HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1990-08-07•
•
•
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
AUGUST 7, 1990
The
Town
of
Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday,
August
7,
1990,' in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca,
New York,
at 7 :30
p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, James Baker,
William Lesser, Robert Miller, Stephen Smith, Daniel R.
Walker (Town Engineer), George R. Frantz, Assistant Town
Planner, John C. Barney (Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Town Councilman David L. Klein, Joe Quigley, Donald C.
Ball, Anne Morrissette, Olga Santi, Steve Heslop,
Margot McClure, Attorney Richard B. Thaler, Douglas A.
Addy, Tom Overbaugh, Robin Seeley, Arel LeMaro, Ellio
LeMaro, Greg Semos, Roger A. Beck, Ralph R. Barnard,
Maria LeMaro,
Chairman Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 :30 p.m.
and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on July 30, 1990, and August 2, 1990, respectively,
together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said
Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under
discussion, as appropriate, upon the Manager of the Finger Lakes
Region of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation, upon both;the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the
City of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and
upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on August 1, 19900
Chairman Grigorov read aloud the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled as required by the New York State Department of State,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz reported on the
Comprehensive Planning Committee (CPC) meeting on Tuesday, July 31,
19900 Mr. Frantz, commenting that there was heated debate over
population projections and housing needs in the Town, stated that the
report will be redrafted. Mr. Frantz reported that work continues on
the park and open space inventory, including the collection of data on
national park standards to allow for comparison of what the Town has
and what it will need in the future.
Mr. Frantz presented an open space map for the Board's review and
discussed open space categories. Mr. Frantz presented land use maps
for the years 1968 and 1990, and stated that acreages have been
calculated for each land use and the changes therein from 1968 to
1990. Chairman Grigorov stated that the Board would be interested in
seeing those figures. Mr. Frantz stated that some changes to the
I
Planning Board Meeting
• figures still need
is that, while
agricultural lands,
only one -third was
-2-
to be made, however,
around 1,400 acres
about two - thirds of
actually lost to some
August 7, 1990
one interesting result so far
were removed from active
these were simply abandoned;
sort of development.
An inquiry was made as to whether the Residents' Survey results
are completed. Mr. Frantz stated that the Survey Analysis
Subcommittee is working on quite an in -depth analysis of the Survey.
Further inquiry was made as to whether the initial run - through from
Cornell had been received, with Mr. Frantz responding, yes, adding
that the Survey Analysis Subcommittee is currently going over it.
Board members wondered if the Comprehensive Plan were on
schedule. Mr. Frantz stated that he thought we were close, noted that
the deadline is the first week of October, and added that we might
miss it by a few weeks but, at the latest, he sees November lst. Mr.
Frantz stated that some have perceived the planning to be farther
behind schedule, probably because, although we have a lot of
information, it remains to be put in a form suitable for presentation.
Mr. Frantz stated that an inventory of tax exempt land has been
completed, but it is not in coherent form yet. Mr. Frantz noted that
there is a highway master plan map, adding that currently more is
being done with transportation data. Mr. Frantz stated that the
Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) is doing its natural resources and
open space index, and the Natural Areas Committee of the CAC is
• working on a Report on the Six -Mile Creek Valley which they expect to
be finished for presentation to the CAC this month and, possibly, to
the Planning Board for the September 18th meeting.
Mr. Frantz stated that the Codes and Ordinances Committee passed
on the matter of irregular lots, having decided that the section where
a rectangle is required to be imposed on a lot should be deleted from
the Zoning Ordinance completely, with those sections reverting to what
they were before. Mr. Frantz stated that the Codes and Ordinances
Committee is also working on an ordinance to govern filling,
excavating, and other site disturbances in order to establish a
permitting system to prevent people from simply filling in anywhere in
the Town.
Town Attorney Barney indicated that both of these proposed local
laws will be forwarded to the Planning Board for its review.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any "Other Business" to
discuss. There was none.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF .45± ACRES FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO.
6- 56 -3 -20, .91± ACRES TOTAL AREA, LOCATED AT 1578 SLATERVILLE ROAD,
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15, OLGA SANTI, OWNER /APPLICANT. (ADJOURNED
. FROM JULY 24, 19909
Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
I
•
U
Planning Board Meeting -3- August 7, 1990
matter duly opened at 7 :`50 p.m.
Ms. Santi appeared before the Board and stated that she was
asking for permission to subdivide her lot into two lots. Chairman
Grigorov asked whether the problem of frontage was resolved following
the adjournment from the July 24th meeting. Discussion of same
followed among the Board members and Mr. Frantz,
At this point, Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to
offer a motion with respect to SEAR.
MOTION by Mr. Robert Kenerson, seconded by Mr. James Baker:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of .45± acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 6- 56 -3 -20, .91± acres total area, located at 1578 Slaterville
Road, Residence District R -15,
29 This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review,
39 The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on August 7, 1990, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form, a survey
entitled "Survey Map, No. 1578 Slaterville Road, Lot 98, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y. ", by Clarence W. Brashear, L.S.,
dated February 13, 1988, revised June 14, 1990, and other
application materials.
4. The Assistant Town Planner has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action,
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action as
proposed,
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote,
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith,
Nay - None,
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously,
Town Attorney Barney asked whether the Santis have discussed the
dimension question with their surveyor, with Ms. Santi responding,
yes, Town Attorney Barney explained the matter of the questioned
dimensions. Ms. Santi wondered why there is a-problem when all other
lots on the road are single lots. Town Attorney Barney explained that
these lots may have been correct with the statute in effect in the
past but, at present, the information on the survey does not allow the
Planning Board Meeting
-4.
August 7, 1990
• Planning Board to determine whether the lot is consistent with the
current statute and the two tests therein which have to be met, one
being the inscribing of a 100 -foot by 150 -foot rectangle on a lot,
which, if this cannot be done, requires different sideyards. Town
Attorney Barney commented that if the survey is drawn to scale then
the sideyard is short. Town Engineer Walker calculated a shortage of
12/100 of a foot.
Chairman Grigorov asked what the possible courses of action are.
Town Attorney Barney responded that there are two options: (1) if the
Board were to grant the subdivision, it should probably be done
conditioned upon obtaining a variance, or (2) the producing of a
subdivision map showing the required dimensions. Assistant Town
Planner Frantz inquired as to how the Santis will handle the driveway
because, currently, the driveway cuts across the lot they wish to
subdivide. Ms. Santi 'stated that the driveway will be shared if
another home is built. A question was raised as to whether the State
DoT needs to be notified of the possibility of another road cut for a
driveway on Slaterville Road. Mr. Walker stated that that would occur
after a subdivision approval is granted.
Chairman Grigorov asked for further comments. There were none
from either the Board or the public. Chairman Grigorov closed the
Public Hearing and 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 Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of .45± acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 6- 56 -3 -20, .91± acres total area, located at 1578 Slaterville
Road, Residence District R -15,
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
August 7, 1990, made a negative determination of environmental
significance.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on August 7, 1990, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form, a survey
entitled "Survey Map, No. 1578 Slaterville Road, Lot 98, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y. ", by Clarence W. Brashear, L.S.,
dated February 13, 1988, revised June 14, 1990, and other
application materials.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
. will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or imiDlied by the
Town Board.
