No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1990-10-02r s • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 2, 1990 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, Ithaca, October New York, 2, at 7:30 1990, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, James Baker, Robert Miller, Stephen Smith, Eva Hoffmann, William Lesser, Daniel R. Walker (Town Engineer), John C. Barney (Town Attorney), Susan Beeners (Town Planner). ALSO PRESENT: John Gutenberger, Don Lifton, Maureen Flanagan, Greg Williams, Beth Fuller, Russ Fuller, Robert O'Brien, Graham Gillespie, Tom Salm, Don Sweezy, David Herrick, Neal Denno. 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 the Ithaca Journal on September 24, 1990, and September 27, 1990, 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 Commisioner of the City of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on September 25, 19909 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. At this point, Chairperson Grigorov announced for the record that Board Member Robert Miller informed the Chair that he would be resigning his seat as of December 31, 19900 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY APPPROVAL OF MODIFIED SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE EAST HILL GULF GASOLINE STATION, LOCATED IN A BUSINESS "D" DISTRICT, AT THE CORNER OF ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD AND JUDD FALLS ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6 -62 -2 -1.13. PROPOSED MODIFICATION IS TO CONSIST OF REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CANOPY, PUMPS, AND CASHIER'S BOOTH WITH A LARGER CANOPY, NEW PUMPS, AND LARGER CASHIER'S BOOTH, DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING FILM /PHOTO DEVELOPING KIOSK ON THE SITE, AND MODIFICATION OF THE ENTRY DRIVES TO THE SITE. ROBERT W. ANDREE, INC. OWNER; ROBERT W. ANDREE, AGENT. (ADJOURNED FROM SEPTEMBER 4, 19909 Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Robert Andree.addressed the Board and presented photographs of what the canopy, sign, and building would look like. 4 Planning Board -2- October 2, 1990 • I Mr. Andree offered that Walker, Zoning Officer Andrew George Frantz, regarding what Mr. Andree stated that the above issue could be discussed at a la he had spoken with Town Engineer Dan Frost, and Assistant Town Planner items could be sold on the premises. named individuals said that that ter meeting. Mr. Walker, referring to the sign issue, noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals had been approached and they felt that that kind of a determination on a generic basis is an interpretation that would be more appropriate to be made as an official Board opinion, and they felt it was important to do that under a public hearing forum. Mr. Walker stated that the ZBA would be discussing the Business "D'! District, adding, the Business "D" District pertains to gas stations, and is a more particular restriction than Business "A", "B", or "C", and generally, under the Zoning Ordinance, a less restrictive business zoning would allow the same things that are in more restrictive. Attorney Barney offered that there has been an interpretation that Light Industrial Zones will--also permit uses in "A ", "B ", "C", "D" and "E" Business Districts, on the theory that Light Industrial Zones are less restrictive, but the problem is that the "D" zone is basically limited to gasoline stations, so the question is posed to the ZBA for interpretation. Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that it is her understanding that the additional information Mr. Andree has provided, with respect • to the sign, has been discussed with the Zoning Officer, adding that Zoning Officer Andrew Frost will make a decision when an actual sign permit application is put into place. Mr. Andree offered that there would be one sign, the price and identification on one sign. Mr. Andree, referring to the tanks, stated that his first choice, money permitting, would be to remove the present tanks and replace them with double -wall tanks. Mr. Andree said that depending on his finances, if he does not have enough money to remove the tanks, then he would refurbish them and bring them up to code. Mr. Andree, referring to drainage plans and impacts, stated that there would be 4000 additional feet of blacktop. 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 and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Mr. Lesser wondered about the potential traffic impact. Attorney Barney responded that the 100 -170 vehicles is at the station itself, with some additional trips that would be generated on the adjacent roads by reason of the expansion. Attorney Barney noted • that the 100 -170 is basically taking or including those people that are already there at East Hill Plaza or on the roads to begin with, ti • • Planning Board -3- October 21 1990 but the additional five or less vehicles is what is anticipated the expansion of the station will generate in the way of traffic. Ms. Hoffmann expressed her concerns about access with respect to both Judd Falls Plaza and Andree's Gas Station. Town Engineer Dan Walker, wondered if there were any Mr. Andree answered that there drains into a catch basin, allows the gas to run down and and then into the tank. directing his question to Mr. Andree, provisions for spillage from a tanker. are four gravel fills. The overflow where there is a plunger that opens and back into the fuel pipe below ground At this time, Board Member William Lesser moved to adjourn to go upstairs for an Executive Session to discuss potential litigation, James Baker seconded the motion. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. The Board, along with Attorney Barney, returned to the Board Room and, upon Motion, went back into open session. Attorney Barney stated that for the benefit of the public and the record it should be indicated that there was some discussion in executive session about the potential implications of this particular project on pending ligitation, and there is a concern about securing sufficient information on traffic and its impact on traffic, adding, in that vein, he would suggest that the matter be adjourned. