary and unfair restrictions on
those people that purchase units . Mr . Auble stated that he was not
saying that AMG would not be willing to consider something along those
lines , but noted that that was his gut feeling about that situation .
Attorney Barney responded that he thought in the other subdivisions
where these have been in place , e . g . , Cayuga Vista , Deer_ Run and the
. others , those conditions have been in place at the time of preliminary
subdivision approval ; it was agreed upon at that point in time that it
would be this way , and the Planning Board had an opportunity to look
at it with those in place , knowing that that was how it was going to
operate . Mr . Auble commented that his feeling from the Board was that
in some cluster' subdivisions it is not a requirement at all , in others
• it is ; it might be two years out of five , three years out of five , or
one year out of five , adding that he did not think that was a major
concern with AMG . Mr . Auble said that he still has trouble really
i
Planning Board - 16 - September 5 , 1989
• seeing that as being a legitimate major concern of someone that lives
a mile away , such as Mr . Lauderdale , Mr . Auble noted that the people
who live immediately adjacent to the site have never brought the
subject up to AMG as a problem . Mr . Auble , referring to people living
one - half mile in either direction , stated that he could understand
them having concerns for the entire community , but he does not see the
immediate adjacent homeowners having that kind of a concern . Again ,
Mr . Auble offered that he was not saying it is not a possible
restriction , adding , the Board has to make up their mind what they
want to do with that , but he did want to express his feelings .
Harrison Rue , of AMG , spoke from the floor and stated that Mr .
Auble ' s primary concern , right now , was loading up too many
regulations for a market . Attorney Barney responded that he thought
that cuts two ways , as sometimes these restrictions are advantageous
to have , because they assure one that the people next door will not
move away two years , or five years down the road , so they could go
either way ; it depends on the individual whether he would use it as a
restriction or he would use it as a plus that everybody is bound by
it . Attorney Barney stated that that is true in any restrictive
covenant across the board in subdivisions that are viewed sometimes
positive and sometimes negative , depending on . . . Mr . Auble remarked
that AMG has not really discussed that , but internally AMG has looked
at other basic deed restrictions similar to Chase Farm , and upon
discussing it Mr . Auble felt that , voluntarily , he would see that a
• potential deed restriction , if from a market standpoint it makes
sense , and which he may totally agree with , although he felt it is not
a legitimate kind of thing to impose on AMG . Attorney Barney noted
that Mr . Auble was asking for some waivers from the Board ' s normal
requirements . Attorney Barney stated that the considerations given to
the waivers is given in a total context , and that total context
includes what it is , adding , AMG is saying this is the way they want
to do it , fine , then AMG should not mind saying so in a deed
restriction , which is legally binding on the Board and on anybody
else . Attorney Salk stated that the big distinction is that this is
already an MR zone . Mr . Auble commented that , suppose AMG went MR and
in two years or five years AMG decided to sell , which happens a lot
with MR projects around the country ; one builds an apartment building ,
subdivides it , or condos it , AMG is not looking for that kind of
option , we are doing it on the front end .
Chairperson Grigorov indicated that at some point tonight the
Board has to discuss the covenants and the Homeowners ' Association ,
Attorney Salk mentioned that in a residential zone one does not want
it , de facto , to become a rental zone , because each of the individual
owners now decide to rent . Attorney Salk stated that the present
situation is that it is already an MR zone , so there is a big
distinction between those . Attorney Barney offered that there is a
difference : in an MR zone where one person , one entity , or one
corporation , owns the entire project , and is responsible for every
single one of those units in the project , then there is a certain
• economic incentive to make sure that all of the units are reasonably
good , or they get a deserved reputation that they are not a good place
to be , and that is felt economically . Attorney Barney noted that it
Planning Board - 17 - September 5 , 1989
is a little different if one has individual units which can be bought
• by out - of - town investors , if it is being bought for a student to
attend college for a couple of years , and their interests do not
necessarily lie in maintaining a particular unit , and particularly in
a context where there is not a Homeowners ' Association , which AMG does
not want to have , which oversees , and has usually some clout and
ability to make sure that at least exterior maintenance is maintained
on the property . Attorney Barney stated that Attorney Salk is
absolutely proper in making that distinction , but felt that his
distinction is equally good on the other side ; it is not an
unreasonable restriction to have , even though this was zoned MR to
begin with . Attorney Salk stated that he did not think Mr . Auble was
saying reasonable or unreasonable , but was saying this was the first
time this has come up . . . Attorney Barney interjected that it came up ,
and was part of , the South Hill Community Association material , in
fact , they very kindly pulled out some of the covenants that the Town
has insisted on in other areas , and provided them ,
Tammo Steenhuis , of 266 Pennsylvania Avenue , spoke from the floor
and stated that he lives in the oldest neighborhood in the Town of
Ithaca . Mr . Steenhuis commented that , right now , they are all
students , and when he ( Mr . Steenhuis ) moved in there were all normal
people . Mr . Steenhuis said that there were no deed restrictions ,
and , within ten years , even with the soft market mentioned by Mr .
Auble , there are all students , one can count many cars on a Sunday
morning , and ten on a Monday afternoon . Mr . Steenhuis remarked that
that can happen when there are no deed restrictions .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing
at 8 : 55 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
William Lesser , directing his comment to Ms . Beeners , wondered
about the distance between the carriage houses . Mr . Lesser remarked
that , as he understood it , because they are connected to the main
house by a breezeway , they are considered to be a part of the main
structure . Mr . Lesser wondered , if they are a part of the main
structure and behind the house , aren ' t they in the back yard , and
should they , under MR , have 30 feet between that portion of the house
and the back yard line , and not the 10 feet as shown ? Mr . Lesser
wondered if that was another waiver that was being requested . Ms .
Beeners responded that that would represent another instance of where
a waiver would be requested from the 30 feet . Mr . Lesser noted that
they are not garages ; they are part of the structure . Ms . Beeners
agreed with Mr . Lesser . Ms . Beeners stated that almost every distance
on the plan between buildings does require a waiver , except for a few
places , such as between alleys . Mr . Trowbridge wondered how that was
different from any garage . Mr . Lesser noted that what Mr . Trowbridge
is saying is that AMG can have what amounts to two structures on the
same lot , because it is part of the same structure , and connected by a
breezeway . Mr . , Lesser stated that if it is part of the same structure
• then it is not a garage . Ms . Beeners said that AMG is requesting that
this project be considered a clustered development ,. rather than some
of the less restricted Multiple Residence yard requirements , as might
Planning Board - 18 - September 5 , 1989
be between . two . 15 - foot garages . Ms . Beeners noted that AMG is losing
the ability to really use some of the less restricted MR requirements ,
AMG is dealing with an absolute 30 feet . Mr . Lesser mentioned that it
states a rear yard not less than 30 feet in depth , Mr . Rue stated
that , in previous discussions with the Town Planner , he was under the
impression that AMG was applying a little of the average height
between buildings , in every case , from building to building , Mr . Rue
stated that every one of the buildings does meet that rule . Ms .
Beeners commented , hypothetically , if one calls this an MR project ,
rental project , then her opinion was that this project would conform
entirely with MR zoning requirments , with the exception of the parking
on the road that parallels E . King Road , Ms . Beeners remarked , if
this were all rental , how fully does it comply to MR . Ms . Beeners
stated that everything looked fine to her , except for that one aspect
of the parking on the road . Ms . Beeners noted that AMG is faced with
the waiver of the 30 - feet between all buildings , because that
supersedes that MR requirement when one gets into cluster , Mr .
Trowbridge wondered if that was just two waivers , he thought AMG was
asking for building to building separation , which is one issue , and
the other issue is connected with some units , Mr . Trowbridge said
that he did not see that there was a distinction there ; he seems to
think it is the ' same waiver . Ms . Lesser responded that he thought the
point was that one waiver was a number of attached dwellings , Mr .
Trowbridge said that the second waiver being requested was for
building to building separation , Mr . Rue commented that in lieu of
• that 30 - foot separation , it is clearly stated on the plan that the
averaging of the height between the two buildings is what is being
complied with . Mr . Lesser replied that he understood that ; he thought
Mr . Trowbridge was talking about the side yard , which is 26 ' and 301
,
but AMG is also asking for the rear yard , which is presently 10 ' . Mr .
Rue commented that , in that case , the garage to garage dimension of a
24 ' high two - story garage . . . Mr . Lesser interjected that that is MR ,
cluster is being discussed ,
At this point , Ms . Beeners stated that she wanted to make a
statement of disclaimer on a letter from the AMG group , [ Refer to
attached Exhibit 1 . ]
Ms . Beeners stated that she did not think it could be said that
she and Town Engineer Sally Olsen , agreed with the many points made in
the letter , adding , they may have seen some merit in some of the
statements , but flat statements of agreement she would disagree with ,
Ms . Beeners , referring to the aspect of pets , stated that in the Manos
original site plan of 1983 , part of the Planning Board ' s requirements
were that , indeed , the leases had to state that there be a prohibition
against the keeping of cats , commenting , that was when it was a rental
situation , Ms . Beeners stated that , as the projectevolved in
different versions , and it was up to the duplexes " For Sale " in August
1988 , the covenants and deed restrictions for those duplexes did
include at least a leash on all pets , commenting that the language
was , indeed , that no pets would be permitted in the common areas , or
• on any lots , except within a residence , unless they were on a leash .
Continuing , Ms Beeners , noting information for the Planning Board ,
stated that when the Deer Run Covenants were approved they included a
Planning Board - 19 - September 5 , 1989
• restriction that there only be one pet per lot , and that all pets be
on leashes when they were outside of the individual lot . Ms . Beeners
commented that her question was , at least particularly in looking at
the 88 duplex Homeowners ' Agreement , or deed restrictions , why is
there a reluctance to have , at least , a restriction on leash , if not
given the density of this project to limit the number of pet mammals
that would be on the site ? Mr . Auble responded that that would be
fine with AMG . Mr . Rue stated that he believed that was agreed to at
the meeting held on Monday , September 4 , 1989 . Ms . Beeners wondered
if AMG would have a problem with the one mammal pet per lot . Mr .
Auble answered that he felt that would not be a problem . Ms . Beeners
said that it appeared to her that it is a tight situation , but
wondered if it was something AMG could live with . Mr . Auble responded
that he felt it ' would affect the marketing of the units , but AMG would
be willing to live with it . Ms . Beeners mentioned that she was sure
there would be some kind of advisement to any of the people occupying
the units where there will be any trespassing over into the Cornell
lands , adding that she knew there was a fence provided along a portion
of the western side of the project . Ms . Beeners commented that she
thought Cornell . Plantations would be especially interested in that ,
any kind of education program people would know that they could not
trespass . Ms . Beeners noted that she had suggested in her review that
on the western side of the project , the buffering be beefed up a
little bit from just the 10 - foot row of trees and shrubs , and would
hope that there would be some way that the developers could work with
Cornell Plantations in the restoration of what remains in the buffer
• area where there are no plantings , commenting , there actually is a
40 - foot access easement that the developers now hold , and hopefully
will try to beef that up , mostly to mitigate some of the visual
impact . Mr . Auble responded that that would be something AMG would be
willing to work with Cornell on . Ms . Beeners , commenting on the
northern area , north of the Type IV units , which would abut the Deer
Run property , noted in her review that there should be some additional
plantings put there . Ms . Beeners stated that upon looking at the
proposed deed restrictions she felt that the intent was really there ,
that the existing woody plant material , which she believed consisted
of some ashes and some vibernums along the north line , would be
retained . Ms . Beeners , referring to the parking , stated that AMG had
indicated on the plans that were distributed to the Board where
parking might be expected on streets . Ms . Beeners stated that AMG is
providing quite a bit of parking on the lots themselves , commenting
that she and Town Engineer , Sally Olsen , did not expect AMG to fill up
all the parking areas on a regular basis , but would expect on any
final site plan , if the phases are approved , that there could be more
indication of exactly where parking spaces are on the lots , or where
they are typically going to be on the lots , so it can be more fully
assessed just what type of maintenance need , and signage needs would
be necessary for establishing parking , or no parking zones .