Planning Board Meeting -5- August 7, 1990
• 29 That the Planning Board grant a
Subdivision Approval to the subdivi
the map entitled "Survey Map, No. 1
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.
L.S., dated February 13, 1988, revi
the following conditions:
nd hereby does grant Final
Sion as proposed and shown on
578 Slaterville Road, Lot 98,
Y. ", by Clarence W. Brashear,
sed June 14, 1990, subject to
a. presentation of a supplemental survey plat showing the
perpendicular width of the lots at 50 feet back from the
highway line, and
be if shown to be necessary on said supplemental plat, the
granting of a variance from the lot width and sideyard
requirements of R -15 lots.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the Santi subdivision
duly closed at 8:07 p.m.
• PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL, PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE V, SECTION 181 PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE, FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE CODDINGTON ROAD COMMUNITY
CENTER, LOCATED AT 920 CODDINGTON ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO.
6 -47 -1 -11931 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. CODDINGTON ROAD COMMUNITY
CENTER, INC., APPLICANT; ANNE MORRISSETTE, AGENT.
Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 8:08 p.m.
Ms. Morrissette appeared before the Board and explained the
growing demand for child care in Ithaca and the need to renovate their
building. Ms. Morrissette stated that they plan to tear down the
kitchen and expand the building with a new classroom in that
direction, with the entire addition being approximately 1,254 square
feet and consisting of an office, kitchen, and classroom, adding that
the entire building will be re- roofed.
Chairman Grigorov asked for any public comment. There being
none, Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and turned the
discussion over to the Board.
Dr. Lesser asked about the
Morrissette responded that the C
status. Dr. Lesser asked if the
• size of the building. Ms. Morris
that they will be removing the
expansion is somewhat misleading
ownership
'RCC, Inc.
proposal
sette res
kitchen,
because
status of the CRCC. Mse
has a 503(C) non - profit
were going to double the
bonded, not really, adding
so the 1,300- square -foot
some of this space will
I
Planning Board Meeting -6- August 7, 1990
replace the lost kitchen, adding that the Center cannot be expanded
without removing part of the building. Chairman Grigorov wondered
whether the proposal would cut down any of the playground area, with
Ms. Morrissette responding, no, and adding that the Town of Ithaca
easement which runs across part of the property will not be affected.
Inquiry was made as to whether the CRCC was on City water and sewer,
and, as the answer was no, another inquiry was made as to whether the
septic system could meet the demand of the proposal. A voice from the
public offered that it should be able to meet it because they are
really only adding a classroom.
Ms. Morrissette explained that they are adding ten additional
students to meet the costs of the addition and expand the programs
they presently have eighteen and will have two classrooms with 14
children. Town Engineer Walker inquired whether they would be adding
another teacher, with Ms. Morrissette responding, yes, one more
teacher. Mr. Walker commented that about 32 people would use the
building each day, with Ms. Morrissette responding, probably 54, they
presently have 39 people. Mr. Walker noted that that was almost a 25
per cent increase in people, and asked if they have had any problems
with the septic system to date. Ms. Morrissette stated that they have
not had problems, adding that the system was just inspected and the
Health Department required an emergency plan for the septic system
should it fail and another area has been approved for use, and further
adding that they are in operation about ten hours a day. Mr. Walker
commented that there is expansion potential if needed, noting that the
demand must be watched in order to see if there is such a need. A
question was asked with respect to fire lane accessibility and truck
access, with Ms. Morrissette noting that this will remain basically
the same. Town Attorney Barney had a question with respect to access
along the entire length of the building. Ms. Morrissette stated that
access continues beyond the driveway to the kitchen door.
Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further questions.
There being none, Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to
offer a motion.
MOTION by Mr. Stephen Smith, seconded by Mr. James Baker:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board
of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval,
pursuant to Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 4, of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the proposed expansion of the
Coddington Road Community Center, located at 920 Coddington Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -47 -1 -11.3, Residence District
R-30.
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead
• Agency in coordinated review. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board
is an involved agency in coordinated review.
w
Planning Board Meeting -7- August 7, 1990
• 3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on August 7, 1990, has
reviewed the proposed site plan, envi
r ronmental assessment form
and review, and other submissions related to this proposal.
4. The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for this
action, subject to certain mitigation measures.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of
environmental significance be made for this action.
2. That the Planning Board, in making recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals, determine and hereby does determine the
following:
a. There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location.
b. The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood will not be adversely affected.
c. The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive
• plan of development of the Town.
3. That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the
Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for
Special Approval for the proposed expansion of the Coddington
Road Community Center, located at 920 Coddington Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -47 -1 -11.3, be granted by the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the Coddington Road
Community Center expansion duly closed at 8:22 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 2.33± ACRES FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO.
6- 23 -1 -161 3.49± ACRES TOTAL AREA, LOCATED BACKLOT OF 242 DUBOIS ROAD
WITH FRONTAGE ON WOOLF LANE, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30, STEVEN HESLOP
AND P. A. JAMES, OWNERS /APPLICANTS. (ADJOURNED FROM JULY 10, 19906)
Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
• matter duly opened at 8:23 p.m.
Mr. Heslop addressed the Board and stated that the conflict
Planning Board Meeting
-8-
August 7, 1990
• between
surveyors
has
been resolved since the last meeting, adding
that he
does have
road
frontage on Woolf Lane.
[Refer to letter dated
July 16,
1990 from
Town
Attorney Barney to Chairman Grigorov, attached
hereto
as
Exhibit
#1.1
Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any comments from the
public. Mrs. Margot McClure asked if the Board had received a copy of
the August 7th letter written by her husband, Daniel C. McClure, to
Town Attorney Barney. The Planning Board members indicated that they
had. [The McClure letter is attached hereto as Exhibit #2.]
Discussion followed.
There appearing to be no further comments from the public,
Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter
back to the Board. Mr. Kenerson asked about subdividing the "back"
lot. Mr. Heslop said that that would not occur, adding that he is
planning to build a single - family home.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairman Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Mr. Stephen Smith, seconded by Mr. James Baker:
WHEREAS:
• 1. This action is the C<
proposed subdivision
Parcel No. 6- 23 -1 -16,
242 DuBois Road with
R -30.
>nsideration of Subdivision Approval for the
of 2.33± acres from Town of Ithaca Tax
3.49± acres total area, located backlot of
frontage on Woolf Lane, Residence District
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review for the proposed subdivision. The Town of
Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is Lead Agency in environmental
review for the granting of any necessary variances.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on August 7, 1990, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and other
application materials.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action as
proposed.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith.
Nay - None.
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
•
•
I
Planning Board Meeting -9- August 7, 1990
MOTION by Mr. Stephen Smith, seconded by Dr. William Lesser:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of 2.33± acres from Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6- 23 -1 -16, 3.49± acres total area, located backlot of
242 DuBois Road with frontage on Woolf Lane, Residence District
R -30.