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion. (ADOPTED RESOLUTION re East Hill Gulf Station attached hereto as Exhibit ##1) Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of Consideration of Preliminary Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station duly adjourned. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ITHACA COLLEGE ROAD RELOCATION PROJECT, PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING MAIN CAMPUS ROAD AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT PARKING. TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 6 -41 -1 -30.2, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15. ITHACA COLLEGE, OWNER; TROWBRIDGE ASSOCIATES, AGENT. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ITHACA COLLEGE NEW SCIENCE FACILITY, PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON THE ITHACA COLLEGE CAMPUS ADJACENT TO WILLIAMS HALL AND THE ROY H. PARK SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATIONS. TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6. -41 -1 -30.2, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15. ITHACA COLLEGE, OWNER; TROWBRIDGE ASSOCIATES, AGENT. • • Planning Board Chairperson Grigorov above -noted matters duly Public Hearings as posted -4- October 2, 1990 declared the Public Hearings in the opened and read aloud from the Notice of and published and as noted above. Mr. Thomas Salm, Vice President for Business Affairs at Ithaca College, approached the ..Board and stated that some slides of the proposed road relocation would be shown to those present. Mr. Salm noted that the proposal is for the relocation of the campus loop road and Board for the addition of 290 parking spaces in reconfigured existing and new parking lots to offset parking loss for new Science Building, Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she thought the presentation was well done. Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions. Don Lifton,- of 31 Chase Lane, appeared before the Board and expressed his support for the project. the Public Hearing There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to speak to this matter, Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Town Planner Susan Beeners said that.the.ZBA would be the Lead Agency for the Special Approval requests for both the road relocation and the new Science Building projects, and also for the variance needed to have the 60' overall height on the Science Building. At' this point, Ms. Beeners, referring to Impacts.on Land for the Ithaca College Road Relocation EAF Part-II,, Page 6, noted that any construction on slopes of 15% or greater.is a Potential Large Impact because there are embankments that.are going to have slopes at 15% or more. The proposed building will- be sited on slopes of 8 The .construction of a paved parking area for 100.or more vehicles is also a 4 Potential Large Impact; the net increase proposed by Ithaca. College is 101 vehicles. -Construction that will continue for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage is also a Potential Large Impact. Ms. Beeners remarked that the above is the extent of potential large impacts on the land. Ms. Beeners noted that it is checked yes as to "Can Impact be Mitigated by Project Change?", commenting, yes, of course, it could be mitigated by forgetting about the project entirely, and by reducing the4 project in size. With respect to the SEQR Part III - probability of impacts to. -land, duration of impacts, irreversibility, control, regional consequences, potential divergence from local: needs and goals, .and_ known objections to the-project, with all of. those considerations, Ms. Beeners thought that the benefits of -the project outweigh any of the potential localized negative impacts. . Ms. Beeners also said that there has been discussion with the applicants with respect to erosion and sedimentation control. Planning Board -5- October 2, 1990 • As to Impacts on Water, Ms. Beeners mentioned the lower pond that is on the site plan which is going to be increased from .3 to .4 of an acre so that is going to be over a loo increase in a surface area of water body. Mr. Trowbridge stated that there is a small retention pond that currently exists below the parking lot, and that is being enlarged to accommodate additional run -off. Ms. Beeners stated that the additional run -off accommodation is a real beneficial impact, because of the fact that it is adding to some control of storm drainage down the hill. Ms. Beeners stated that the above is the only Potential Large Impact under water. Ms. Beeners stated that all the issues that are supposed to be addressed under Part III have been duly considered and that, again, beneficial impacts outweigh potential adverse impacts. At this time, Ms. Beeners proceeded to Page 11 of the EAF, under No. 18, "Will proposed action cause a change in the density of land use'? Ms. Beeners said that, yes, it does have a Potential Large Impact, however it is noted that the impact could be mitigated by project change. Ms. Beeners stated that there is also a Potential Large Impact in that the proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects, and also checked yes is that the impact could be mitigated by project change. Ms. Beeners stated that, at this time, the impacts related to the road relocation, with respect to Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood are not really considered at this time to be adverse impacts. Ms. Beeners said that I.C. is going through a Master Plan process accompanied by a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, and if there is anything as far as potential development of new buildings along the road, then such would be subject to further environmental review by the Town. Ms. Beeners said that aspects such as the net increase in parking by 101 spaces, moving away from NCR and putting the parking on the Campus is a very good idea. Ms. Beeners said that in the long -run, one will have to look at it, very carefully, to make sure that the traffic using the existing service road, which goes down behind Rogan's is continued to be monitored. Ms. Beeners said that it is her understanding that tickets are issued if there is abuse in the use of the service road. Mr. Salm stated that the service road is restricted all the time, it is