Continuing , Ms . Beeners noted that the way the plat is now it
looks like there would not be much opportunity for people to load up
• their garages with junk . Ms . Beeners wondered what type of incentive
there would be to have those garages be usable for storage . Mr . Auble
remarked that AMG ' s intent was to try to incorporate as much inside
Planning Board - 20 - September 5 , 1989
• storage as possible , adding that he thought the typical purchaser of a
home of this type tends to not have as many extra things that one
might have in a home across the street at Chase Farm „ Mr . Auble
offered that AMG does have the garages designed to be a bit oversized ,
and is also looking to have pull - down storage , which is also being
done in the single - family homes , commenting that he thought this
helped make the homes more marketable . Mr . Auble said that he felt
the same way as the Board regarding open garage doors , they do not
enhance the beauty of the neighborhood . Ms . Beeners stated that she
assumed that the Board would be able to review some more specific
language on the maintenance of the alleys , which she understood would
be under some kind of common maintenance agreements . Ms . Beeners
stated that she assumed that the sidewalks would be located within the
proposed public rights - of -way : that they are going to be maintained by
the homeowners . Ms . Beeners mentioned the community corporation in
that AMG is showing that they would be endowing it to cover
short - falls over a possible five year period , adding , AMG also
proposes that an additional amount of money would be used for
additional short - fall , and also for improvements of the recreational
area . Ms . Beeners stated that she had a concern as to how well that
would work , and what mechanisms there might be to guarantee that the
Town would not be stuck with something , or the community itself , after
the five year period . Attorney Salk responded that the main assurance
was that the idea of the park area is low maintenance to begin with ,
and there is not going to be a community clubhouse , not a miniature
golf course ; there is not going to be any of those types of items that
• would require a, great deal of maintenance , not only in the short - run ,
but also in the long - run . Attorney Salk noted that , basically , it
would be maintained as a park , so the budget that is set forth in the
pamphlet is going to stay a pretty stable budget for the foreseeable
future , and there really are not too many other maintenance items that
would be of a concern . Attorney Salk said that the number of people
and the amount of money that each person has to pay is an extremely
modest amount , adding , the projections that have been made are not for
a full complement of people . Attorney Salk stated that AMG does not
expect it to even be for as long as five years before there is a
short - fall , but there will be an additional $ 10 , 000 . 00 endowment over
a fairly short period of time , which has no use in the near future ,
and it is not expected to be used for a short - fall over the projected
five years , commenting that it is assumed that money will be invested ,
so it will be additional money . Attorney Salk stated that if it is
not needed for additional short - falls , it is expected that the money
would stay in "and continue to earn money . Attorney Salk said that
with the projections , it is really just not the five year projection ,
it is far more than five years . Mr . Rue stated that AMG is actually
constructing the park , trail , landscaping , and seeding it to the same
standards as one can see the trail constructed on Chase Farm ,
Attorney Barney wondered what information AMG has that this kind
of system would work , commenting that it is one thing to have each
homeowner be compelled to join a Homeowners ' Association , and form a
• Board of Directors , which sets a fee structure that everybody has to
pay , indeed , there is a lien against their house or unit if it is not
paid . Attorney Barney wondered what kinds of experiences AMG has
Planning Board - 21 - September 5 , 1989
• seen , actually , where a system like this would work where it is
basically volunteer . Attorney Barney noted that AMG has a projection
that states 134 people paying , and there are 119 units . Attorney
Barney mentioned that AMG is really anticipating at least 15 people
from outside the subject subdivision . Rick Holt responded that he
does know that the 15 people do exist in this area , but he could speak
from experience in the Midwest , where these are very common , and
typical participation is nearly 80 % . Attorney Barney asked , where in
this area do they exist ? Mr . Holt answered that there are some " For
Sale " projects in the New York area , such as Binghamton , New York ,
Chairperson Grigorov wondered what the problem was in requiring
membership , the dues are so low she did not think anybody would be
upset about paying $ 30 . 00 a year . Mr . Auble felt that the funding was
adequate plus the invested funds that are not utilized to , basically ,
continue . . . Attorney Barney interjected and asked if there were a
reason AMG does not want to go to compulsory . Mr . Auble stated that
his personal reason , after going through the issue with attorneys , and
talking about earlier developments where the initial steps have been
gone through , the cost factor that it adds to the homeowner , which is
fairly substantial per unit , AMG is trying to get some sort of
affordability level . Mr . Auble said that every time a modification is
made , it is another substantial cost . Mr . Auble remarked that , even
though there is " a Homeowners ' Association , it still is not a guarantee
that it would be a perfectly run operation , adding that he has seen
condo , as well as homeowners ' associations deteriorate . Mr . Auble
stated that he did not think there was a guarantee of any of these
• systems being perfectly run . Attorney Barney , directing his comment
to Attorney Salk , wondered if there was going to be some common
maintenance agreements relative to the alleyways . Attorney Salk
replied that further discussions would be held with Ms . Beeners . Mr .
Rue offered that AMG is quite confident that that will. work ; there
will be easements and each person will be required to keep their . . .
Attorney Barney interjected that the reason he asked that question ,
unless he misunderstands the most recent approach of the Attorney
General , the instant AMG does that they are at the Attorney General
anyway . Mr . Rue responded that that is why they are looking at the
easements . Attorney Barney commented that the instant real property
is sold with a compulsory aspect , if somebody has to pay for either
common maintenance , his understanding is that , as a developer , AMG is
now obliged to give that person an offering plan explaining that , and
then off to the Attorney General under any circumstances , but then the
question becomes - we have to go for that , why not go for the
Homeowners ' Association , Mr . Holt stated that the point would be to
not have joint maintenance agreements , they would maintain those just
like they would their sidewalk or any other fully owned property . Mr .
Rue offered that that has been proven to work in many downtown areas
in traditional towns , where people maintain and shovel their own
private rear alleys , which are all of 12 feet wide by 21 feet long ,
and which are shorter than the normal single - family dwelling driveway .
Attorney Barney stated that he did not argue about the size , or the
cost . Mr . Rue stated that each individual townhouse owner would
• maintain his 12 ' X21 ' wide driveway .
Planning Board - 22 - September 5 , 1989
Ms . Langhans asked if the alleys would be grass . Mr . Rue
answered that they would be gravel .
Attorney Barney stated that AMG does not really have a guarantee
that the pond won ' t become an albatross , and if there is just a
not - for - profit corporation , with nominal charges , and as soon as
something major happens , such as freezing over , e . g . , someone is
playing ice hockey and lets a puck fly hitting someone in the head ,
then there is a major lawsuit ; that corporation folds up and
disappears , adding , all of a sudden there is nothing anymore to make
any provision for the maintenance of that pond . Attorney Salk stated
that , of course , part of the obligations of the not - for- profit
corporation will maintain sufficient liability insurance . Attorney
Barney commented that , - today one may be able to secure the insurance ,
but tommorow the insurance may not be available . Attorney Barney
noted that it seemed to him that there are too many ifs in the future
without a real solid guarantee that that corporation will be there to
carry the burden of the pond and the surrounding area . Attorney
Barney noted that his above comment was his opinion , not necessarily
the Board ' s . Mr . Holt stated that AMG can show an example of many
such corporations that have been in existence for as long as 15 - 20
years , are just as healthy , and have the same high percentage of
participation over 80 % , because of the very factor that they are so
affordable , and it is a desirable thing to improve a neighborhood for
$ 20 . 00 - $ 30 . 00 a year , as opposed to being subjected to $ 70 . 00 - $ 150 . 00
a month in maintenance fees of a Homeowners ' Association . Attorney
• Barney agreed , adding , if the Homeowners ' Association takes on the
burdens of external maintenance . Mr . Rue offered that another
additional main reason not to have a HOA on this particular site is
that AMG does not want that park totally restricted from the neighbors
on Chase Farm , which , if it was an HOA it would only be offered to
Chase Pond people , commenting , as it is right now , with someone buying
on Chase Farm , AMG can show them the plan that there are options to
the other contiguous developments for people to participate in ,
actually join , pay the dues , be able to walk across the street and use
that park . Chairperson Grigorov wondered if anyone who had not paid
the dues could walk around the pond . Mr . Rue replied that he did not
think anyone would keep people from walking around the pond . Mr .
Auble offered that the area would be semi -public , there would be a
nominal fee , but would get some control , adding that he thought
Cornell would like to see some controls implemented . Mr . Rue stated
that , essentially , it is a sense of ownership . Mr . Auble offered that
the pond has been there unmaintained for 20 years , and it is doing
fine . Mr . Auble stated that he felt it would be a vast improvement
that should help it continue for another 20 years and on . Attorney
Barney said that it is one thing to have a pond in a big open field ,
and another thing to have a pond surrounded by 119 units , commenting
that the usage might be a little bit different . Mr . Trowbridge stated
that it is not an unusual concept , if anyone has been to the south
shore of Long Island , the beach front does not restrict one from
going , but there are discreet signs put up that say : limited to
• members of the ' community with permits , adding , what it does is to
suggest that there is limited use of the area .
Planning Board - 23 - September 5 , 1989
• Ms . Beeners stated that she was expecting that AMG would be
refining their architectural design standards for any final site plan
approval to cover such things as : whether people could build fences ,
and what the heights would be , and a bunch of other site plan kinds of
things . Ms . Beeners noted that she had recommended in her review to
the Planning Board that Section 34 of the Subdivision Regulations does
permit the regulation , and it appeared to her that during any course
of plat review , e . g . , per phase of this development , the Planning
Board may regulate what the exterior characteristics are of the
project . Continuing , Ms . Beeners stated that it was her opinion that
she did not have too many aesthetic problems with what is proposed as
Phase I , but she thought it would be very helpful for the community to
see actually what it is going to look like , especially with the
extreme length of the townhouse structures , and the distances between
buildings , and would hope that the provision in Section 34 of the Sub
Regs would permit a fuller evaluation once the townhouses are erected ,
to see whether , indeed , it is appropriate to have townhouses on the
east and west boundaries of the site . Ms . Beeners said that the last
thing was that it should be noted to the Planning Board that , at the
present time , there are no occupancy restrictions in an MR District ,
Ms -. Beeners stated that there are , of course , some proposed amendments
to the MR District , which will be at public hearing at the Town Board
Meeting on September 11 , 1989 , and which would put AMG at a maximum of
three unrelated people per dwelling unit in a multiple district ,
commenting , that is something that no one knows , whether the Town
Board would approve those right away on the 11th , or what . Ms .