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
August 7, 1990, made a negative determination of environmental
significance with regard to the proposed subdivision.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on August 7, 1990, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and other
application materials.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
10 That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board,
2. That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as shown on the Survey
Map prepared by George Schlecht, P.E., dated April 17, 1990, upon
the following conditions:
a. the granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of any required
variance from the minimum yard width at the street line, and
b, conveyance by the owner to the Town of Ithaca of the small
arc of land lying in the previously understood road right of
way, in form and substance satisfactory to the Town
Attorney, such conveyance to occur prior to the issuance of
any building permit on the lot facing Woolf Lane.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the Heslop /James
subdivision duly closed at 8 :35 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting
-10-
August 7, 1990
• PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 3.5± ACRES FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0,
6 -24 -5 -10.2, 11.24± ACRES TOTAL AREA, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
BUNDY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,799 FEET WEST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH
HOPKINS ROAD, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. DOUGLAS ADDY, APPLICANT; CAROLYN
B. SLAGHT AND L. E. BUNDY, OWNERS. (ADJOURNED FROM JULY 10, 1990.)
Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 8:36 p.m. Richard Thaler, Esq., Attorney for
Carolyn Slaght, addressed the Board and described the one new lot
subdivision before the Board.
Noting that this was a Public Hearing, Chairman Grigorov asked if
anyone from the public present wished to speak to the matter. No one
spoke. Chairman Grigorov returned the matter to the Board for
discussion and comment. The Board reviewed the S /EAF, review and
recommendation, and two maps.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairman Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. James Baker:
WHEREAS:
• 1. This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of 3.55± acres from Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6 -24 -5 -10.2, 11.24± acres total area, located on the
north side of Bundy Road approximately 1,700 feet west of its
intersection with Hopkins Road, Agricultural District,
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review for the proposed subdivision.
39 The Assistant Town Planner has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for the
proposed action.
4. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on August 7, 1990, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and other
application materials.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith.
• Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 8:36 p.m. Richard Thaler, Esq., Attorney for
Carolyn Slaght, addressed the Board and described the one new lot
subdivision before the Board.
Noting that this was a Public Hearing, Chairman Grigorov asked if
anyone from the public present wished to speak to the matter. No one
spoke. Chairman Grigorov returned the matter to the Board for
discussion and comment. The Board reviewed the S /EAF, review and
recommendation, and two maps.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairman Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. James Baker:
WHEREAS:
• 1. This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of 3.55± acres from Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6 -24 -5 -10.2, 11.24± acres total area, located on the
north side of Bundy Road approximately 1,700 feet west of its
intersection with Hopkins Road, Agricultural District,
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review for the proposed subdivision.
39 The Assistant Town Planner has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for the
proposed action.
4. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on August 7, 1990, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and other
application materials.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith.
• Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
•
•
r 1
U
Planning Board Meeting -11- August 7, 1990
MOTION by Mr. Robert Miller, seconded by Mr. Robert Kenerson:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the considi
proposed subdivision of
Parcel No. 6 -24 -5 -10.2, 1
north side of Bundy Road
intersection with Hopkins
sration of Subdivision Approval for the
3.55± acres from Town of Ithaca Tax
1.24± acres total area, located on the
approximately 1,700 feet west of its
Road, Agricultural District,
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
August 7, 1990, made a negative determination of environmental
significance with regard to the proposed subdivision.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on August 7, 1990, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and other
application materials.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board,
2. That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as shown on the survey
map prepared by Howard R. Schlieder, L.S. , dated April 3, 1990,
as supplemented by the map entitled "Map to Show the Original C.
B. Slaght and L. E. Bundy Tract and its Sub- Division, Bundy Road,
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y. ", dated July 16, 1990,
prepared by K. L. Jones.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the Addy / Slaght
Subdivision duly closed at 8:44 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,600 SQ. FT. POLE BARN /GARAGE TO HOUSE DELIVERY
VEHICLES, PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 1027 ELMIRA ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO. 6- 35- 1 -7.1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. G. W. EHRHART,
INC., APPLICANT; THOMAS G. OVERBAUGH, AGENT.
Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Overbaugh was present and
IN
•
•
Planning Board Meeting
addressed the Board.
and discussed.
-1?_-
August 7, 1990
The following documents were before the Board
10 Request of G. W. Ehrhart Inc., attached hereto as Exhibit #3.
2. Drawing, entitled G. W. Ehrhart Inc., Plot Plan as it Exists Now,
attached hereto as Exhibit #4.
3. Drawing, entitled G. W. Ehrhart Inc., Proposed Building Plot
Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit #5.
4. Drawing, entitled G. W. Ehrhart Inc., Plot Plan Alternative
Building Location, attached hereto as Exhibit #6.
5. Memorandum, George Frantz to Planning Board Members, dated August
2, 1990, re Proposed site plan, G. W. Ehrhart, Inc., attached
hereto as Exhibit #70
6. Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part I, signed by Thomas G.
Overbaugh, dated June 26, 1990, attached hereto as Exhibit #8.
7. Location Map, G. W. Ehrhart, Inc., 1027 Elmira Road, Site,
attached hereto as Exhibit #9.
89 Survey of Fuel Tank Plant dated May 2, 1980, with proposed
building imposed thereon and a description signed by Tom
Overbaugh, attached hereto as Exhibit #10.
Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone from the public wished to speak
to the matter at hand. No one spoke. Chairman Grigorov returned the
matter to the Board for further discussion. It was noted that the
project would involve variance of the ordinance requirements. Mr.
Overbaugh indicated that he had attempted to purchase additional land
from Mr. Babcock, however, he did not wish to sell.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that the SEQR
process could not proceed without further staff input and that a
reworking of the proposal was in order. Mr. Overbaugh indicated that
he would withdraw the application at this time.
Discussion ended at 9:13 p.m.
DISCUSSION OF SEAR PROCESS WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSED MCDONALD'S AT EAST
HILL PLAZA.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker noted that at its July 24, 1990
meeting a positive declaration was issued; by the Planning Board with
respect to the proposed °McDonald's Restaurant at the East Hill Plaza,
and a Notice of Positive Declaration had been filed as required by
law. Mr. Walker stated that now the process of an EIS preparation
begins.
Chairman Grigorov asked about public involvement in a scoping
session, noting that it may be a public hearing. Mr. Walker stated
that staff has determined the primary impacts to be on traffic,
surface water quality, and solid waste. Chairman Grigorov asked for
other comments or suggestions on what to include, with aesthetic
impacts being added. Mr. Walker pointed out that the scoping needs to
• evaluate existing traffic patterns with potential future patterns.
Chairman Grigorov asked ''if the Andree Gas Station project can be tied
in, with Mr. Walker responding, definitely, adding that the
.
•
•
•
Planning Board Meeting -13- August 7,1990
surrounding area must be looked at, so improvements at the Plaza and
the Gas Station must also be considered.