intended for Physical Plant, Safety, and Security use, but students obviously use it to walk down off the Campus. Mr. Salm stated that the road is posted as restricted access. At this time, Town Planner Susan Beeners reviewed the Ithaca College Science Building EAF Part II. Ms. Beeners said that there will be some construction involving slopes of 15% or greater. Ms. Beeners noted that, as Mr. Trowbridge pointed out, the building itself is going to be sited pretty much on slopes of about 8 %. The slopes with the steeper degree of slope to them will be basically landscaped or stablized as one would normally approach that. Ms. Beeners stated that the above was checked as Potential Large Impact because it was involving that threshold, and, yes, indeed, the impact . could be mitigated by project change, but that would only really be if there were a drastic modification to the project itself, which Ms. Beeners did not think was appropriate. Ms. Beeners stated that other Planning Board -6- October 2, 1990 • Potential Large Impacts also relate to construction continuing for more than one year or involve more than one phase, adding that the impact could be mitigated by project change, yes, however, that was not really that great of an idea. Ms. Beeners said that all the other impacts she went through she decided that they were pretty negligible impacts -- small to moderate -- except when she got to Page 11, Growth and Character of the neighborhood. Ms. Beeners said that here is an example of where it gets really hard in figuring out which one to check - Small to Moderate or Potential Large. With respect to the question "Will proposed action conflict with officially adopted plans or goals?", Ms. Beeners recommendation is that there would be a Small to Moderate Impact related to the fact that the building would not comply with the 30' maximum height in the R -15 zone as it was discussed in the presentation relative to the height and the context on the site, the height of 451, or 60' to the top of the fan gallery having an overall height of 601. The granting of a variance by the ZBA would not be of significant impact, given that it has interior to the Campus seems to be designed quite well, and fits in with the other buildings there on Campus. With respect to the question will "proposed action cause a change in the density of land use?", Ms. Beeners said there is Potential Large Impact with respect to that as it is a trend as far as locating and expanding the core of the I.C. Campus. Also, there is the fact, related to that trend, that an important precedent would be set for future projects, e.g., more buildings in the general vicinity of the central core, and possibly more buildings with heights of over 30'. Those impacts are • controllable and are not terribly important. Ms. Beeners, commenting on Part 3 as far as probability, duration, irreversibility, and the other aspects related to answering the question of importance, she sees no significant adverse impacts that would warrant recommending anything other than a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance. Dan Walker pointed out that there were indeed issues related to both sewer and water which need further review, and that these issues need to also be identified within the SEQR review. There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board,-Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. (ADOPTED RESOLUTION re Ithaca College relocation of existing main campus road and construction of replacement parking attached hereto as Exhibit 2). At this time, the Board proceeded to discuss the Ithaca College New Science Facility. The project consists of a new Science building, renovation of Williams Hall, and associated site work. The building will be of poured -in -place concrete, Type 1 construction. Exterior materials • will be brick, concrete, and limestone, with aluminum curtain wall, to integrate visually with the Park School and Williams Hall. The new building will house the departments of Biology, Chemistry, and Planning Board -7- October 2, 1990 • Physics, along with four general classrooms and a small lecture hall, in approximately 100,000 gross square feet. Upon completion of the new building in August 1992, Williams Hall will be vacated and renovated for the Department of Psychology and general classrooms and office space. These classrooms, together with those in the science building, will replace space rented in the NCR building, thereby eliminating the student pedestrian traffic across Danby Road. The new building will be three stories in height. Topping the roof plane is a fan gallery which rises an additional 15 feet, making the total height 60 feet. Town Planner Susan Beeners noted that there will be some construction involving slopes of 150 or greater. The building itself will be sited on slopes of about 8 %, the slopes with a steeper degree of slope to them will be basically landscaped or stablized as one would normally approach that. Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that there is a 20,000 gallon per day threshold in the impact on water, and the report shows approximately 9,000 gallons. Mr. Walker said that the Town is reaching a peak situation in the sanitary sewage capacity, and also the water supply on South Hill; there are some critical infrastructure limits that the Town is reaching. Mr. Walker said that one of the conditions that will be recommended by Town staff to the Zoning Board of Appeals would be a very thorough review of the utilities and capacities; the Town has sewers that are about 40 years • old that are serving the facility. Mr. Walker stated that the facilities are presently being evaluated and everyone has been very cooperative. Mr. Walker stated that he is very comfortable with the way Ithaca College has proceeded with their plans, but staff will make a recommendation to the ZBA that final design will be reviewed by the Town Engineer, Continuing, Mr. Walker said that the overall loading problem at the campus is increasing, and will be more of an issue with the future expansion plans, specifically, the Danby Road sewer that the College discharges into is about 40 years old. There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. (ADOPTED RESOLUTION re