• Beeners stated that that aspect has to be considered , as to whether ,
indeed , the project should go , at the present time , with no occupancy
restrictions , or pending a further determination as to just how the
proposed amendments would be resolved . Chairperson Grigorov said that
the Planning Board should probably have their own , specific to this
project . Ms . „ Beeners noted that the possibilities would be to
consider tailoring something now , if it is felt that having no
restrictions at the present time would not really work , or , perhaps ,
have it be deferred until the time of the final approval . Attorney
Barney said that he was not sure the Town Board was going to take any
action that would impact on this kind of a development , which is kind
of a hybrid between multiple and single family . Att orney Barney
stated that he felt Ms . Beeners point was well taken , as part of the
approval process there should be some tailoring of what occupancy is
contemplated for the project . Ms . Beeners stated that in existing
single - family residences , in the current regular residence zone , there
is a maximum of three unrelated people , adding , in a two - family there
is a maximum of three in the entire building . Ms . Beeners offered
that this , in a way , dovetails a little bit with what Mr . Lauderdale
had summarized . Ms . Beeners remarked that as she understood it , the
carriage units would be studio or one - bedroom units . Ms . Beeners
stated that she felt what exists on the Board right now for
single - family homes might be pertinent in any of the dwellings being
discussed . Ms . Langhans commented that that is , effectively , what
they are asking for anyway . Mr . Auble said that AMG would be willing
• to implement some deed restriction that would be in accord with the
Town occupancy laws . Attorney Barney mentioned that the problem is
that the future occupancy laws may or may not govern MR . Ms . Beeners
Planning Board - 24 - September 5 , 1989
offered that it would be whether it is satisfactory to just say that
the occupancy of all dwellings would be governed by the zoning
requirements for single - family dwellings .
Robert Kenerson asked if any of the previous approvals carry with
them anything that would apply to this particular application ; any
restrictions , any covenants , etc . , or are they all wiped out ?
Chairperson Grigorov replied that she thought they would have to be
put in again . Mr . Kenerson stated that he thought it should be made
clear , because if they were there before , and will have them again ,
they should be stated or not stated , adding , if they are out , then the
Board is only dealing with what is before them . Ms . Langhans offered
that she thought they would probably have to be restated , as to
whether they would be the exact same ones . Ms . Beeners stated that
she wanted to buy a little time to try to figure out which ones were
still pertinent or not out of the old ones , by having it in the
proposed resolution , and just keeping it like that , because some
things did drop out , overtime , and have been modified . Mr . Kenerson
remarked that , in the proposed resolution , just about everything is
covered . Ms . Beeners agreed with Mr . Kenerson , except for the cats ,
adding that the intention was that , if this project was granted a
preliminary approval , then there would be the ability to hash out
exactly which ones were still pertinent . Mr . Miller wondered if it
would have to come back before the Planning Board again . Ms . Beeners
said that this would also give the applicant the time to develop more
detailed deed restrictions and covenants , as have been proposed , and
• those would have to be approved by the Planning Board as part of any
final site plan , commenting that AMG has stated their intent to
develop further certain restrictions and regulations about things such
as , herbicides , satellite dishes , trailers , pets , and a number of
other things which would be covered at that time . Mr . Kenerson
wondered if this applied to the SEQR ; the Board has approved SEAR , as
this is the sixth project on this piece of ground . Chairperson
Grigorov replied that it would have to be done again .
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 . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Dr . William Lesser :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the 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 No . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 311 , Multiple Residence District ,
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
• Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for
Subdivision and Site Plan review .
Planning Board - 25 - September 5 , 1989
• 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on August 1 , 1989 and at
Adjourned Public Hearing on September 5 , 1989 , has reviewed the
proposed project , application submissions , and staff review .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Baker , May , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Smith .
Nay - Miller .
The MOTION , was declared to be carried .
At this point , Mr . Lesser , commenting on the overall project ,
stated that he liked the concept of the plan , he likes what Auble
Homes has done 'on Chase Farm , but he does not like the density of the
present proposed development . Mr . Lesser noted that he felt there
were a couple of ways to look at it - one is in terms of the numbers :
if the land was added back in , that , indeed , was deeded to Cornell ,
but take out the two acres that are covered by the pond, because when
one calculates developable land , water is usually not counted , so that
comes out to be 4 . 6 dwelling units per acre . Continuing , Mr . Lesser
stated that , if , indeed , the normal 10 % was taken out as recreational
• set aside , which is 2 . 8 acres , then it would come up to 5 dwelling
units per acre , which is approaching twice what the normal density
would be in an R- 15 zone , which is what this was zoned from , and it is
certainly consistent with the rest of the neighborhood , and which is ,
of course , 3 dwelling units per acre . Mr . Lesser offered another way
to look at it , in that there has been a lot of talk about- recreational
lands in this area , and , indeed , if one looks at a site such as this ,
it is very possible that with 119 units it could well have 50 children
of all ages on the land , and , indeed , additional children have been
mentioned as possibly coming across the road from Chase Farm , Mr .
Lesser stated that he was not sure where those children were going to
go ; there is a nicely designed open area on the access area about the
size of a football field , but that is really where one would not want
children playing , because there is a development here with the
potential of 250 cars . Mr . Lesser noted that he was talking about the
entrance area , between the two streets . Mr . Lesser commented that the
main area is around the pond , and , if , indeed , one goes to the back
side of the pond , that land falls away quite steeply , and goes down
very quickly to the brushy area , which is intended , in the deed
restrictions , not to be cut , indeed , intended to be part of the buffer
with the swamp , adding that in terms of space , one is pretty much
limited immediately around the pond where the path is , a little bit of
space on [ indicating on map ] " this " side , and a small area right next
to the houses on the far end . Mr . Lesser stated that he felt that was
really not enough space for the potential number of people . Mr .
• Lesser also noted that , given the density of the development in the
rest of the areas , then anyone who would be outside their patio would
be on that area . Mr . Lesser offered that he felt it was too dense ,
Planning Board - 26 - September 5 , 1989
• and not enough open space in this area , adding that he thought it
would be substantially different from anything else that exists on
South Hill now . Mr . Lesser stated that several years ago another
cluster arrangement was proposed on West Hill , which allowed ,
essentially , 3 houses per lot in a somewhat unusual configuration ,
commenting , if one drives by there , clearly the density , the space ,
and the general appearance of crowding is substantially greater than
it is when things were built at the normal densities , adding that he
cannot help but believe that would be the impression that would come
from the subject development , if it is , indeed , built in that
capacity . Continuing , Mr . Lesser noted that , in terms of
justification , he did not think that the concept of affordable housing
really applies here , because when most people use that term , and
recognizing the work of Assistant Town Planner , Mr . Frantz , he did not
think we need people who can afford 20 % down on a $ 95 , 000 . 00 house ,
that is not normally what is meant by affordable housing , and , indeed ,
if that is what is being described , one can go right down the hill and
buy something like that where the Board did not have to make any
accommodations of this sort to provide condo type houses in the area
of $ 95 , 000 . 00 - $ 97 , 000 . 00 . Mr . Lesser offered that he thought it was
good , but just too much of it .
Mr . Auble offered that Deer Run has been studied , and there are
very few children there . Mr . Auble said that AMG has test marketed
their product sufficiently and feels that there would be very few
• children in the development , adding , the people with children opt to
go across the road to Chase Farm , which is a single - family home
subdivision . Mr . Auble said that he did not agree with Mr . Lesser ,
but could understand his concern . Mr . Auble noted the fact that AMG
is producing owner - occupied dwellings versus high density rental
property , which was there when the property was purchased . Mr . Auble
stated that he felt AMG was not being given a lot of credit for their
effort , risk , and extra expense that is involved in the proposed
development ; it would be much less risky to go with a high density
plan that was the original Manos ' plan . Mr . Auble felt that the kind
of architecture AMG is producing is going to create a lot of pride of
ownership , adding , he thought that would offset the fears people have
of a deteriorating neighborhood . Mr . Auble offered that the interest
of ownership in Chase Pond is coming , right now , from retired
individuals , some of whom their younger families are living across the
road at Chase Farm . Mr . Auble said that AMG , at this point , has not
been approached by one buyer with young children . Chairperson
Grigorov , directing her comment to Mr . Auble , wondered if there was a
need for a playground ; would there be any place to put one . Mr . Auble
mentioned the 7 acre area , in that once it is totally groomed one
would see that it is a fairly substantial area . Mr . Lesser asked , if
the pond area was taken out , and the area that is going to be set
aside . . . Mr . Auble interjected that there would be about a 2 - 3 acre
field , plus the areas that AMG has on Chase Farm , and the continuing
properties AMG ° has , it is planned to have other large greens , they
have been designed into AMG ' s properties , noting that he thought there
• would be a dispersion of people to different large green areas ,
commenting , adjacent to this is probably 60 acres of forever wild
land . Mr . Auble said that there . are virtually miles of underground
Planning Board - 27 - September 5 , 1989
• pipeline trails that are kept open adjacent to Chase Farm on the upper
end . Mr . Auble stated that AMG has given a lot of thought to people
for recreational purposes , young and old . Mr . Auble mentioned that
there are also a lot of State parks in the region , which are quite
close ,
Mr . Trowbridge stated that the planning standard for 500 families
is 1 - 1 / 4 acres on a community park scale . Mr . Trowbridge offered that
this is not meant to be a regional park , but it well exceeds any
standard for community size park .
Mr . May noted that there was a lot of space there that could be
made into a small childrens ' playground , if that was desirable , and
for larger kids , and adults , there is an awful lot of other things
within the South Hill area . Mr . May stated that he felt there need
not be a lot of physical space for small children ,
Mr . Miller. , directing his comment to Mr . Auble , stated that he
was going to vote no on this project , and wanted Mr . Auble to know
why . Mr . Miller stated that he liked all the projects previous to the
present project , and liked Chase Farm , Mr . Auble wondered if Mr .
Miller liked the Manos ' project . Mr . Miller responded that he was not
on the Board then . Mr . Miller remarked that he was talking about the
projects presented by Mr . Auble , and since he has been on the Board .
Mr . Miller stated that Mr . Auble ' s professional is terrific , but he
• ( Mr . Miller ) believes that zoning laws should be taken seriously . Mr .
Miller thinks that the proposed project is too dense , Mr . Miller
commented that it is an urban community in a rural setting ; take the
Chase Farm Development , and the character of the whole community , then
look at the present projects it becomes a little village , if one wants
to call it that . Mr . Auble responded that every plan he has had
approved .has been for the same number of units , essentially , or
something close to it , adding that AMG thinks it is an improvement
over the other plan , the other plans have been costed out , and they
have not been economically feasible , or . . . Mr . Miller interjected that
that is not the Planning Board ' s worry . Mr . Auble responded that the
Board has approved every other plan , adding that the proposed project
is a variation of other approved plans . Chairperson Grigorov offered
that the proposed project is in an MR zone , with Mr . Miller stating
that he knows ' it is , but still thinks AMG should stick to zoning ,
Chairperson Grigorov , directing her comment to Mr . Miller , and
referring to the zoning , asked , stick to zoning in what way ? Mr .
Miller answered that Mr . Auble is asking for two variances , and it
makes the project more dense than he liked to see it . Chairperson
Grigorov wondered if Mr . Miller wanted to stick to the MR zoning . Mr .