Town Attorney Barney pointed out the'need to resolve whether the
Board wants to involve McDonald's in the scoping and recommended that
the Town invite McDonald's to a discussion, noting that scoping is
optional. Attorney Barney suggested that the Town meet with
McDonald's and Cornell 'to go over what the positive declaration was
and the areas that need, additional information, in order to produce a
document outlining the areas the Town wants covered, adding that this
would be the EIS basis. Chairman Grigorov suggested that it would be
wise to involve the public in the scoping. Attorney Barney offered
that it is also important to keep to a modest number in scoping to
maintain the efficiency, of the process. Mr. Walker stated that the
public has basically already participated at previous public hearing
and noted the public comment periods built into the EIS process have
worked effectively in the past. Mr. Walker stated that, at the
direction of the Planning Board, the Town staff could put a draft
scoping together in consultation with the applicant. Attorney Barney,
commenting that that would speed the process, indicated that that
makes sense.
Attorney Barney asked the McDonald's representative, Greg Semos,
whether there is a desire to participate in this fashion. Mr. Semos
responded that he was not prepared to make a public statement.
Attorney Barney suggested that an invitation should be extended to
McDonald's and then, with a draft scoping document, final scoping can
proceed. Concern was expressed about consideration of the McDonald's.
proposal in isolation from its surroundings. Mr. Walker responded
that an EIS and Scoping include review of a proposal in the context of
its surroundings. It was noted that the "tilt" point is near in this
area where each project has greater significance.
Mr. Walker informed the Board that a process with Cornell has
been initiated in connection with their Master Plan to discuss a
Generic EIS, adding that this is where all aspects will be integrated.
Dr. Lesser inquired as to how to consider these changes -- is
McDonald's considered a net addition after the other changes mentioned
-- is each change evaluated separately can cumulative impacts be
11 evaluated? Attorney Barney responded `that the matter must be
considered in conjunction with other projects, adding that,
essentially, Cornell is being asked to produce impacts of all its
projects.
With respect to McDonald's, Mr. Kenerson asked whether the
figures will change after scoping. Attorney Barney offered that the
traffic figures will change because the previous estimates were based
on an Albany study, not an Ithaca study, and secondly, the report only
dealt with two time periods, lunchtime was not included, and thirdly,
they did not deal with the new Plaza layout and the Andree expansion.
Attorney Barney suggested that indication is needed from the Planning
Board as to whether it agrees with what staff wants to do. Inquiry
was made as to what stage the Andree proposal is at, with Mr. Walker
responding that it is ready to go to the next Planning Board meeting.
0
Planning Board Meeting -14- August 7, 1990
Chairman Grigorov asked if it were the sense of the Board that
Cornell be invited to participate in scoping and that staff proceed as
intended. The Board indicated that that was, indeed, the sense of the
Board.
Discussion ended at 9:30 p.m.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: CERACCHE /PRODECON REVISED SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL
FOR PROPOSED 95 -ACRE RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER SUBDIVISION, MECKLENBURG
ROAD.
Chairman Grigorov welcomed the LeMaros once again. Noting that
this was their third occasion before the Board, Arel and Ellio LeMaro
had a slide presentation for the Board and stated that 50% of the land
is common or open space,, whereas the previous plan was 30 %. The new
plan was arrived at through consultation with Mr. Frantz, Assistant
Town Planner, and addresses concerns raised at the last meeting [May
15, 1990]. Nine and one -half acres of wooded area is to be dedicated
to the Town. The major access to the site has been moved due to
concerns over sight distance, the secondary access was kept. There
are 60 -foot rights of way and no requests for waivers. There are
provisions for stormwater runoff retention; provisions for possible
future access to the properties as per Mr. Frantz,. and a future
east /west connector road. It was noted that Mr. Walker had
recommended cul de sacs rather than hammerhead cul de sacs because
• they would be a problem for snow plowing. Thirty -foot setbacks have
been indicated as suggested by Mr. Frantz. The length of roadways
has decreased from 14,900 feet to 12,550 feet; the need for an
east /west connector road drives up the length of road required.
Chairman Grigorov inquired if all roadways must be put in a right of
way, with Mr. LeMaro indicating one part they would like to eliminate.
Using a new slide, a comparison of the previous plan with the revised
plan was made indicating an 82% increase in common open space, a 19%
increase in dedicated open space, a 16% decrease in roadways, and a
1.3% decrease in number of units from 307 to 303. Photographs of the
site were presented.
Mr. Frantz was questioned as to whether, if the conventional plat
were proposed to the Town, he would consider the open space, as
defined, to meet Town objectives for open space designation, in other
words, how he would judge the open space adequacy. Mr. Frantz stated
that the open space in', the upper righthand corner is not the best
location, it should be more central and, perhaps, could be reworked.
The greenspace along Linderman Creek has some potential for open space
and recreational purposes. Mr. Frantz stated that, in terms of a
comprehensive plan, he thought, perhaps, the Town should start looking
for larger consolidated pieces of property, adding that one problem he
was having with subdivision approval is that they are very green and
he was not sure how conventional plats have to go, and further adding
that, perhaps, the Planning Board should decide what should be
required for a conventional plat, to determine density for cluster
• subdivisions, and lay out specific criteria for acceptance. Chairman
Grigorov suggested that, maybe, the Board should put that on the
agenda for another time. The suggestion was offered, regarding the
Planning Board Meeting
-15-
August 7, 1990
• conventional design, if the engineer determined the culverts suitable
for design, have the branches with intakes and catch basins enclosed,
as a way to keep it natural and have more open space. Mr. Walker
described the only trade -off one has there, if you were to collect
everything into a subsurface drainage system, and not have flooding
downstream, if you put houses across the strip, you lose them down
below.
Mr. Klein expressed his concern about and problem with the cul de
sac down by the townhouses. He asked who would own the parking area
there, the response being that the Town would own it. Mr. LeMaro
stated that they would like to dedicate only up to the parking area.
Mr. Walker stated that that would not be acceptable to the Town,
adding that the only things that would be acceptable would be the main
roads and up to the cul de sacs; the other stubs to adjacent parking
lots would have to be privately owned. Mr. Klein inquired if it were
possible to move one section of townhouses down to the lower cul de
sac area to eliminate one "very strange" parking area. Comment was
made as to an attempt to just cluster as ,many as possible. Chairman
Grigorov suggested that it does need to be rearranged, however, they
could not go into too much detail tonight. Mr. Walker stated that the
general concept is good, but what he was trying to do was minimize the
length of road, the amount of pavement, and encourage more grouping of
the buildings closer together, and centralize the parking. Chairman
Grigorov pointed out that consideration of views was one reason for
• all the odd angles. Mr. LeMaro responded by indicating which units
have good and poor views and pointing out that the slide show was
designed to give the Planning Board a feel for the different views.
Chairman Grigorov suggested that one or two members of the
Planning Board walk the site. It was pointed out that between the
November meeting and now the roads have been reduced on the order of
1,700 linear feet and the number of building units increased by 16,
which indicates a lot of progress. In addition, a previous plan had a
lot more roads because it had alleyways which were considered private.