Ithaca College New Science Facility attached hereto as Exhibit 3). Chairperson Grigorov declared the matters of the proposed Ithaca College Road Relocation project, and the proposed Ithaca College New Science Facility duly closed. AGENDA ITEM: IN RE CONSIDER SEQR SCOPING RECOMMENDATION FROM CONSERVATION ADVISORY PROCEDURES. COUNCIL Chairperson Grigorov announced that the Board received a • suggested resolution concerning SEQR Scoping Policies from the Conservation Advisory Council, Chairperson Grigorov said that she had asked for a copy of the enabling charge to the CAC to see what • • .0 Planning Board -8- October 2, 1990 they meant by specific authority in environmental matters, adding, she did not see any reason why they should not be involved in it, but was not sure if that should be part of a separate resolution, because the scoping management has not been really worked out. Ms. Hoffmann offered that, as she understood it, since there are some people on the CAC who are very well informed in environmental matters, and who are very interested, it would be very useful to have their comments. Mr. Lesser said that if the resolution says to "provide comments" then that would be well received, but it says "involved in ". Ms. Hoffmann responded that it means the people on the committee have to get the information in time in order to be able to make those comments. Chairperson Grigorov noted that this has to do with scoping, which comes long after they have already reviewed the SEQR Form. Attorney Barney stated that there is no specified way that scoping occurs other than the Lead Agency does it. There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. (ADOPTED RESOLUTION re SEQR Scoping Policies (Planning Board) attached hereto as Exhibit 4). (ADOPTED RESOLUTION re SEQR Scoping Policies (CAC) attached hereto as Exhibit 5). Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of procedures duly closed. AGENDA ITEM COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS Comprehensive Planning Committee -- Comprehensive Committee -- Conservation Council SEQR scoping Planning Advisory -- Codes and Ordinances Committee Chairperson Grigorov stated that different committees are working on different parts of the Comprehensive Plan, and hopefully it will all fall into place. A lot of analysis has been done on the Survey. A presentation, with the public participating, of the Comprehensive Plan will be held at NCR, October 17, 19900 Conservation Advisory Council Eva Hoffmann offered that she received, today, what she thought was the Final Draft of the Six Mile Creek Report, adding, the committee is working on the open space draft. Codes and Ordinances Committee Planning Board -9- October 2, 1990 • Eva Hoffmann reported that Town Planner Susan Beeners had written a memo dated 9/18/90 to the Planning Board covering the 9/15/90 Codes and Ordinances meeting. AGENDA ITEM. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORTS _ Six Mile Creek _ Cayuga Lake Estates Chase Farm residents' request Six Mile Creek • • Town Planner Susan Beeners reported that a Final Draft, with the help of Assistant Town Planner George Frantz, and, as prepared by the Parks Natural Areas and Stream Corridor Committee has been put together scheduled and given to the CAC members. for Thursday night as to whether the There is a CAC wants discussion to accept the full any type draft, whether they want to put some of recommendation based on the original modifications request by in it, or the Town Board to the Planning Board and down the line. Cayuga Lake Estates Ms. Beeners stated that, on 9/4/90 the Town received a revised plan which shows a total of 40 lots. Ms. Beeners stated that she and Town Engineer Dan Walker would communicate to them that, basically, there is some additional engineering detail and considerations that need to be expressed and worked out before reporting back to the Planning Board, Chase Farm Residents' Request Ms. Beeners referred to a letter addressed to the Planning Board from Mr. Lifton and Mr. Flanagan, dated 9/23/90. (Letter attached hereto as Exhibit 6.) Response to the above letter from Lachman & Gorton, Attorneys At Law, dated 9/25/90, attached hereto as Exhibit 7.) Ms. Beeners referred to a letter addressed to the Planning Board from Harrison Rue, of Chase Farm, dated 9/28/90. (Letter attached hereto as Exhibit 8.) Ms. Beeners referred to a letter addressed to Mr. David R. Auble, from Harrison Rue, .dated 9/11/89, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. Ms. Beeners referred to the Declaration of Restrictions for Chase Farm, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.) At this point, Russ Board and expressed a concern the development. ADJOURNMENT Fuller, of 4 LaGrand Court, addressed the about the architectural continuity of Planning Board -10- October 2, 1990 • Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the October 2, 1990, meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:15 p.m, Respectfully submitted, Mary Bryant, Recording Secretary, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. • East Hill Gulf Station Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Adjournment Planning Board, October 2, 1990 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: East Hill Gulf Station Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road Adjournment Planning Board, October 2, 1990 MOTION by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. James Baker: RESOLVED, by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, that the matter of consideration of preliminary approval of modified site plan for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf Station, located in a Business "D" District, at the corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -62 -2 -1.13, be and hereby is adjourned pending receipt from the applicant of the following: (i) a study prepared by a reputable traffic consultant showing the projected impact of the proposal upon traffic, and (ii) a site plan showing a redesigned traffic pattern to minimize through traffic. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann. • Nay - None. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. October 4, 19900 • EXHIBIT 1 •' Ithaca College •r Relocation of Existing Main Campus Road and Construction of Replacement Parking Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board, October 2, 1990 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Ithaca College Relocation of Existing Main Campus Road and Construction of Replacement Parking Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board, October 2, 1990 MOTION by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. Stephen Smith: WHEREAS: -1- 1. This action is the Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval of the proposed Ithaca College Road Relocation project, proposed to consist of relocation of the existing main Campus road and the construction of replacement parking, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -41 -1 -30.2, Residence District R -15. 29 This is a Type I 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. • 3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on October 2, 1990, has reviewed the proposed site plan, environmental assessment form and review, and other submissions related to this proposal. 4. The Town Planner has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action. 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 use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town. EXHIBIT 2 � Ithaca College •' Relocation of Existing Main Campus Road and Construction of Replacement Parking Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board, October 2, 1990 • 39 That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for Special Approval of the proposed Ithaca College Road Relocation project, proposed to consist of relocation of the existing main Campus road and the construction of replacement parking, be granted. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. October 4, 19900 • • EXHIBIT 2 Ithaca College New Science Facility -1- Adjacent to Williams Hall and the Roy H. Park School of Communications Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals • Planning Board, October 2, 1990 • ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Ithaca College New Science Facility Adjacent to Williams Hall and the Roy H. Park School of Communications Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board, October 2, 1990 MOTION by Mr. Robert Ken erson, 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 of the proposed Ithaca College New Science Facility, proposed to be located on the Ithaca College Campus adjacent to Williams Hall and the Roy H. Park School of Communications, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -41 -1 -30.2, Residence District R -15. 29 This is a Type I 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. 3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on October 2, 1990, has reviewed the proposed site plan, environmental assessment form and review, and other submissions related to this proposal. 4. The Town Planner has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: 10 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. 29 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 use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town. EXHIBIT 3 Ithaca College New Science Facility -2- Adjacent to Williams Hall and the Roy H. Park School of Communications Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board, October 2, 1990 • 3. That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for Special Approval as stated herein and including a variance request for an overall building height of 60 feet, be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1e grant of a variance for the proposed height of the building, approval of which is recommended, and 2* approval by the Town Engineer of the design and adequacy of the water and sewer facilities serving the building prior to the issuance of any building permit. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy M. uller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. October 4, 1990. • EXHIBIT 3 • • .7 SEQR Scoping Policies Response to Conservation Advisory Council Recommendation Planning Board, October 2, 1990 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTED RESOLUTION: SEQR Scoping Policies Response to Conservation Advisory Council Recommendation Planning Board, October 2, 1990 MOTION by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. Stephen Smith: -1- RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board thank and hereby does thank the Conservation Advisory Council for its suggestion, and further RESOLVED, that the Planning conjunction with overall procedures impact statements and for overall environmental review process. Board will consider same in for the scoping for environmental procedures for streamlining the Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann. Nay - None. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. " / • ';"zz4i/ Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. October 10, 1990. [Secretary's Note: Conservation Advisory Council.recommendation attached hereto.] EXHIBIT 4 V • SEQR Scoping Policies Recommendation to Town Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals Conservation Advisory Council, [Source: Environmental Review Planning Board, -1- September 20, 1990 Committee, August 30,1990] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTED RESOLUTION: SEQR Scoping Policies Recommendation to Town Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals Conservation Advisory Council, [Source: Environmental Review August 30, 19901 Planning Board, September 20, 1990 Committee, MOTION by Ms. Laura Marks; seconded by Dr. Richard Fischer: WHEREAS, the Conservation Advisory Council has been given specific authority in environmental matters by the Town of Ithaca's enabling legislation, and WHEREAS, the "Scoping" for any Environmental Impact Statement required within or by the Town deals largely with environmental matters; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that it be the policy of the Town of Ithaca that the Conservation Advisory Council -- along with the • Town Engineer and Planning Staff -- be involved in any D /EIS Scoping ab initio. Aye - Whitcomb, Fischer, Hoffmann, Kiefer, Marks, Mulholland. Nay - None. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dooley Kiefer /nmf 9/24/90 • EXHIBIT 5 • September 23, 1990 Planning Board Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Honorable Board Members, We are writing on behalf of the residents of the Chase Farm subdivision. We have been meeting informally for the past several months to review the progress on our development and the concerns we have about it being completed in keeping with its original concept. One of our primary concerns is that all future construction in the subdivision is in keeping with the concept of the development. We know that the concept behind the development was not only important to us when we decided to make our homes in Chase Farms, but of primary importance to you when you approved its plans. At this point we understand that neither a Declaration of Restrictions for Chase Farm nor a set of Architectural Guidelines have been properly filed with either the Town of Ithaca or Tompkins County. Indeed the Guidelines may not even have been drafted in full form. This is of great concern to us, as we are • sure it is to you. We would ask that you contact the developers (now known as Chase Farm Associates) to ensure that the Declaration of Restrictions as presented to both ourselves and the Planning Board is immediately filed in final form with both the Town and County. C7 Regarding the Architectural Guidelines, we realize that the developers had originally intended to provide them as part of their original concept. However, to date, they have not done so. We wish to ensure that the concepts behind our development are expressed in a set of Guidelines approved by yourselves before any construction out of character with the village concept is considered or undertaken. We are therefore going to take the initiative in providing you with a proposed draft of the Guidelines. We understand that the Planning Board would consider accepting a copy of such guidelines from a community or neighborhood association. We will be forming the Chase Farms Community Association and drafting a set of Guidelines within the next few weeks. Once we have accomplished these two tasks, we hope that you will consider approving the Guidelines. We see these Guidelines as crucial to ensuring that Chase Farms continues to develop in keeping with its original concept. EXHIBIT 6 1 ,. Should you feel it appropriate we would welcome the opportunity to modify • the Declaration of Restrictions by a vote of the current lot owners (in keeping with paragraph 19 of the latest version of this document submitted to the Town Attorney). This approach would give the Planning Board the option to accept our draft of the Guidelines as valid and enforceable. • We already have had some discussions about altering the architectural /site review process and the related committee. Some are particularly concerned that the current make -up of the committee may not adequately protect the character of the development (and the surrounding community); given the pressures the developer may be under to move the project forward. Therefore, as a community we will be considering proposals from several of our Chase Farm neighbors to alter the committee and process currently outlined in the latest draft. If we indeed vote to make such changes, we would then respectively submit them to you for your consideration and approval. It is certainly not our intent to delay the progress of the development. However, we hope that in the event that either new construction or changes to the plans for this development are proposed that the Planning Board or Building Department will seek and consider our input before determining the appropriateness of such plans. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter. On behalf of our neighbors in Chase Farms, we are, Very truly yours, Tana an 25 Chase Lane 272 -0133 (Home) 255 -5702 (Work) cc: J. Barney, Attorney - Town of Ithaca S. Beeners, Town Planner Building Department, Town of Ithaca J. Pelligrini, Chase Farm Associates D. Wilcox, Chase Farm Associates Residents of Chase Farm EXHIBIT 6 l Don Lifton 31 hase Lane 273 -6621 (Home) 274 -3117 (Work) 2 r� J • 0 EDWIN LACHMAN PETER A. GORTON JOSEPH W. ESWORTHY* JR, Leo Flannagan 25 Chase Lane Ithaca, NY 14850 Donald. Litton 31 Chase Lane Ithaca, NY 14850 LACHMAN & GORTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 East Main Street P,O. Box 89 Endicott, New Yorli 13760-0089 (607) 7Sa -OSOO FAX (607) 748 -6978 September 25, 1990 Re: Your letter of September 23, 1990 Dear Leo and Don: Doug and Joe sent and asked that I, briefly Trebloc Building 301 East State Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 272.2026 CYRIL A,. i}RENZER Of Counsel me your letter to the planning board respond. chase Farm is happy together with any other Declaration of Restrictions some work and T would be that Doug and Joe would also any other homeowners at language that is acceptable to work with the two of you homeowners to supplement the where you may feel that it needs happy to meet with you and I know be happy to meet with you and any time to come up with some to all of the parties, we were a little concerned with some of your representations which were apparently unintentionally incorrect. The Declaration of Restrictions are, most certainly, filed. If any of you wish to physically go to the county Clerk's office to look them up, they are in Liber 33 of Miscellaneous Records at page 650 and, at least for the two Of you, I enclose herewith a copy of the reco>ded. Restrictions which you will find in the book and. page set forth above. You will also find, if you read very closely, in the Declaration of 'Restrictions, that there was never an intent nor a requirement that any architectural guidelines be filed with the Town of Ithaca or Tompkins county and, in fact, that EXHIBIT 7 i. r� J • 0 EDWIN LACHMAN PETER A. GORTON JOSEPH W. ESWORTHY* JR, Leo Flannagan 25 Chase Lane Ithaca, NY 14850 Donald. Litton 31 Chase Lane Ithaca, NY 14850 LACHMAN & GORTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 East Main Street P,O. Box 89 Endicott, New Yorli 13760-0089 (607) 7Sa -OSOO FAX (607) 748 -6978 September 25, 1990 Re: Your letter of September 23, 1990 Dear Leo and Don: Doug and Joe sent and asked that I, briefly Trebloc Building 301 East State Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 