Miller commented that , in the proposed plan , Mr . Auble is asking for
two variances , i . e . , side yard variance , and asking for over 6 units
on . . . Chairperson Grigorov interjected that , as Ms . Beeners said , if
it were strictly MR , then AMG would not need to ask for variances .
Mr . Miller stated that he thought the project was too dense ; it is not
in character with the rest of the neighborhood . Mr . Miller stated
• that he was trying to be up front with Mr . Auble ; he thinks it is too
dense , and he would be voting no .
Planning Board - 28 - September 5 , 1989
• Mr . Smith stated that because of the density it seems as though
it would be very advisable. to have a Homeowners ' Association to
maintain the structures that are going to be right on top of each
other ; it seems like a voluntary group to oversee things . Mr . Smith
wondered who would be responsible for enforcing the deed restrictions .
Mr . Auble answered that each homeowner has the option of enforcing the
deed restrictions , adding , anyone who wants to protect their property
value is going to do that . Attorney Barney indicated that it is not
likely that an individual homeowner is going to want to incur , the
expense and effort of bringing a lawsuit . Mr . Rue stated that the
existing Chase Farm development has an architectural review committee
that will review standards , adding , it is an organization that is
maintained simply by the deed restrictions , commenting that the
community organization would be empowered , again , by the deed
restrictions to act in that regard , to legally enforce it . Mr . Smith
commented , in other words , a voluntary group would have legal power
over those not members . Mr . Rue stated that that organization would
act as any other landowner ; if somebody individually did not want to
do it , it would be an elected official who , on behalf of the
organization , would bring it to the Board , if necessary . Attorney
Barney wondered how much money was being put into the voluntary group ,
adding , an $ 8 , 000 . 00 shortfall would be a much , much bigger shortfall
if they had to hire attorneys to go chasing after the next door
neighbor , adding that he did not see that programmed into the budget .
• Ms . Langhans , directing her comments to Mr . Miller „ stated that
the project is in an MR , and if Mr . Auble had stayed with MR he would
have had his 119 units all rental . Mr . Auble is asking for a cluster
overlay to make this single - family " For Sale " homes , with the same
numbers , adding , he is asking for two waivers that would give him
homeowners , rather than rentals . Ms . Langhans offered -that she does
not see anything wrong with that . Mr . Miller responded that he did
not see anything wrong with it either , but he believed that zoning
should be adhered to very carefully , and thought that , as a developer ,
Mr . Auble created his own hardship asking for waivers . Mr . Miller
said that hardship to him is not the Board ' s problem , commenting that
he knew Mr . Auble spent thousands and thousands of dollars . Mr .
Miller stated that he had approved the previous projects . Mr . Miller
again stated that he felt the proposed project is too dense ; it does
not fit the character of the neighborhood . Mr . Miller stated that he °
viewed the site today . Ms . Langhans stated that it did get the
approval for 119 -rental units , because it is MR , so if the rental
units were constructed it would be too dense also . Mr . Miller stated
that , in his opinion , it is an urban community in a rural setting .
Mr . Miller stated that he was a little sensitive to the character of
the neighborhood .
Mr . Lesser offered that Mr . Auble had stated that the rental
market had gone soft . Mr . Miller stated that he does not like this
particular project . Mr . Lesser stated that he thought the project was
too dense , and , as he looks at it , it either has to be MR or it has to
• be clustered . Mr . Lesser stated that if Mr . Auble was essentially
coming before the Board with a clustered approach , then under that
approach he ( Mr . Lesser ) sees it as too dense . Mr . Lesser noted that
Planning Board - 29 - September 5 , 1989
• an overlay indicates how many standard grid pattern places that can go
in there for determining the density . Ms . Langhans stated that she
was not so sure about the economic pointp , Mr . Auble has a beautiful
development across the street , and he certainly does not want to put
rental housing across from that , adding that she felt Mr . Auble ' s
impetus was not economic , but to go with the homeowner . Mr . Lesser
agreed with Ms . Langhans in that Mr . Auble wants to build a clustered
subdivision , but it should fit better with our clustered subdivision
regulations . Mr . Lesser offered that he could see some variances and
some adjustments for the situation , but 60 % over is too much , adding
that he thought it would change the view and character of that
community entirely , to have that much dense housing in that area .
Mr . May mentioned that the density would be 3 units per acre of
two family , adding , when one looks at it that way the density is not
really any higher . Mr . Lesser offered that one is looking at ,
actually , how many of the lots are buildable lots . Mr . May offered
that he did not think density was the question . Mr . May stated that ,
personally , he did not think the density was a argument that applies
to the project , with the exception that , because of the arrangement ,
it certainly takes up more ; the footprint of the entire project is
larger than a typical MR would be , because of being all single - family
homes . Mr . May offered that he felt the project to be a rather
interesting concept , and certainly new to the area , commenting that he
did not think anyone on the Board had ever seen such a concept . Mr .
May said that he had mentioned to Mr . Auble the fact that he really
. did not know how the city brought to the country was going to work ,
but felt that , density -wise it is certainly appropriate . Mr . May
stated that he thought AMG has done a very nice job with the layout ,
although there have been a number of things mentioned tonight that
still are of a concern . Mr . May commented that he did not know how
one would address the homeowners versus non -homeowners , adding that he
thought there were some real questions that have been raised , both
from the marketability of the project , as well as concerns from the
people . Mr . Auble said that AMG would be willing to look at a
Homeowners ' Association . Mr . May stated that he thought the site was
a gorgeous , beautiful site ; it is a little different and deserves a
try , commenting that he gives Mr . Auble full credit ; he has certainly
spent enough money trying to get enough consultants and people in to
come up with something for the site .
Mr . Kenerson stated that everyone had viewed the site , and he ,
personally , did not get the feeling that there was too much , and
certainly , the Board , over the years, has approved some others that he
did not think would be nearly as attractive as this . Mr . Kenerson
commented that , to come out of a major project such as this with only
two requests for variances is pretty close , adding that he did not
think the variances were major . Mr . Kenerson said that , having looked
at some of the overall concepts of what AMG is trying to do , expect to
do , and hope ' to do in the total area , this would certainly be
compatible with what is going to end up there ; it may be off the trail
• a bit right now , but it will not be when the rest of the projects are
completed . Mr . Kenerson noted that , as Mr . May stated , there are
areas here that could be better than just chopping it up into the
Planning Board - 30 - September 5 , 1989
• conventional approach . Mr . Kenerson said that he thought AMG has
demonstrated , in one of those improbables that one looks at , that they
know what they are doing is first class , adding , there has got to be a
little bit of merit to that . Mr . Kenerson stated that he felt AMG has
gone as far as they can to satisfy people , and answer their questions .
Mr . Kenerson stated that AMG is still sticking to their same
particular layout , commenting , that should be something for the plan
and the concept . Mr . Kenerson offered that he did not feel , given the
opening , the views , and the thought that has gone into the project ,
that this is anywhere near as dense as some other things the Town
already has . Mr . Kenerson felt that this project would be an asset to
the South Hill community , particularly in the long - run , which the Town
is looking for , noting that there has been some others that have not
been that swift .
Ms . Lesser noted that , for a point of clarification , when he says
too dense , he is in no way discrediting the overall plans all he is
saying isthat there are a substantial number of places here , and
there are some particular waivers required , e . g . , if we were to say :
no more than 6 units in a row , we would be able to open up some space
in the midst of some of the rather formidable expanse of buildings ,
like 11 attached units ; perhaps if they could be broken up into two
smaller groups , one would get a very different impression in the area ,
and also reduce the density of numbers of individuals living on that
site by some percentage . Mr . Lesser offered that when he says : too
much , too dense , it is in that sense , but just in general , open it up
• slightly , with the same overall concept , etc . , but just not quite as
much of it on this amount of land . Mr . Kenerson offered that when
that is done , there is not the same concept . Mr . Kenerson said that
when one creates an 11 -unit street row of houses , that is there for a
purpose , and if that is split up , there are two dumb looking old
apartment houses again . Mr . Miller said that he agreed with Mr .
Kenerson , in that that would not be good looking apartment houses ; he
is not critizing the architecture ; he likes the architecture ; he likes
Mr . Auble ' s professionalism ; he just thinks it is too dense .
Chairperson Grigorov asked if there was anyone in the public who
wanted to make one last short comment .
Mr . Trowbridge commented . that he thought some of the issues
discussed tonight are apparent density versus the density allowed by
the zone . Mr . Trowbridge said that in some of the earlier schemes AMG
did have units that really wrapped the pond , houses that were built on
the pond ' s edge , both the north side and the south side . Mr .
Trowbridge mentioned that AMG has attempted , in the plan , to free up
that whole corner which is the buffer to Cornell . Mr . Miller asked
Mr . Trowbridge if he considered the project rural in nature . Mr .
Trowbridge answered that he was not sure anything on South Hill was
rural . Mr . Miller stated that he considers the whole area rural , not
urban . Mr . Auble offered that there is water and sewer available .
Mr . Miller responded that he knew . Mr . Miller said that a project
• such as this should not be hurried through , with Mr . Kenerson
responding that he did not think this project was being hurried
through .
Planning Board - 31 - September 5 , 1989
• Mr . Lauderdale , of 381 Stone Quarry Road , spoke from the floor
and stated that , in talking with the neighbors , everyone is interested
in the philosophy that everybody has advocated ; we just like to
emphasize that , if one is going to stand by a philosophy that says one
wants to have a small townish with neighborhoods , with different
people in there , then you should put your money where your mouth is ,
and allow the affordable housing mortgage company of the State of New
York fund even just some of the units , so that people that can afford
less than a . $ 95 , 000 . 00 house can move in there . Mr . Lauderdale said
that- Mr . Auble ' s revision of his argument ignores the fact that a
normal person in the Town of Ithaca does not have 20 % of $ 95 , 000 . 00 to
put up front as a down payment .
George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner noted that , as Mr .
Lauderdale brought up , the 20o is not absolutely necessary .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing
at 10 : 15 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
At this point , Ms . Beeners stated that there appears to be
another number discrepancy on what is proposed as Phase I . Ms .
Beeners said that it does appear that there are 38 main units in the
proposed Phase I area , and then 42 total , if one considers where the
carriage units are . Ms . Beeners noted that the developers would like
• to have some time to nail it down a little bit , it is represented in
the EAF as being 36 units in Phase I . Ms . Beeners stated that her
main reason for bringing that up again is getting back to why her
proposed additional condition is in the Draft Resolution , which dealt
with the apparent ability for the Planning Board to require additional
provisions or modification during the review of any phase . Ms .
Beeners stated that she did not really know how nailed down that first
phase has to be at the present time , but has been under the assumption
that it went from one alley to another as it is graphically shown ,
adding that she thought the density would not be over the 42 .
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 . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . Montgomery May :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the 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 No . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 311 , Multiple Residence District .