Mr. Frantz commented on the "Chronology of Events" as submitted
by Mr. LeMaro in terms of clarifying the statement noted from the
February 21, 1990 meeting with Supervisor Raffensperger, Chairman
Grigorov, Town Planner Beeners, and the LeMaros, where Supervisor
Raffensperger is reported to have said that there was no mandate for
affordable housing in the Town. Mr. Frantz stated that Supervisor
Raffensperger does not feel that this is her position at all, adding
that Supervisor Raffensperger Is letter of March 2, 1990 outlines her
position where she states the Town Board -as a whole is most concerned
that Town policies be developed that encourage affordable housing in
the Town. Mr. LeMaro responded, yes, but based on the meeting, which
Chairman Grigorov also attended, Supervisor Raffensperger said that,
as it exists now, there is no mandate in the Zoning Ordinance or the
Subdivision Regulations. Chairman Grigorov offered that "mandate" is
not quite the right word, adding that it sounds like she
• (Raffensperger) is against it, however, as she ( Grigorov) remembers
it, it was that the Town does not have a stated policy. Mr. LeMaro
suggested that he would not have used "mandate" unless Supervisor
,.
Planning Board Meeting -16- August 7, 1990
• Raffensperger had said it because it is not a word he typically uses.
Chairman Grigorov offered that "mandate implies that a person has
been elected specifically to do such and such. Mr. LeMaro responded
that, by the same token, there is no mandate in the Town that says
they have to supply affordable housing. Chairman Grigorov stated that
what Supervisor Raffensperger meant was that there is no stated
policy. Mr. LeMaro replied that he took notes and that was the word
he used in his notes because that is what was expressed. Chairman
Grigorov stated that she objected to being quoted in that way, and
that she probably knew what she meant. Mr. Frantz suggested that the
word "mandate" seems to be the problem, adding that there is no stated
policy, but Supervisor Raffensperger is very much concerned about the
problem and says that the Town Board is as well, and she wanted that
to be known. Mr. LeMaro reiterated that he took notes and that is
what came out, adding that he understood what Supervisor Raffensperger
meant by "policy ", but he used her word. Mr. LeMaro stated that he
will make the change, no problem.
Mr. Frantz suggested one possibility to address Mr. Klein's
concern about the second access being built may be to extend the one
driveway serving the townhouses immediately north of the creek to the
connector road, adding that he and the developer did discuss
connecting the cul de sac with the second access, but ran into
problems with distance between intersections. Mr. LeMaro noted that,
also, they wanted to is the single families from the townhouses,
• and also they want to put in all the roads at once.
Mr. Frantz expressed his concern for provision of public
transportation and suggested a pedestrian connection to the lower
corner because the existing bus route goes up Hector Street to Warren
Place and residents could catch the bus there. Mr. Frantz noted that
there are design concerns, however, such as crosswalks, sight
distance, which would need to be coordinated. Mr. LeMaro agreed,
adding, as suggested by Mr. Frantz, that is why they placed the
townhouses closer to public transit. Mr. Frantz pointed out that at
some point this project will be forwarded to the County for review and
one of the things they will look at is whether there is access to
public transit. Mr. LeMaro stated that they could also see if public
transit could go into the development.
Mr. Frantz, commenting on the park location, stated that he has
encouraged the location because it gets back to the issue of whether
the Town should look at larger parks, an issue which the Comprehensive
Plan will address. Mr. Frantz noted that having a park in the
northeast corner of the development opens the option of the Town's
accepting almost an equivalent acreage as part of the approval for the
Shalebrook subdivision., The question was asked whether they are
adjacent, with Mr. Frantz responding, yes, and indicating on a map
where the trees are and where, on the Shalebrook side, there are some
open fields which could be developed for more active recreational use.
Mr. LeMaro pointed out on the map that Mr. Frantz had suggested "this"
• right of way which would allow City residents access to the park area.
Mr. Frantz noted the opportunity for a joint City /Town venture in park
development.
•
•
•
TOWN
PARKS 273 -8035
Ellio R. LeMaro
Project Manager
Prodecon
P.O. Box 6435
Ithaca, New York 14851
Dear Mr. LeMaro•
ENGINEERING
This is to acknowledge your letter .delivered to me February. 21,
19900 I found our meting that day most informative and I hope i
me t
clarified for you the. procedures that will be most likely to
expedite the consideration of your proposed development.
As discussed, it would .seem that a printery requirement would be for
you.to provide our Town Planner, Susan Beeners, a conventional plat
and a cluster plan, both meeting all the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance iand the. Subdivision Regulations' That would provide the
nUMMan basis for your clustered plan to be presented to the
Planning BO A . which time you could discuss your desire for any
waiver of. requirements. You also discussed the possibility of a
rezoning application or special zoning legislation, neither of
which seemed probable within your time constraints.
In your letter to me,, you request "modifications" to the
Subdivision. regulations.. Only the Planning Board can waive
requirements within certain guidelines. The .Zoning Board of
Appeals considers variances; a rezoning request can be addressed to
the Town Board,
The Town Board,
developed that
Ithaca. As I
improvement prc
Policy will be
appreciate that
as a whole, is most concerned that Town
would encourage affordable housing in
explained to you, we are engaged in
gram; housing .policy. and the implemental
a component of the master plan effort:
such a process-is not instantaneous and
policies be
the Town of
a planning
:ion of that
I know you
I
•
•
r�
LJ
Ellio R. LeMaro
F
March 2, 1990
understand that you do not wish to delay the Town's consideration
Of your proposal until such a plan is approved. There will be
extensive opportunities for public participation throughout the
planning improvement process. I hope you will be willing to
participate; your expertise in affordable housing should be most
helpful.
SAR/js
cc: Susan Beepers
Carolyn Grigorov
Yours truly►
Shirley A.
Supervisor
I.BF-1 5 -_ 6131672112* -
..
Planning Board Meeting -17- August 7, 1990
• Chairman Grigorov thanked the gentlemen from Prodecon and asked
that everyone consider ',the points brought up at this meeting. Mr.
LeMaro inquired as to the next step, indicating that they would like
to proceed with their preliminary plan approval planning. Chairman
Grigorov indicated that Prodecon may proceed with their plans, but the
Planning Board may still have some objections. A question was raised
about SEQR. Mr. Walker stated that SEQR was part of preliminary
planning, noting that then they would have a basic layout which can be
evaluated. Chairman Grigorov noted that a preliminary plan review,
would be a public hearing.
Discussion of Prodecon's revised sketch plan ended at 11:10 p.m.
NON- AGENDA ITEM: OLD ZIKAKIS CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP, ELMIRA ROAD, CITY
OF ITHACA,
Mr. Frantz reported that the City of Ithaca Planning Board is
considering redevelopment of the old Zikakis Chevrolet dealership as a
small shopping center. Mr. Frantz stated that Zikakis is proposing
merging the existing buildings for a total of about 25,000 square feet
and has preliminary site plan approval and will be up for preliminary
site plan approval of Phase II in two weeks. Mr. Frantz stated that
the City is requesting Town Planning Board comments and concerns prior
to the meeting. Town 'Attorney Barney asked if the entire project
falls within the City, with Mr. Frantz responding, yes, and explaining
• that Phase II is an additional 74,000 square feet, which is about
three - quarters of the size of East Hill Plaza. In response to a
question as to whether the City actually thinks this is needed, Mr.