272.2026 CYRIL A,. i}RENZER Of Counsel me your letter to the planning board respond. chase Farm is happy together with any other Declaration of Restrictions some work and T would be that Doug and Joe would also any other homeowners at language that is acceptable to work with the two of you homeowners to supplement the where you may feel that it needs happy to meet with you and I know be happy to meet with you and any time to come up with some to all of the parties, we were a little concerned with some of your representations which were apparently unintentionally incorrect. The Declaration of Restrictions are, most certainly, filed. If any of you wish to physically go to the county Clerk's office to look them up, they are in Liber 33 of Miscellaneous Records at page 650 and, at least for the two Of you, I enclose herewith a copy of the reco>ded. Restrictions which you will find in the book and. page set forth above. You will also find, if you read very closely, in the Declaration of 'Restrictions, that there was never an intent nor a requirement that any architectural guidelines be filed with the Town of Ithaca or Tompkins county and, in fact, that EXHIBIT 7 r C7 • A'+ Page a Leo Flannigan Donald Lifton September 25, 1990 would be quite unusual. To the extent that your letter seems to imply, perhaps, again unintentionally, that Chase Farm did not properly follow the procedures, it is incorrect. However, more importantly, and as I set forth above, Chase Farm is more than happy to meet with the homeowners to supplement the Declaration of Restrictions. Very truly yours, LACIRMN & GORTON Peter A. Gorton PAG:mcl Enclosure cc: John Barney, Esq. Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca S. Beeners, Town Planner Residence of Chase Farm EXHIBIT 7 • n U September 28, 1990 Susan Beeners, Town Planner Planning Board Members Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Susan and Board Members: I am sorry that some of the Chase Farm Homeowners felt that they had to address the Planning Board with their concerns about the Project's Deed Restrictions and Architectural Standards. We believe that any concerns they might have can be more appropriately worked out with us, and are quite willing to consider any changes that the homeowners may feel are necessary. As our attorney, Peter Gorton, mentions in the enclosed letter, we have extended an invitation to the homeowners' representatives to work on this issue. In addition, the homeowners were previously invited to elect a representative to sit on the committee starting September 17, 1990 and have not yet responded to that invitation (letter from Joe Pellegrini to Chantale Champagne and Committee, August 20, 1990). Since there seems to be some general misunderstanding vis -a -vis the deed restrictions and the workings of the Architectural Review Committee, I would like to explain how the Committee has worked in the past and how we would expect it to work in the future, and clear up some of the misconceptions apparent in Mr. Lifton's and Mr. Flanagan's letter. First, the deed restrictions were properly recorded and filed at the County Clerk's office on April 12th, 1989 (copy enclosed). Every homeowner has .received a copy with their abstract at closing, and it.has been pointed out to them by Peter Gorton at the closing. The deed restrictions were carefully drawn in order to help create a community without unduly limiting each homeowners rights to enjoy their property, and the Town Attorney reviewed them and suggested several changes at that time, all of which were incorporated in the final document. The deed restrictions essentially create the committee it the "further detail the design approval process • and /or revise the design criteria as it sees fit, maintain the character and style of the development ". EXHIBIT 8 and empower and create in order to • These Architectural Standards were drawn up by Andres Duany and myself, with input from the rest of our team, and put into effect in May, 1989. The Duany- Plater /Zyberk standards are in a format that helps to create a cohesive environment without stifling architectural creativity. Every house built on Chase Farm, by the developer or by others, has been reviewed according to these standards. The community's appeal is in part due to the fact that this process works. Our own housing products were reviewed against the standards during the design phase, either by ourselves or by furnishing a copy to the architects. In fact, both Mr. Flanagan's and Mr. Lifton's houses were designed according to the standards by Cornerstone Architects. The houses that were designed and built by other individuals have also been reviewed, and several changes made in each one. These reviews were documented in letter form, and may be reviewed in our office. I have enclosed a copy of a review done on a house privately built by Dave Auble on lot 35. The decisions of the committee to date have been made on a rather informal basis, since all the members have been working together on a daily basis in the same office. We expect to set regular meetings once the homeowners elect their first member. We are planning to meeting with the homeowners next week to discuss their concerns and expect that this issue can be resolved in that forum rather than by taking up your valuable time. • S ;ncerel I - Harrison Rue Chase Farm cc: J. Barney Residents is of Chase Farm • TA 108 Rici(;( crctii, RnR(l September 11, 1989 Mr. David R. Auble 104 Ridgecrest Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Dave: AtihicMel,rniu�li)rll lli) 11117.273 -1221 VAX 607- 273 -5200 II Iru,�3. Ww Yoilk 14650 PIN4 IM UMOV; We have completed our formal review of the Home Planners Design No. 1736 for Lot No. 35 located in Chase Farm. The general style, size, and ap- pearance of the house fits perfectly with the classic lines we are looking for in Chase Farm. There a few minor points of concern or violations of our code as follows. 