• 2 . This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as Lead Agency for Subdivision and Site Plan
Planning Board - 32 - September 5 , 1989
• review , has , on September 5 , 1989 , made a negative determination
of environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on August 1 , 1989 and at
Adjourned Public Hearing on September 5 , 1989 , has reviewed the
proposed project , application submissions , and staff review ,
4 . The present plan proposes that waiver be granted of the
Subdivision Regulations clustered subdivision requirements of a
maximum six dwelling units per building , and of a minimum 30 - foot
distance between buildings , for many of the buildings and yards
within the proposed development ,
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive the
provisions of Article V . Section 32 , Paragraph 6 , to permit the
attachment of more than six dwelling units and to permit a
distance of less than 30 feet between units , as shown on the
Preliminary Plans , having determined that such waiver would
represent neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control , nor an impairment of the policy enunciated
or implied by the Town Board in adopting the Subdivision
Regulations ,
• 2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the
project as proposed , subject , to the following conditions and
requirements .
a . Receipt of a report from the Tompkins County Planning
Department pursuant to N . Y . State General Municipal Law ,
Sections 239 - 1 and -m .
b . Report of the grant of waiver to the Town Board .
c . Approval of the location of proposed roads and other public
facilities by the Town Board prior to final subdivision and
final site plan approvals ,
d . Approval of proposed drainage plan by the Tompkins County
Highway Department prior to any final subdivision or site
plan approvals .
e . Approval of proposed deed restrictions and covenants , and
the proposed structure for open space management and use
( including approval of the Certificate of Incorporation and
By - laws of the Community Corporation ) , by the Planning Board
and the Town Attorney prior to any final subdivision or site
plan approvals , and by the Town Board prior to any building
permit issuance ,
• f . Compliance with all pertinent conditions and requirements
set forth in Local Law No . 3 - 1983 and Local Law No . 3 - 19871
Planning Board - 33 - September 5 , 1989
• and associated Resolution , as the same may be amended from
time to time .
g . Submission of a letter of credit in an amount sufficient to
assure the satisfactory completion of site improvements for
Phase I , prior to the issuance of any building permits for
Phase I , the amount of such letter of credit to be approved
by the Town Engineer and the form of such letter of credit
to be approved by the Town Attorney .
h . Provision of an easement , in a location to be determined by
the Town Planner , for public trail .access as a part of any
Phase I of the project .
i . The roads proposed for dedication to the Town , and those
roads proposed for private ownership , shall be constructed
in accordance with Town of Ithaca specifications unless
modified with the consent of the Town Engineer and Town
Board .
j . Approval of a schedule for site landscape and open space
improvements by the Planning Board prior to Final
Subdivision and Site Plan Approvals , including , but not
limited to , the installation or maintenance of proposed
buffer plantings and fencing along the periphery of the
• site , the addition of buffer plantings along the
northeasterly property line , and the planting of additional
trees and shrubs under arrangement between Cornell
Plantations and the developer on the Cornell buffer land .
k . Prior to the issuance of any building permits , the developer
shall obtain approval of the Town Engineer for the final
site development construction drawings , including landscape
plan and schedule as approved by the Town Planner , and shall
obtain approval of the final site drainage plan from the
Tompkins County Highway Department ,
1 . Submission of " as - built " plans showing as -built
I
mprovements , including utilities , drainage structures , and
roadways , for Phase I and any other subsequent phases , prior
to any final approvals for each subsequent future phase .
m . Indication in the covenants and deed restrictions of
limitations to occupancy ( owner - occupied at least 36 out of
every 60 months ) .
n . Limitation of no more than one mammalian pet per lot , and
all such pets to be kept on leashes when anywhere on the
site other than the pet owner ' s lot .
o . Approval of the form of government of the corporation
• operating the open spaces , including provision of compulsory
payments to the entity to assure maintenance of the open
spaces .
Planning Board - 34 - September 5 , 1989
• FURTHER , IT IS RESOLVED :
That , pursuant to Article V , Section 34 , of the Town of Ithaca
Subdivision Regulations , pertinent to the regulation of exterior
characteristics , the Planning Board may , in the review of any
application for Final Subdivision Approval for each proposed Phase ,
regulate the exterior characteristics of any proposed structures or
uses in order that the development shall be , in the judgment of the
Planning Board , compatible with the surrounding community , such
regulation to proceed notwithstanding and regardless of % the approval
contained in this Resolution .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Baker , May , Langhans , Kenerson , Smith .
Nay - Lesser , Miller ,
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Consideration of
Preliminary Subdivision Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval
for the proposed " Chase Pond " development duly closed at 10 : 34 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR
THE PROPOSED " CAYUGA LAKE ESTATES " , PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF 43 LOTS
• PLUS A 6 -ACRE PARK SITE , AND PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED EAST OF ORCHARD
HILL ROAD AND WEST OF N . Y . S . RT , 891 ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS N0 .
6 - 22 - 2 - 2 . 2 , - 2 . 9 , AND 6 - 21 - 1 - 5 , 65 . 9 ± ACRES TOTAL , RESIDENCE DISTRICTS
R- 15 , R - 30 . EDWARD J . MCARDLE AND LESLIE N . REIZES , OWNERS ; DAVID A .
MCARDLE , APPLICANT .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 10 : 35 p . m . and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Maps were appended to the bulletin board .
Ms . Ann Clarke addressed the Board and stated that the original
proposal for Cayuga Lake Estates was for 60 units , and noted that the
Board had some basic concerns regarding the natural drainage courses
on the site , including what is considered to be a stream or ravine on
the northern portion of the property , commenting , there were some
concerns about crossing that stream from the roadways_ . Ms . Clarke
said that the proposal before the Board tonight is for a preliminary
plat , and is for 43 lots , which the developers think have gone a long
way toward accommodating the concerns that the Board had expressed in
the past . Ms . Clarke stated that , for one point , there are no
roadways that cross the ravine to the north , nor were there ever any
proposed . Ms . Clarke said that the developers have accommodated , by
the natural roadway alignment , and the only drainageway that is being
intercepted and rerouted at all is what would come out of the drainage
• swale on Orchard Hill Road that now comes down a road ditch , just
extended along a road ditch , so the natural drainage on the site is
being retained and can be accommodated either in side lot lines for
Planning Board - 35 - September 5 , 1989
• drainage easements , or drainage easements that allow for buildable lot
area within the lots . Ms . Clarke offered that the drainage easements
are predominantly 20 ' easements , there is a 50 ' easement along Indian
Creek , and a 30 ' easement along the ravine to the north , adding that
they are all restricted from any construction within those easements .
Ms . Clarke stated that the roads , as designed , meet the 100 or less
than the 10 % standard that the Town has in place , except for one small
[ indicating on map ] link " here " that crosses the NYSEG right-of - way ,
which is at about 12 - 1 / 2 % , adding , that grade is needed in order to
keep a grade and that grade crossing for the NYSEG line for the NYSEG
right - of -way . Ms . Clarke noted that the developers intent in doing
that is to accommodate the Town ' s future interest in providing a
bikeway system along the right - of -way , along with the State ' s
interest .
Ms . Clarke stated that the project is still proposed to be served
by public water and sewer . Ms . Clarke offered that the sewer system
design , at this point , will feed by gravity to a series of pump
stations , [ indicating on map ] , one " here " one " here " " here " ,here and
the fourth one " here " , which would pump it out into orchard Hill Road
to the Hospital sewer , then down to the Ithaca Area Wastewater
Treatment Plant ,
Ms . Clarke offered that , in terms of additional access at the
site , which is something the Board has requested in the past , the
• developers do provide a right - of -way to the Fiser property , which is a
landlocked parcel , and that right - of -way would provide for additional
development on that site in the future . Ms . Clarke stated that the
developers provide for a right - of -way into the 6 . 1 acres of park land
that are being dedicated , commenting , there is a 20 ' ingress , egress
easement to the 4 . 8 acre out -parcel . Ms . Clarke stated that staff
comments have suggested that at the end of Orchard Hill Road Extension
there should be another 25 ' easement provided to the park , adding ,
that is something the developers would be more than willing to
accommodate . Ms . Clarke offered that in terms of the open space , the
area that has now been delineated for the park encompasses some of the
older vegetation on the site and a significant portion of the ravine
area , which would protect , it as has been the Town ' s interest in the
past . Ms . Clarke said that the lots , as proposed , conform to the
minimum requirements of the Town code , and / or can conform to those ,
adding that there is apparently some consideration that parcels No .
21 - 23 along State Route 89 may not conform , although the developers
have been assured that there is adequate lot depth there from previous
survey maps , commenting , that is something that can either be resolved
in the final plans , or request the necessary variances from the Board ,
in order to accommodate that minimal lot depth distinction .
Continuing , Ms . Clarke mentioned out - parcel A , which has been a
question or clarification that the Board is interested in , noting that
the out -parcel right now is where the major pump station is supposed
to be located , and the way it is designed , or the way it will end up
• being designed , would be part of the right - of -way to the road , and the
pump station is proposed to be dedicated to the Town , so it would be
part of public - owned properties ; it will not be an out -parcel per se .
Planning Board - 36 - September 5 , 1989
• Ms . Clarke mentioned the out -parcel to the north , the undeveloped 4 . 8
acres with the ingress and egress from the end of Highview Lane , which
she understood the Board to have a concern with the name as there are
too many similar names in the Town , adding , the developers suggest the
name Deer Path , Ms . Clarke [ indicating on map ] said that the 20 '
ingress and egress to " this " out - parcel is proposed to be retained by
the developer , there is no intention of development or future
subdivision at this time ,
Ms . Clarke stated that the developers have been in sort of a
concept stage review for quite some time , adding , what was submitted
for preliminary plat is what the developers understood to be a
preliminary plat requirement from Article VI , Section 36 , of the
Subdivision Regulations , which delineates a check list for preliminary
plat . Ms . Clarke noted that , since that time , the developers have
been informed that there is some additional engineering work that the
Town would like to see , in order to have a preliminary plat approval .
Ms . Clarke stated the developers ' concern is that , in order to provide
that additional engineering work , to do the geotechnical studies that
need to be done to actually do the design of the water and sewer
system , and the road profiles , is an extensive project , adding , to not
have tied down the basic alignment of the roadways , and the basic
configuration of the lots , the developers are very much at risk in
providing that additional type of information . Ms . Clarke stated that
the developers would like to suggest the consideration of a
• preliminary layout with the developers providing all the additional
engineering reports and information required for a final plat
approval , Ms . Clarke noted that some sort of preliminary approval or
agreement is needed of a layout and a design on subject parcel . Ms .
Clarke , pointing out another factor , offered that the vegetation
survey done on the site indicated that there were some areas of
significant older vegetation , commenting that the developers have
accommodated a large portion of that by proposing to dedicate the 6 . 1
acre parcel as park space . Ms . Clarke stated that there are
additional parcels , roughly parcels 7 - 10 " here " , parcels 11 - 17 " here " ,
and 18 - 20 " here " , that would also have deed restrictions and restrict
the size of trees that could be removed from the site . Ms . Clarke
stated that the developers propose that the restrictive covenants
include that a percentage of the lot area be restricted from clearing ,
and , in addition , a restriction be placed that trees of a certain size
not be taken off , adding that the Town is interested in setting aside
a minimum or maximum square footage that could be cleared , commenting ,
the developers think that is extremely restrictive to the property
owners , and the potential developing of the site , adding that 50 % or a
factor in that character is something that would be a lot more
flexible , and something that would achieve the same goals . Ms . Clarke
stated that the development has gone from a 60 -unit proposal to a 43 -
lot proposal , and the lots range in size from over 30 , 000 square feet
to 1 - 1 / 2 - 2 acres , adding , the configuration is designed to accommodate
the natural drainage on the site , and the slope on the site . Ms .