Frantz stated that he had spoken with Trowbridge Associates and they
indicated that he wants to build Phase I, but Phase II is somewhere
out in the future. Mr. Frantz stated that he did not have any
concerns as far as impacts to the Town, however, he felt the City had
some concerns about traffic congestion. Chairman Grigorov commented
that she did not see any impact to the Town. Dr. Lesser asked if the
road narrowed to one lane there, with Mr. Frantz responding, yes, and
mentioning that the State plans to widen the road to four lanes from
the City line to just beyond Five Mile Drive, with bridge replacement.
Chairman Grigorov asked if there were agreement with Mr. Frantz
that the Board members did not see any concerns as far as the Town was
concerned. Mr. Frantz l', suggested sending a letter from the Planning
Board saying that the Board sees no adverse impacts, with Chairman
Grigorov asking if the, Board agreed. Town Attorney Barney did not
agree and suggested doing the same as the County by saying that after
brief review the Board did not see any impacts. Discussion followed
as to what the difference would be between this and the McDonald's
situation, where, in the one case we say theoretically we are not
concerned and yet there is a traffic impact. Mr. Frantz offered that
from a land use standpoint it is replacing an existing use. A
suggestion not to speak to Phase II was made because this would be
built at some future time and there would be no way to know what the
• traffic implications for the Town would be then. Attorney Barney
suggested making some sort of sunset provision. Chairman Grigorov
inquired as to the County's position, with Attorney Barney explaining
•
•
Planning Board Meeting
-18-
August 7, 1990
that the County did not take a position and indicating that he was
concerned with the Planning Board taking a position with limited
review, particularly a position indicating no significant
environmental impact. Attorney Barney suggested indicating to the
City that the Board was taking no position but would like to express
concern with the timeframe in that, perhaps, the approval would lapse
after a certain time. The Board indicated its agreement with not
really having access to sufficient official information in order to
discuss the proposal. Mr. Frantz suggested that it may be best to say
that the Planning Board is not comfortable taking a position and that
no consensus was arrived at. The Board indicated acceptance of that
approach.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairman Grigorov declared the August 7, 1990
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:20
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
•
•
•
BARNEY, GROSSMAN, ROTH & DUBOW
JOHN C. BARNEY
PETER G. GROSSMAN
NELSON E. ROTH
DAVID A. Dueow
RICHARD P. RUSWICK
ROSANNE MAYER
HUGH C. KENT
RANDALL B. MARCUS
Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
315 NORTH TIOGA STREET
P.O. BOX 6556
ITHACA. NEW YORK 14851.6556
(607) 273 -6841
July 16, 1990
Chairperson
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Re: Subdivision application of Steven and
Patricia J. Heslop
Dear Carolyn. 0
TELECOPIER
(607) 272 -8806
You will recall 'that at the last Planning Board meeting the
matter involving the Heslops was adjourned to give Mr. Heslop and
Mr. Dan McClure and myself an opportunity to review, in some
detail, the discrepancy in surveys. You will recall that when
Tim Ciaschi developed the Westwood Hills Community, he showed an
extension of Woolf Lane with Mr. Heslop's northerly boundary
being tangential to Woolf Lane, Mr. Heslop brought in a more
recent survey by George Schlecht as the basis for his proposed
subdivision which showed Mr. Heslop's boundary actually
intersecting Woolf Lane at the northeast corner and providing
approximately 43.73 feet of road frontage. The matter was
initially adjourned at my suggestion to allow a meeting of all of
the concerned parties to occur.
Since the meeting I have had a long conversation with Mr.
Fulkerson, the, surveyor who prepared the Westwood Hills
subdivision. Mr. Fulkerson advises that -he made certain
assumptions in depicting the Heslop parcel on the Westwood Hills
subdivision map, based upon an earlier unfiled Dougherty
subdivision map. That earlier map showed a proposed roadway
running along the northerly line of the Heslop parcel. In any
event Mr. Fulkerson assumed that the Heslop line with a 271.5
foot arc distance, a lichord distance of 267.76 feet, and a radius
of 470.0 feet would be tangential to Woolf Lane at the northwest
corner of the Ball property. In fact,; however, this assumption
may not have been correct because when the mathematics are
figured using that arc length, radius, and chord distance, the
north line appears to intrude into Woolf Lane in the manner
depicted in the Schlecht survey. Mr. Ciaschi and Mr. Heslop
entered into a boundary line agreement which incorporated in its
4 .
July 16, 1990
• Page 2
terms the chord distance and bearing and the arc distance and
makes no reference to the radius. Mr. Fulkerson advises that
using his computer the arc distance and chord distance give a
radius of 470 feet.
Accordingly, I do not see any need for a major meeting. It
appears that Mr. Schlecht's survey substantially portrays the
current status of the land ownership and I would suggest that the
Board proceed with hearing Mr. Heslop's application for a
subdivision. Based upon Mr. Schlecht's survey there appears to
be 43.73. feet of frontage. This obviously is inadequate in an
R15 zone but this is a matter that can be addressed by the
Planning Board in making its determination whether or not to
permit a subdivision.
I would suggest that in the event the Board chooses to grant
a subdivision that it be subject, of course, to the obtaining of
any necessary variances and further subject to a condition that
the subdivider convey to the Town pf Ithaca that minuscule
portion of Woolf Lane that is encompassed in that 43.73 feet
where the arc intersects into the roadway.
• Needless to say if you, the Board, or any of the other
persons to whom I am forwarding this letter have any questions I
would be happy to discuss it with them. If after receiving this
letter either Mr. Heslop or Mr. McClure still would like to have
a meeting I would certainly be willing to accommodate them.
Very truly yours,
JCB:bl
CC* Ms. Susan Beeners
Town Planner
Mr. George Franz
Assistant Town Planner f
Mr. Steven Heslop
Mr. Daniel McClure
Mr. Al Fulkerson
,.
NOME CRAFTERS
SINCE 1925
343 Coddington Rood Willmlville, NY 13864
(son 277a974
Aug 7, 1990
John Barney
Ithaca Town Planning Board
126 E. Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Heslop subdivision request
Dear Mr. Barney„
As you know I.purchased property on Woolf Lane in 1988
based on a legal survey by T.G.Miller Associates, P.C.,
surveyors which had been accepted by the Town of Ithaca and
filed with the county clerk the previous year. Mr. Heslop
did not contest the Miller survey prior to its acceptance by
• the town, at the time of its acceptance, or.for more than two
years after its acceptance. At the present time Mr. Heslop
is circulating a new survey and an old boundary agreement
which assert his claim of title to a small strip of land
along our common boundary. He has never provided copies of
these documents to me and to my knowledge,-they have never
been filed with the county clerk.
If Mr. Heslop is to take title to this.property without
my consent. 'I believe the following things must take place:
1. T.G. Miller Associates, P.C., surveyors must explain
in writing the nature and cause of any alleged
survey-error, and acknowledge in writing
responsibility for it. .