Clarke noted that the appended sketch is one that the Board asked for
• in terms of showing what the access , in terms of a profile , might look
like in some of the steep portions of the site . Ms . Clarke said that
there was a concern as to what the grade of the driveways might be ,
Planning Board - 37 - September 5 , 1989
• and [ pointing to map ] " this " is one of the steeper areas of the site ,
noting that the developer can provide setting a house , just at the
minimum set -back . Ms . Clarke said that the profile of the road is
just under 12 % in terms of a driveway grade ,
Board Member Stephen Smith , referring to Happy Lane , wondered
about the access , Assistant Town Planner George Frantz responded that
the reservation of a right - of-way to Happy Lane is even more critical
now , in light of the Route 96 decision , and given the fact that one is
looking at 25 years of land use circulation planning on West Hill that
has gone down the drain , although there is a necessity , possibly , for
a road that follows the contours , and Happy Lane would be a part of
that ,
Ms . Clarke , referring to Happy Lane , stated that in the original
proposal for Cayuga Lake Estates , the developers were advised by the
Board that there were significant concerns in crossing any of those
ravines , in terms of maintenance concerns and costliness of the
bridges that would go over the ravines , Ms . Clarke said that , if a
right - of -way is provided on Happy Lane , and the Town intends to annex
to a parcel that is already platted , then the Town is doing what they
have advised the developers as not a good idea to do . Ms . Clarke
stated that the other concern is , if that type of a connection is
made , given the traffic patterns , the development would become a
thoroughfare , commenting that she did not think it was the Town ' s
• intent , in their policy , that local subdivision streets become major
thoroughfares to that extent . Mr . May asked , where would it become a
thoroughfare to ? Ms . Clarke answered with , the connection to Route 89
from the Hospital , Mr . Frantz stated that it would be a connection
between a number of possible residential developments in that areas it
would not be a thoroughfare . Ms . Clarke wondered how many units it
would serve . Ms . Beeners responded that , right now , there is a long
dead- end situation on Indian Creek Road . Ms . Beeners , [ indicating on
map ] pointed out the over 1000 - foot cul de sac requirement , adding
that the right - of -way provision be - made so that , at the minimum , there
could be the relief for the existing residential street right " here " .
Ms . Beeners mentioned that , as " these " properties get developed , there
would be an additional , and more primary road connection , either
coming down to Route 89 , through the property behind the Odd Fellows ,
the Hospital , or perhaps even using the old Hospital access heating
plant road , but it would be very unwise , at the present time , not to
plan for a contingent connection right [ indicating on map ] " there " ,
with the intention that , finally , there would be something that would
serve the remainder of " this " area :
Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were anyone from the public
who wished to comment ,
Kitty Mattes spoke from the floor and stated that she and her
husband , Max Mattes , both own property at 1081 Taughannock Blvd . Ms .
Mattes noted that they had been asked by several of their neighbors to
• represent them regarding some of the concerns . The neighbors are as
follows : Roger & Sue Dennis of 1075 Taughannock Blvd . , Charles &
Paulette Baxter of 1085 Taughannock Blvd . , Dorothy & James Spencer of
Planning Board - 38 - September 5 , 1989
• 1071 Taughannock Blvd . Ms . Mattes stated that everyone would like a
lot more information , noting that 43 lots are a lot . Ms . Mattes
wanted to know if the houses are one - family , or multi - family . Ms .
Mattes stated that , on each one of the 43 lots they are assuming that
there would be , maybe , three or four people living there , and ,
hopefully , there are not going to be apartment houses . Ms . Mattes
wondered how many people were involved as to the hook -up with the
water / sewer system . Ms . Mattes stated that they assume there is an
environmental impact statement that they would be allowed to see and
study . Ms . Mattes stated that everyone thinks that the impact
statement and thorough study should be made of how steep the hill is
where the development is going to be built , because it is way up above
the Lake , commenting , if it is on a hill then everything that happens
on the hill will wash down into the Lake , such as salt from the
blacktop running into the Lake . Ms . Mattes stated that , in her
opinion , this whole thing is an outrage ; she cannot believe that
everyone can sit at this meeting and say that someone can come into
this community and buy 65 acres , cut it up into pieces , wreck it , and
then say they are going to give back six acres as a park , when the
whole place should stay exactly the way it is . Ms . Mattes stated that
she thought this was too high a concentration of people in this area ;
this is not the best use of this land . Ms . Mattes , referring to the
traffic , said that she thought it was very interesting that everyone
thinks about where the cars are going to go , adding that she thought
about all the school children , commenting that she thought all the
children ' s parents should be invited to " these " meetings . Ms . Mattes
• remarked about the impact in that notices have been sent to all the
adjacent neighbors , but this will impact on people far and away , more
than is being admitted . Ms . Mattes stated that she thought that all
of the people who live on the Lake should be involved , and should be
sent notices announcing the meeting . Ms . Mattes wondered who was
going to pay for the sewage treatment , garbage pick - up , and the roads .
Ms . Mattes stated that , in conclusion , they think that the plan will
overload the land , and would like to know whether everyone thinks . that
the wildlife that live in the 65 acres , the trees , birds , deer ,
species of insects , and plants are just in the way . Ms . Mattes said
that they are not alone in their outrage ; there is a new understanding
illuminating the whole country ; there is a higher power that ownership
of land ; one cannot just do whatever one wants just because they have
the money to buy it ; one has to be responsible , one has to be
accountable to the neighbors , to future generations , and to the whole
planet .
Mr . May , directing his comment to Ms . Beeners , wondered about the
Town ' s publication procedure . Chairperson Grigorov stated that ,
actually , there were other neighbors at previous meetings . Mr . May
stated that it has been published in the newspaper a number of times ,
because the proposal has been before the Board several. times . Mr .
Mattes stated that the notice he received for tonight ' s meeting went
to his lake property and they live at 101 Irving Place , Ithaca , NY .
[ Secretary ' s Note : Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to 101 Irving
• Place , Ithaca , NY 14850 - Refer to the Affidavit of Service by Mail ,
whereby notices were mailed to the adjacent neighbors on August 29 ,
1989 . ] Ms . Langhans offered that public hearings have been held
Planning Board - 39 - September 5 , 1989
before , and other neighbors have come in . Ms . Mattes stated that she
had called the neighbors she knew about , but she did not know about
all the people all around ; there could have been a hundred people
here .
Mr . Mattes , of 101 Irving Place and also the summer residence at
1081 Taughannock Blvd . , spoke from the floor and stated that his
concern was with the steep hill . Mr . Mattes mentioned that his
cottage was right smack in the middle of where the drainage would
flow , in fact , it would be about 8 " from the cottage . Mr . Mattes said
that he is not so much concerned with the water , but has a concern
about the significant amount of salt that he expects people to put on
the roads , and which would come down the hill . Mr . Mattes is also
concerned about the amount of herbicides and pesticides . Mr . Mattes
stated that , in his opinion , a 12 % grade in the wintertime is a very
significant grade .
Ms . Clarke stated that the 10 % grade can be met , but they are
proposing to stay with the 12 - 1 / 2 % , in order to make it easy grade
crossing at the NYSEG right - of -way , adding , if that is , indeed , a
condition that the Board wishes to place on the project , then the
developer can make the Town ' s recommended standard for grade on that
section of [ indicating on map ] road .
Chairperson Grigorov noted that some of the points raised by Ms .
Mattes were sort of basic to the whole idea of ever developing any
• land , adding , if one does not own it , there are legal possibilities
for people who do own it , to build houses on it . Attorney Barney
offered that the law is : there is a Zoning ordinance and it authorizes
a certain level of development , adding that the Planning Board would
be subject to an Article 78 proceeding if a plan were not approved
that otherwise meets all. of the requirements . Attorney Barney said
that the Board cannot decline to approve a plan simply because it is
adding additional people , which would be , in effect , taking the
property without compensation .
An unidentified voice from the public wondered if there were
anything that indicates these would be single - family homes .
Chairperson Grigorov responded that they would be single - family homes .
Chairperson Grigorov stated that all the Planning Board members
walked the site last spring , and saw all the ravines with a lot of
water going down in several different areas . Ms . Langhans noted that
the project has been changed quite a bit since it was first started .
Chairperson Grigorov offered that she thought it was a very beautiful
piece of property .
Ms . Clarke mentioned that , if it meant the developers were in a
position to come even close to making some sort of determination , in
terms of the layout , and / or preliminary consideration of the layout
that the developers could proceed with , in terms of engineering , then
• a condition that would be acceptable , in terms of that preliminary
agreement , would be to provide a 60 - foot right - of -way to Happy Lane .
Planning Board - 40 - September 5 , 1989
Mr . Frantz , directing his comment to Ms . Clarke , wondered what
the difference in elevation would be between Falling Water Drive at
10 % grade , and the railroad bed . Ms . Clarke responded that there was
a cross - section at one point , and it was nowhere near at grade ; there
needs to be a slope , if one were to continue a bikepath over it .
Mr . Smith wondered who would own the undeveloped 4 . 8 acres
out - lot . Mr . McArdle answered that his father , in the future , would
be building a house on that site . Mr . Kenerson wondered about access
to the 4 . 8 acres . Mr . McArdle replied that there is a 20 - foot access
which would be a private road .
An unidentified voice from the back of the room noted that the
developers had raised the issue of a pumping station . Ms . Clarke
stated that the original proposal was to feed gravity to a line that
is into Taughannock Blvd . , but , unfortunately , that line goes farther
down the hill and runs into a road block at a pump station , before it
gets into the sewage treatment plant . Ms . Clarke said that the
stumbling block of that pump station is not something that the Town
and the City can accommodate right now , so the developers are gravity
feeding down the hill , and pumping back up to a line that can
accommodate the flow . Ms . Clarke said that the pump station would be
built to Town specs . Ms . Beeners offered that the actual design and
specs of the pump station is another piece of information that is
lacking from this proposal .
• Monty May stated that he still has a great deal of concern about
the proposed layout with the streams , adding that he did not feel that
the streams have been adequately addressed , as to their size and their
potential . Mr . May , referring to Lot No . 18 , stated that he has no
doubt that a house can be set in there somewhere , but would it really
make sense with the stream with the spring run - off ? Mr . May stated
that he thought some of the streams are pretty major streams ; they are
not little creeks , as has been noted in some cases . Mr . May stated
that he did not think there has been adequate recognition of just
exactly what potential for damage there is . Mr . McArdle , referring to
Lot No . 18 , stated that the developers actually took two lots and
combined them to make one lot . Ms . , Clarke offered that Lot No . 18 is
almost two acres in size . Ms . Clarke stated that the present layout
has taken into consideration the concerns expressed in the past , in
terms of re - routing the streams , or changing the water courses , and
the design that is before the Board shows the only stream that is
re - routed out - flows from a drainage ditch along Orchard Hill Road ,
otherwise , the natural forces are to be retained with 20 - foot
easements , restricting any construction , and preserving the flow , or
the ability of those streams to carry the flow . Mr . May commented
that Lot No . 18 may have been a poor choice , but look at Lot No . 20 .
Ms . Clarke responded that Lot No . 20 has a 50 - foot set - back from the
lot line , which is more than enough room to accommodate the set - backs
for a building , and not encroach on [ pointing to map ] " this " stream .