2. T.G.Miller Associates, P.C., surveyors must either
submit-,a corrected boundary survey or else affix
their seal to the survey prepared by George Schlect
with the above explanation attached.
39 That these documents,
boundary agreement be
the Tompkins County C
• I have-not been notified
have been taken to legally mov
along with Mr.: Heslop's
duly and properly filed with
lerk.
that any of the above steps
e the title of the disputed
,.
•
U
•
McCLURE
BUILDERS
HOME CRAFTERS
SINCE 1925
343 Coddington Road Willseyville, NY 13864
(607) 2774974
property from my name to that of Mr. HP�B1op,
I respectfully submit
disputed property has ;been
that Mr.
neither
Heslop's
conclusively
claim
to
proven
this
nor
properly recorded, and
jurisdiction of a'Town
it
of
is therefore
Ithaca Planning
far
beyond
Board
the
to grant
de
facto title by granting
subdivision
approval.
It is important that
the proceedings
of the
Town
of
Ithaca Planning Boardlfollow
the dictates
of law,
not
simple
convenience.
If the Town Planning Board were to grant subdivision
approval without demanding strict proof of the applicant's
title to the property, I would have to strongly consider
taking action against the town under Article 78 of the CPLR.
Sinc
Danie
C.
C
..0 ' f•
v
•
•
•
G. W. Ehr• lei art 'I'nc
PO Bcrx ;:38£:3
7r1.1r1ansburg, N.Y. 14£ :3£36
ReCIUe ?eta Variance of set back distance
flea sons, Other regulatiUn<a wi1.1 not a1J.c)w ;arty r.)•t:I'11: ?r'
7. e7 C a t 7.011 f ca r• f) °r. Cr F) rr S e c:l b ee i. :I. cl :i. r1 cj „
Desc rid ticrlla F'crle h)arn, metal c i dinrl sand roof.
6rJI x 6 C x 1.2" with 4/1.2 pi.iscl•1 1 c:rC) 'f
Lcrc<ai:icrla cria
larc:)per't:ys
Tlei
1or..<•a•ti(3n
c:)n
't':h
e
p'i.CrI:)e?rty
is
cle•t:e?'i.Pi:t
ned
by
't "I'1t:?
1 !:)(:l�!.:1.Y'r,•
:•)111 k: ?1'1't':
set
north
in
the
hAYS
hru:i:I.c:l:i.r1g
r.:oc:le
NI-f'I..1
:u:
G • 8
�J LJ
�
1.7
11 w
C.! L)
1
�: d J.'
t �.
C)
11
11 a a u
is r'
�.J iJ
'J
11
{a
'
11 c.�
t I 1
] 1
�.. 1 ['.:
u
e
is
a
g 1.1
1
1
y
on
the
S r
si i
d
t•.?
of
•t.
I I (:]
I.) 1
c:J I.r c- n...'.. y/ u
PUr'perc:fe? Of
the
trUi7.clings
House
c)i.c'i
"
vehi:i.c.:'Le < :%
inside
out
of
the
wc.?ather.
W
<ar'e?
experiencing
a
cheat
eleal.
of
r1a:i.n'teance
expenr_es
resulting
fie -or1
? Cam,. W • .� 4.4 k N A
f.
NOW
Q
v
4
v.
m�
Q
OD
• 2
Z
1W.; *.
N ?40009000#001•
.�• : OF NEW ••,,
5"
14 1
r
S`
f�
4
1
H R R A IZT 'N L,
t�•c� 't�0 5 is � �l u�► `c� �.
u
d
v
it
/Mr
`v
Z
N
n
I
i
1
it
ZOO f
GA'
Tld J,
NOp
fi
•' 1 oftwdd` 1_
-� `- )
ft'-1
"�
3S-
5Tt
(oox6t) co
IN le 'Rn�,�g�2 Esc.
5
S
* :. 1201
�w�czox�-
4�rys ooAcR
n�
i*v
0
dd
f
0
00r-
Pi
1 �Odd
•
1
da
low I
6 f
I
4 • GT
ti t
id i4
Io
ot
h/
,. }
dd
0 W.
Id
b .
� � !-1 �h h � � �..� •vim.. . .
t .
LOT � t,A N. A �.TE IAAr7 i y � l�Vl, t Lb I�1"� � ;t
---_.
ONO
�.. 7o APO
t
X35,
d000 `
7
F
S F J MET ,.:
t" •
I
! l
I.
.
O
eti
. VO/
"all"Mmoo "MINIONIP1_
FY/E�
ftoloommoo J commis
F� 1
� 7'Aar
t
`•Pks
t Oe
�
of
;i
.i /
Y
I
GJ
rV ,/
lob
b
2
1
t�
• 11
V
- 0
'6b
1
AT1O�
a .�� iF
�y1
l
� tl,
8•R
4
ry. Y
.r "..
rnt
r
Woo
Ap
A4
ep
;r 4r
T .! h y.l ti •
.r%C r P'�'rrait
:te 1ri•: e..N. .. ..
i'!x �^1.'z'.. J;�.{•.:y] � +Yi�L, Y� -;fin•_ •,
'.•S T
. >aak
�.4
• To:
From:
Date:
RE:
Planning Board Members
George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner
August 2, 1990
Proposed site plan, G. W. Ehrhart, Inc.
e�w
Planning and engineering staff have reviewed the proposed
site plan for the proposed 60 ft. by 60 ft. building at the
G.W. Ehrhart facility. Given that, as submitted, the site
plan fails to conform with the minimum yard setbacks for the
Light Industrial District as outline in Article VIII,
Section 44, Paragraph 2, we recommend to the Planning Board
that it not approve the plan as submitted, without
prejudice. We believe that the variances which would be
required should the proposal be approved as submitted would
be contrary to generally accepted land use planning
principles, and may set an undesirable precedent for future
development review decisions by the Planning Board.
We have relayed our decision to Mr. Overbaugh of G.W.
Ehrhart, Inc.. However, he wishes to exercise his right to
• present his proposal to the Planning Board for
consideration. Rather than have him invest time and money
into preparing a site plan to the level of detail normally
required for site plan approval, we have brought his
proposal to the Board as it was presented to us. We believe
that it contains the basic information the Board needs to
consider the staff recommendation of denial.
If you, as members
Site Plan. Approval,
this proposal, the
adjourned until Mr.
submission, and sta
for the project,
of the Planning
but would pref
n we recommend
Overbaugh prep
ff completes an
Boar
er to
that
ares
envi
d, prefer not to deny
further consider
the matter be
a more detailed
ronmental assessment
ri
•
•
If
14.164 (2197) —Text 12
PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 617.21
Appendix C
State Environmental Ouality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART I— PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor)
1. APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME
Q �Wt GI^V rrN� Lkx� 7 "?o t. O"Lk--) TL� N1-0�
3. PROJECT LOCATION:
4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address rand road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc,, or provide
P LA �P L„A, -N G NC (a S E D
5, IS PROPOSED AC:
❑ New X3J Expansion ❑ Modification /alteration
SEAR
6, DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY:
C� CO Ix c� o (�o l e 6- Aj /C-t �2 ��c.. `' o L� `` o u�c� cie,� a
7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED:
Initially acres Ultimately acres
8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS?
❑ Yes gjNo If No, describe briefly
LaTr Ket,&i 2LvvLcw-F s •►kebLLa4 PO( c.% �ecs. kle d w,.� 1 r\cZG Cl �tNo lulu ) w1
A Rtc�.+'r oJ, wry,, f►�,Lo►s Ir4,,,p gPprcic 4T rtcge -S LAJ6E0 A..v Ary IL: C44dkkP -k ( "✓QoSe S ,
96 WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT?
❑ Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial Agriculture ❑ Park/Forest /Open apace Other
Describe: V 3 Stc,% c:a 1 �i-n� o c d b.e." �A -2n1c J 'i�V"'L-Stc -. c:a � 2'r / Ro t*10
RC" o3v-+C&e3 a�C ilk 2fcak«c calif
10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL,
STATE OR LOCAL)?
Cl K No If yes, list agency(s) and permiUapprovals
11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
❑ Yes 9No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval
12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT /APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?
❑ Yes ❑ No
1 CERTIFY THAT,THE
Applicant/sponsor nal
Signature:
IS TR}JE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Date:
If the action is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, 4 complete the
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
OVER �p -* y
1 6'
N Pool-
• 470
\ Trailer a_rl s 13 --,�
34 CIO
2 Z 0
LU
to
• Inlet Valley \
\ #4Y
0 1 Q
go a gas Ca
476± '• � \
• N
• • • • . • • 327 "'
O �
,o
RD F� \
13 � 448 \ P 957
96
34 LOCATION MAP B sub
WMEMOND
� _..._
• �°' G.W. Ehrhart, Inc.
° 30 • h GaginE 1027 Elmira Road
Site
•
•
3 '
t I
3's" i
o:)eJ M
Y FRgM! Ry / lS \tN
SNpq I \t,
Q 0 I
e
.(m
W
2 t I
it
�n
4
��J 3
\ lEgSc<D �c N
JOV 2 To d
of
09 R7
3
9�
4
� oPoi6o
' Pa °
b x fur 44p) l
lse�l �Hh oer c F
l
33'
9 gO�
S, W
'o4 ^'E*f
a�'e ' r SURI/EYoF FUEL TANK RAPT
t Orf 017 eouTE 34 -96
i �:' �# f TOWiV Qf /TNACq� 7pTAP,e' /NS CONNry
NEW YOAO&
SoALa/ra 300 pws wws« a
n «. HOWARD P. JCHL /,rp"
N.Y. P, E. r�C. S.OV3720
.?roPDSJ Lox6o ':ale 6oNwm 44.11 6e- u.Sc,D
A v e- ki J e s — 0..l I of- W Q%
A1. live ��"N6 +►ND 'i'
11LA�5paj.T poo?^ue Tti.[ve
orwo.*eh.
Wt b�tld,:a1 w�jprot7waL7
N W huff .wo Sr }ww S W Ifua
yA ... 40
.,1.1- .�„&�d
':+Al• t,►eu lA.artpr�..at .h.l,D LA►.w ..I... QEk /.AST
tAA
g„� c.►,A., w e r
ykata-tt`a` •.s I'ot.J� qO n.Ew� will lu.�}crtwaw�d
1�..,D.
�1't,�ky.w,
J owe// Ouc✓l,a�(.`,
%qm
Ij 1
F {
I Ih f
'�Aff
,L
i
.1.• ..
14 r
1
F i
I
e, .
i
E. :7
I
1
•
A FF7I)AV171(11J'PUBLICATION
State of New York, Tompkins County, ss.:
Gail Sullins
beino. duly sworn, deposes and
says, that she /he resides in Ithaca, county and state aforesaid and that
she /he is Clerk
of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in
Ithaca aforesaid, and that a notice, of which the annexed is a true
copy, was published in said paper
QC, ie) C\- 11 t`'l '10
�d that the first publication of said notice was on the
day of
LAW
Subscr d and sworn to before me, t is da
of 19
JEAN FORD
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 4654410
Qualified in Tompkins Coun�j
Commission expires May 31, 19..E
.7
/-D L
Notary Public.
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNINGBOARD A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1990
B direction of the Chairman
of the Planning Board, NOTICE
'IS• HEREBY GIVEN, that Public
iHearings will be held by the
Planning Board of the Town of
Ithaca on Tuesday, August 7, l
1990, in Town Hall, 126 East
Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at
the following times and on the!
following 'matters:
ii 7:45 P.M. Consideration of+
Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of .45'
plus or minus acre from Town!
Of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -56-1
y 3 -20, .91 plus or minus acre to.'
tai area located 1578 Slater-1
ville Road, Resident District R -'
15. Olga Sonti, Owner /Appli -'
cant. (Adjourned from July 24,1
1990.) I
8:00 P.M. Consideration of a'
Report to the Zoning Board of
Appeals with respect to a rea-
quest for Special Approval,
pursuant to Article V. Section
18, Paragraph 4, of the Town l
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,
for the proposed expansion of l
the Coddington Road Commu -1
nity Center, located at 9201
Coddington Road, Town of
'Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 47 -1 -I
11.3, Residence District R-30.1
Coddington Road Communityi
Center, Inc., Applicant; Annel
Morrisette, Agent. . l
8:15 P.M. Consideration of
Subdivision Approval for the
Proposed subdivision of 2.33:
plus or minus acres from Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-23-!
1-16, 3.49 plus or minus acresI
t, total area, located backlot of 11
242 DuBois Road with frontage'
on Woolf Lane, Residence Dis-
trict. R -30. Steven Heslop and
P.A. James, Owners /Appli-
cants. ( Adjouned from Julyl
10, 1990. )
8:30 P. . Consideration of
I Subdivision Approval for the
roposed subdivision " "of. =,3.5
dus or minus acres from Town
if Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 24-:
-.10.20 11.24 plus or :.minus
ties total area,' located on
ie north side of Bundy Road
Pproximately •1,700 feet west"
its intersection with Hopkins`
ood, ..Agricu►turol . ;District.'
ouglas Addy; Applicant; Con=
lyn B. Slaght and L.E. Bundyy":'
Nvners. ((Adjourned from Julyi
";Considerdtion'aof
to Plan Approvalforthe pro
Dsed constructiom.of , a;3,600
1. ft, ole barn /garage :to.
Duse delivery vehicles, pro -;
Dsed to be located of 1027 El-"
iro Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
3rcel No. 6- 35- 1 =7.1, Light,ln
.atrial District'G.W. Ehrhart,`
C., Applicant; -Thomas �G. :;
verbough, Agent. r
iid Planning Board will Yaf
iid times and said place hear,
I persons in support of such
otters or objections thereto.':
arsons may appear by agent
in person.
Jean H. Swartwood
Town Clerk'!
273 -1721
ugust d2, 1990