Ms . Clarke offered that the developers ' intent is to provide adequate
• area for those streams to function as they do now . Ms . Clarke stated
that the flow that comes off the site is such that it will not
increase the peak run - off ; the design of the drainage is such that
Planning Board - 41 - September 5 , 1989
there will not be an increase of the peak run - off off the site .
Chairperson Grigorov wondered if there were a way to avoid using salt .
Ms . Clarke stated that the roads would be dedicated to the Town ,
commenting that she did not know the Town ' s policy in terms of
de - icing . Mr . May remarked that at 12 % one has to use something .
y1r
Mr . Lesser wondered if he was correct . in saying that the Orchard
Hill Road cul -de - sac lies right on top of one of these culverts . Ms .
Clarke noted that the easement the developers were referring to that
the Town requested is coming between Lot Nos . 10 and 11 . Ms . Beeners
stated that the recommendation is that there actually be deeded to the
Town access at both locations because , at the present time , that park
space would not be usable for very much , except for a zigzag trail to
get up there to have some decent grades .
Mr . Lesser asked that someone give him an opinion on the
feasibility of putting a culvert under an entire cul -de - sac right at
the end of Orchard Hill Road . Town Engineer Sally Olsen responded
that it appears to her that the water is coming down , and coming south
a little ways , crossing at the throat of the cul -de - sac , running
around the cul -de - sac to the north , then continuing east , so it is not
going under the entire cul -de - sac , and the pipe would not be any
longer than any other cross - culvert . Mr . Kenerson offered that he
thought Mr . Lesser was wondering if the culvert was adequate . Ms .
Olsen answered that it would be adequate for a 25 - year storm , but she
was not totally certain . Ms . Olsen stated that a full drainage study
would be required from the project ' s engineers . Ms . Clarke stated
that one of the things the developers will also provide , when there is
a layout that is acceptable , will be an erosion sedimentation control
plan that will be used during the construction , adding that one of the
requirements in - -the deed restrictions on the easements is that those
swales be maintained . Mr . McArdle stated that their intention , right
now , and depending on what the market is , is to sell lots , adding that
they have talked about a joint venture with some builders to build on
some of the lots . Mr . McArdle stated that the developers would have
control over whatever is built there .
Mr . Lesser , directing his comment to Ms . Olsen , wondered what was
required at this point ; it was mentioned that road profiles were
required , but what about test borings ? Ms . Olsen responded that test
borings are not something that are commonly required ,. Ms . Olsen
offered that , as part of preliminary layout , both hortizonal and
vertical alignments are required . Ms . Olsen noted that there is a
table of road grades , but no vertical ' curves , adding that she has no
idea how much it would be cutting from the existing ground elevations
along the center lines of the roads , commenting that that not only
would be of great interest to her , but also to the Board in general .
Ms . Beeners referred to the Subdivision Regulations , Article VI ,
Section 36 , in which it states : " Four dark - line prints of improvement
plans and information , if improvements are required . " Ms . Beeners
noted that that leads to Section 38 which talks about the type of
• detail that may be required . Ms . Beeners said that determination of
environmental significance has to be made at this time . Ms . Olsen
Planning Board - 42 - September 5 , 1989
• stated that profiles for water / sewer are commonly expected for
preliminary plat .
Mr . May stated that he cannot , in good conscience , approve this
preliminary on this site with a drop of 40 - 50 feet going up the hill ,
on relatively small lots , and then it is compounded with a fairly
major stream crossing going through the middle of it . Chairperson
Grigorov , directing her comment to Mr . May , wondered if he thought
that the road outline , as it is , has possibilities . Mr . May responded
that he did not know . Mr . May stated that there are two things on a
culvert , one , the flow of water has to be accommodated at the maximum
condition it is designed for , commenting that these are heavily wooded
lots , and there is an awful lot of brush that flows through there ;
when there is a high flow there will be a lot of debris going through ,
causing a dam , which can do tremendous damage . Attorney Barney
wondered what the solution would be : building bridges , as opposed to
culverts . Mr . May responded that he did not know , but , right now , he
thinks there are too many lots for the site . Mr . May stated that ,
somehow those streams have to be accommodated so they are not
restricted . Mr . May suggested that somebody should do a legitimate
study of just exactly how much water it is to find out whether or not
culverts are a realistic possibility . Mr . McArdle stated that the
developers never proposed to build anything that would not be
technically feasible . Mr . May again stated that there are more lots
on this site than he would like to see , however , if someone
• demonstrated that all of it could be done technically , and reasonably ,
then he probably would back off somewhat . Mr . May stated that he ,
could not , in good conscience , approve a preliminary tonight .
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 12 : 03 a . m . and brought the
matter back to the Board for discussion .
At this point , Ms . Beeners stated that what some of the current
comments related to is the fact that variances would still be needed ,
based on the information that would be the most accurate , on the 3
lots on Taughannock Blvd . , as well as for the proposed undeveloped
out - lot A . adding , the minimum frontage at the maximum front yard
set -back is deficient on the out - lot . Attorney Barney stated that , in
terms of subdivision approval , the subdivision approval requires the
lot to be on a platted road . Ms . Beeners offered that it would be a
variance from the frontage requirements in an R - 30 zone , and it would
also be requesting that Section 280 - a of the Town Law be met . Ms .
Beeners mentioned that clustering on the land had been discussed with
the developers . Ms . Beeners stated that the above variances would be
required on the 3 lots , but she would maintain that the limitation to
12 , 500 sq . ft . of clearing is really the best way to minimize impacts
- visual and also land impacts . Ms . Beeners stated that there cannot
be any further recommendations made until more information is
presented related to the engineering . Ms . Clarke asked for
clarification as to what would ` satisfy the preliminary engineering .
Planning Board - 43 - September 5 , 1989
Ms . Olsen responded that horizonal curve information is already
on AutoCad , which shows the radii of the curves , and the curve
information should be able to become available . Ms . Olsen , referring
to the sanitary profile , stated that there already is topo , and invert
elevations for every manhole . Ms . Olsen said that the road profiles
show proposed and existing profile along the center lines with
vertical curves , with vertical curve information . Ms . Olsen stated
that , based on what is brought in for preliminary plat , she would have
to make a recommendation to the Town Board that it should be approved
as drawn , adding , if the information is not there , then she cannot
make the recommendation .
Stephen Smith offered that a problem the developers would have ,
if the lots are not made bigger , is that there would not be an awful
lot of options on where the houses could be placed on some of the lots
with the streams going through them .
Ms . Beeners stated that she had received a letter from Leslie
Reizes , dated 8 / 25 / 89 , and in which he states that , indeed , the lots
he has may be included in the project . [ Letter attached hereto as
Exhibit 2 . ]
Ms . Beeners said that she believed the Board has to know about
the actual dimensions of the properties before any preliminary plat
approval can be granted . Secondly , Ms . Beeners noted that the Board
• has to know which project it is included in , because Mr . Reizes '
letter of August 25 , 1989 indicates to her that it is still probably
included in both . Ms . Beeners noted that the third item is that it is
somewhat pertinent to this subdivision , because there are some access
concerns related to how one would get up and down from Route 89 .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion .
MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by Virginia Langhans :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the " Cayuga
Lake Estates " matter be adjourned , sine die , to allow time for further
information to be submitted .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Baker , Miller , Smith , May , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared .to be carried unanimously .
Chairperson Grigorov declared the " Cayuga Lake Estates " matter
duly adjourned at 12 : 16 a . m .
OTHER BUSINESS :
• Chairperson Grigorov stated that it has been suggested that the
Board reserve one meeting per month for developing refinements to the
Planning Board - 44 - Sep tember ' 5 , 1989
planning process . Ms . Langhans offered that the Planning Board would
have one meeting a month for public hearings , and the other meeting
would be for the Board to discuss planning in general .
STATUS REPORT , TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW REPORT ,
Ms . Beeners stated that the Sub - Committee sent the consultants
back to make some revisions . Ms . Beeners noted that there will be a
Sub- Committee meeting on September 26 , 1989 , adding that she was not
sure , but it would be a real close bet whether the draft would then be
sent on to the Planning Board ,
STATUS REPORT , PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORK .
No discussion .
CONSIDER PLANNING BOARD SCHEDULE ,
Ms . Beeners offered that she would be on vacation September 27 -
October 4 . Ms . Beeners wondered if it was the general consensus of
the Board that at least 50 % of the regularly scheduled time of the
Planning Board be devoted to dealing with Comprehensive Planning
matters . Mr . Smith asked , can we afford that much time ? Attorney
Barney offered that he thought the Board would be better off setting
it up as originally suggested : one meeting for public hearings , and
• one meeting to discuss planning in general .
Chairperson Grigorov indicated that there was an agreement in
concept for the meetings , but that she and Ms . Beeners would discuss
its
DISCUSSION OF TOMPKINS COUNTY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ( AUGUST 9 , 1989
WORKING DRAFT )
There was no discussion on the above -noted topic . Discussion
will be held at a later time , due to the lateness of the hour .
It was announced that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board will NOT
meet on Tuesday , October 17 , 1989 . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board
will meet next at 7 : 30 p . m . on Tuesday , OCTOBER 24 , 1989 .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairperson Grigorov declared the September 5 , 1989 ,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 12 : 30
a . m .
Respecctfully submitted ,
Mary . Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
• Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
f �
•
•
Pira E =a Itlii i i .
Auble
I Ilhmca . \ea 1'crk 1 - f5 (` tL 'OJLl >
:a'4!•F-;6 :C'r J..1 g.:.d,._l.ys ....w.ltw::
60-1 -273-42211
FAX 607-273-5290
a 1 SUMMARY
CHASE POND PLAN REVIEW
AUGUST 28 , 1989
T0 : Ms . Susan Beeners
Ms . Sally Olsen
FROM : Harrison Rue
DATE : August 31 , 1989
PRESENT : Susan Beeners , Sally Olsen , Peter Trowbridge , Dave Auble , Rick Holt ,
Harrison Rue
Thank you for spending the time both in meeting with us Monday and in completing
your review of the project to date . The review process has been very thorough
• and the plans have undergone substantial modification since their original
conception in May . It is our understanding that we have now provided suffici-
ently detailed information to expect Preliminary Subdivision Approval next
Tuesday and that any further clarification will be provided before Final
Subdivision Approval .
The following points were raised and clarified at the meeting on Monday .
1 . You asked us to show the location of any proposed on street parking and
wondered specifically about parking for the tenants of a carriage house unit
attached to an end townhouse . We noted that every house or townhouse has
at least two spaces on site , but agreed that showing street parking
locations , particularly on the "A" road , would be appropriate . We have
modified the plan to provide parking on the "A" road , show on street parking ,
and show on site parking at carriage units where appropriate . You also
asked us to consider a minor re -alignment of garages at the sideyard houses
on the final plan .
2 . We reminded you that the project should include the buffer at the west for
the purposes of open space calculations . . This was subdivided from the
property as part of the ButterField approval in 1988 . Including this area
in the calculations brings the open space to 45 percent .
3 . As a way of demonstrating the perceived visual density of the project in
• relation to the rest of the neighborhood , we showed you a visual comparison
by overlaying over our architectural elevations a scaled drawing of the two
bi - level ranch houses closest to the site . This demonstrated the two houses
together are only about six feet shorter than our nine unit townhouse
building and the width of the green is almost exactly the same .
EXHIBIT 1
•
Thus the long buildings are not out of scale , and the people residing in them
gain the benefit of a large usable park area . You agreed that this showed
efficient space planning . We also showed you that the two long .ranch houses
occupy almost exactly the same space as our block of four sideyard houses :
This is a direct comparison of the King Road streetscape . Since those two
ranch houses are rented duplexes , each of these schemes house four families .
In fact , the space between those ranch house garages is 26 feet 8 inches ,
less than that between some of our sideyard houses . You agreed that this
demonstrated highly evolved planning with careful attention given to
efficient space utilization and usable private and public activity areas .
4 . We showed you several previous plans for the site . Many of these were
approved and all were at the established density . All but one of these plans
were for large rental units , most with parking lots reminiscent of the
apartment complexes in the neighborhood of Pyramid Mall . On several of these
plans , most or all of the buildings were 150 feet to 180 feet long and
blocked most of the views on site ( our nine unit townhouse is 189 feet long ) .
Several showed buildings and roads to the west of the drainage swale and
below the pond , including that most recently approved . We also showed the
original Beacon Hills plan from 1973 : This is the project that built the
pond , built the drainage swale ,. and built all the slabs and foundations that
• we recently removed . Many of these were to the west of the swale and pond
and into the buffer . Almost all of these plans were at the established
density - -of 119 units .
5 . We also showed you two variations of plans , both site plans and elevations ,
from December 1988 from the Lessard Group , another award winning national
planning firm . You had met with these planners when we were testing their
ideas . These two separate schemes explored a more " organic " zero- lot line
approach with curving roads , total site coverage , including below the pond ;
unusable , ill-defined open areas behind units , and less space between the
zero- lot units than our sideyard houses allow .
You agreed that these plans in particular demonstrated several of the
benefits of the traditional grid plan that we have proposed ; less site
coverage , vastly larger usable open space preservation , defined private
yards , organized views , and a cohesive plan that presents an attractive
" face " at the entry and along King Road . You also agreed that we have
sufficiently explored other alternatives and that we have presented a highly
developed and efficient land use plan that is appropriate for the site .
6 . We also demonstrated that the project design conforms with the intent of the
original Manos agreement and with most or all specific items it included .
We have amended the design several times over the past months at your
suggestion to accomplish this . Specific attention has been paid to drainage ,
buffering , additional plantings or fencing , and deed restrictions mandating
• compliance with Town leash laws , noise and occupancy ordinances , etc .
7 . We also showed you the in progress schematic designs for the townhouses and
sideyard houses . We have two separate firms working on this to promote
diversity : Cornerstone Architects are designing the townhouses and two
versions of the sideyard houses and Lee Temple is designing sideyard houses
EXHIBIT 1
for Chase Pond and a slightly larger version for the frontage lots across
King Road at Chase Farm . This unit will serve to unify both sides of the
road and also supply an intermediate size single family home that will bridge
the market between the two projects .
We showed you pictures of the other homes under construction on Chase Farm
to demonstrate the success of our efforts : providing an architecturally
diverse but cohesive community at a reasonable cost . Our homes are being
designed or adopted by local architects in accordance with the Architectural
Standards developed for us by the Duany Plater- Zyberk group , after close
examination of the existing architectural fabric of the greater Ithaca area .
The basic units are then easily modified with changes in porches , roofline ,
and exterior trim to provide semi - custom homes at affordable prices . This
same approach will be taken with the sideyard -houses we showed you for the
Chase Pond site .
8 . You asked for clarification of initial phasing . The first phase area , six
acres , as shown in the EAE corresponds to the 36 units shown on the phasing
map in the current project . booklet . This would include the two nine unit
townhouse blocks defining the central green , and the block of eight and ten
sideyard houses to the east and west . The engineering for the project is
• currently designed as a whole system . Dividing the actual infrastructure
up into phasing plans will require further consultation with our engineers ,
NYSEG , Bolton Point , NY Telephone , ACC , the Health Department , and the Town
Engineer . This information will be presented in final form for Final
Subdivision Approval of Phase I .
9 . We have agreed that in addition to required final plat and final engineering
plans , we shall supply the following information at Final Subdivision
Approval :
The first phase plan shall more clearly show the actual planned building
outlines and driveway configurations . Current architectural plans and
elevations shall be provided for informational purposes .
- Utility .and infrastructure plans shall be cleared with the Town Engineer .
- Proposed by- laws of the Community Corporation that will maintain and regulate
the open space
- A complete list of proposed Deed- Restrictions
- A list of permitted and restricted plants for the common area
- Proposed agreements regarding maintenance of sidewalks and street trees
HR : PLB
EXHIBIT 1
1
FRIEDLANDER, FRIEDLANDER, REIZES, JOCK & LITTMAN, P. C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
425 PARK AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 109
WAVERLY, NEW YORK 14892-0109
(607 ) 565 - 8155
TELEX: 386062
CABLE : " INTERLAW"
FAX: (607 ) 565-8485
August 25 , 1989
Ms . Susan Beeners
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
126 E . Sececa Street
Ithaca , New York 14850
Re . Cayuga Lake Estates
Dear Ms . Beeners :
This is to confirm the statement I made at the planning
board meeting where I presented the sketch plan for the lot
across the street from my house on Taughannock Boulevard . At
that time , I told the board that we stand by our last letter to
the board in the Lake Cayuga Estates submission to the effect
that the lots on Taughannock Boulevard may be included in the
Lake Cayuga Estates project .
This will also confirm that it is still our position that
the lot lines shown by the Carl Crandall map previously supplied
to the board are correct and that there is sufficient lot depth
to permit subdivision without a variance .
Very- truly yours ,
Les ie N . Reizes
LNR / mlk
cc : David McArdle , Esq .
EXHIBIT 2
. . . . . .. .... . . .
A FIDA177 Or TVE.I.?C. AT14?+•
THI ITHACA JOURNAL
TOWN OF ITHACA _" figurations on 23.03 'ocres Ic
PLANNING BOARD '- ':=-_,7`,Icoted on East`Kiing"Road nec
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS :aRidgecrest Road; Town of Ithc
TUESDAY, AUGUST 1 , 1989 - :co Tax ` Parcel - - No. -. 6-44- 1
� , .�� CC ---�.• _ By direction of the Choirmon � 4. 31 ] , . Multiple Residence Di:
of the Planning Board; NOTICE%rtcict.t Qoy id C.,Auble,< Owne
IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public r.ButterField 'Associates I, Appl
t 7
Hearings will. beheld , by the' ,'cants s.v' 14
6a�l_ °� l E. n+: . ..___ . . _.. :__ . . _ . ._._. .. . .__. . . . . . 1xt= t Ceti �:.. , dC�' S =S Planning Board of the Town ofJ'Said Planning Board will c
Ithaca on Tuesday, ' Augusttimes `an said place he:
1989, in 'Town .Holl , ;126 Eostj all persons` in support of suc
tom = 34NOst est lit rmsi M LI •� M. Gor'.>_^ t;' Ln -,, Mt ! Lf wtsc � L:1 � Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY a1 Smatters.oi :objections theret<
- the following times.and on the , Persons `mdy 'a"ppe,ar by age:
following matters: , or to person f
twoo
: . : tett bt tt�.�k� C _ .� ��... .._.._. �_ -- - - — . .._ . ._ . .. .. _ ..... .._. .. . a H eTo or ler
or i' Jea rr . ... . '
7 : 30P. M. Consideration of F
I Subdivision Approval f
e ropose "Hac erry , : h , ` , .273- 17�
a - T� Irs +► e.,t �1Jt� wl a pg,4bLc D�k'S'? o � p^„ttti. lnA.. pIwm 1. . Preliminary Subdivision, ' granted � July 27 x1989
P
y . Lane"
nar Subdivision A • . .
bBoard -. ' . . .
proval
,. . ._
. . �� � _ o May16, d pro-
I t^�£ L 2: ": ZD .'�i 't.Z`.'a4 �- - pt itF'Sy2 :� Uie � X &C 1 IL trUe Pose single-}
at3� ,
I . :DG
family Clot aon� a96. 43 acre por- •
:_ ;r., _.'-: - -----. —... . ..- - � � .«,_ .. . :-- - - - - - - tion of Town of Ithac" Tax Par-1
: . .:, ; .
tom` cel b-31 - 3 05 es
R �� L lE: 'tiC �: o. 1 . 1 , 44. acr.
_.-_ ,— ..���: Z_ F,�, "' � !fit •• total, located
located' dt 144 Coy Glen',
Roa
a V ' ✓► �' Mile Drive,, near e, Residence District he cornei of ,
_ -} • • •-•—••.
R-30. .Thomas Richard and
Clare Hinrichs , Owners ;;
Thomas Richard/Coy Glen As
sociates, Appl icant . (Ad-
journed f July. 18 1989. )
r .J r ts' ~ .�. ' O S - ; � . t° -to the Town
I
7:
i. tr _,t-`� i .- L5rt r = .. v '� OD fLayA Recommendation
'Z "—"""-"-"" Board with respect to a pro-
posed local law amending the
` l
Zoning Ordinance e e tiv to
the occupancy af , dwelling
_ . . ...
,... = _• . _ �.. ' •,.._ r .'...' � .
.__...._.._ ..Aunits.
l
CMir. Monsideration
' MM
- ...... poaoproposed sp
ac parcel fromTow
co Tax Parcel No. 6-33-3-2. 2, _
. .. .. .GE t -`,� L ^ 2. , ► . '., . ; L. ;_ -
. .
_. .
"". . . 88plus/minus acres total, lo-
d h f 8 Elmira
Road, -
i. ''tea✓ _ . . _ . .__ . . .. , . _. __ .---- --• - � . . . .. of Subdivision. Appproval. . .
1for the proposed
.0
of a
.,. _ A1C :: . _. ._. __ __._... .. 6.33-3-2. 41xsP
- 0'►.^"V C tjZoo : :;, aces tTown tl�all,, located at 6114 EIS E
JEAN ORD mira Raad, far consolidation '
into said proposed 1 . 15 acre ,
,. - -
1NOtary. PUbIIC, : State Of I�JeW `YO�C. . . parcel, and further, Consider-
ation of Site Plan Approval for
No. 4654410 the proposed construction of a
OU., uon�eweprropo ed 117 acre
Qualified , in Tompkins warehouse on
C nt - 5 s
- : Commission expires May 31; 19 .
consolidated parcel. Light n
dustrial District. Farland and -
Robert Mancini, Owners of
:.
Parcel No. 6-33-3-2. 2; Thomasf`f : :
i '- ' -• + - - - • y. .`:.; and Martha Bell, T & M Conve- i;.: '
r=, - nience of Ithaca, Inc. , Owners _
P z
of o 6-33-3-2
_
Parcel N 4
_ PreP. M. Appderation of
liminary ) Subdivision Ap='_-
' proval and Preliminary Site t;
Plan Approval foi the pro
r; posed "Chase Pond" devel
opment, proposed to consist -
} of 119 clustered dwelling units
k = ih 'attached and detached con-
i
r _ . .
� . _ . .
- - -- - -
_
5 ..
-`]!.•'4�• .� :'.:.VY'3�'.-i)CG-"`.:':_[�.T='f. .r.-cw ,d . . ._.. . . .. . . ... ..._ . .. . r. Sc -...>_ .. .y1/.r r .. .. .. _ _. . 1. S• .. .14 ✓u . .. .. ♦ .