1. The 16 foot wide garage door is not allowed. It should be changed to one or two eight or nine foot doors. You may have difficulty fitting • these visually into your current plan. Please draw the garage accur- ately with the new doors and resubmit this drawing. i 2. We assume as you have mentioned that lie stone siding will be changed to match the rest of the house. is 3. You mentioned removing the shutters. I will point out that the lower window trim should match the upper -trim. We suggest that without the shutters, a 5/41f x 4" trim as shown on the gable end windows be used. Also, window and door trim should match or be carefully designed and approved where different. 4. As a point of information, these out -of -state plans may or may not be in compliance with the New York State Building, Energy, and Egress codes. You should consult with your Architect on these items. 5. We require a scaled site plan for approval of house siting before state of construction. 6 „.,;:Ally proposed skyligilts'. phould be on the rear of the house . j d It r: �:...�:..II . 7. We expect you to submit proposed exterior color combinations for ap- proval prior to painting. These will be coordinated with adjacent houses to achieve a cohesive community in keeping with our traditional themes. EXHIBIT 9 Mr, David R. Auble Page Two • We believe your design is a good one that with these minor modifications will meet our guidelines. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, 4 r� Harrison Rue HR:PLB cc: D. C. Auble R. Holt R. Ackley • • EXHIBIT 9 Sworn before me* on.: this 11th day of t 19� oxj000� DOUG D. WILCOX ��OtxY lic,� State of New York alifisd in Cortland County No. 4267+80 Air Ctmuniss+rn bpYw A.,i - tkjq�r. i � 1 UB�iI 3 Y LJ LACHMAN & GORTON DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS for CHASE FARM Jd/ t ti� This DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS made this ttmnvrr4�h day of 46ibmt, 1989, by Chase Farm Associates, a limited partnership with offices at 301 East State Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850, hereinafter called the OWNER. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the aforesaid Chase Farm Associates, a limited partnership, is the owner of premises situate in the Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins and State of New York, and more particularly known and designated Chase Farm I - Tompkins County, dated October 12,1988 by George Schlecht, P.E., L.S., a • copy of which is being filed concurrently herewith and made a part hereof, and referred hereinafter to as the "SUBDIVISION "; and WHEREAS, the owner intends to subdivide said area and sell lots and building sites thereon subject to certain restrictions, conditions, limitations, reservations and covenants hereinafter referred to as protective restrictions in order to insure the most beneficial development of said area and to prevent any such use thereof as might diminish the valuable* or pleasurable enjoyment thereof and to create a blending of the homes in harmony with the surrounding area, , NOW THEREFORE, the owner hereby declares that such tract and the lots to be developed therein are held and shall be conveyed subject to the following restrictions, conditions, covenants, charges and agreements: 16 All of the lots in the subdivision will be known described as residential lots. No lot will be used for purpose other than residential purposes, in conformance with and any the Town of Ithaca Zoning Regulations applicable to the subdivision herein. No commercial or professional use of the residential property shall be permitted that requires visitor traffic provided, permitted, however, during the that Chase Farm Associates course of development shall of the property, be to • maintain an,d other one field office or structures necessary trailer, one or more model to the development homes, of the subdivision provided, however, that the field office or trailer EXHIBIT 10 P a 02 I 0 • Li= CHMAN & GORTUha leek -2- shall be removed within twelve months from the date it is brought on the subdivision and provided further that the model homes shall be used as such for a period not in excess of two years, and provided further that all other structures erected in connection with the development of the subdivision not normally permitted in a residential zone shall be removed within one year from the date of their construction. Nothing in this paragraph, however, is intended to authorize any structure, building, or use not permitted by the applicable provisions of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Z, No house shall, be erected which shall contain less than fourteen hundred (1400) square feet of living space (excluding the area occupied by a garage or unfinished basement) or be of a design which is not in harmony with other houses in the tract. However, the Chase 'Farm Architectural and Site Review Committee, hereinafter called the "COMMITTEE as set forth herein in paragraph 14 may, upon application, approve a house of less than fourteen hundred square feet in the event of an application for a house with superior quality and design and which is not deemed by the committee to be detrimental to the remainder of the lots in the subdivision. 3. No building, wall, fence, or other structure shall be erected or altered until the proposed site plan, building plans, and building and landscaping materials shall have been approved in writing by the Architectural and Site Review Committee. The Committee shall reserve the right to further detail the design approval process and create and /or revise the design criteria as it sees fit, in order to maintain the character and style of the development. The committee must approve or disapprove them within must be thirty days after the building plans are submitted. In the plans, event of specifications and no response, the written plat approval will not be required and this paragraph of the Declaration of Restrictions shall be deemed to have been fully be deemed complied with. to be.-the The approval of the committee is required to maintain a high quality subdivision and to Insure external design of homes in harmony with the other houses in the subdivision. The approval of the committee shall not be unreasonably withheld. 4. The exterior of any structure and landscaping must be completed within one year from the start of construction (date of issuance of construction permit shall be deemed to be.-the HI-� E BIT 10 P003 1 33 f P.04 LACHMAN & GORTON -3� date of the start of construction) and in addition, any land disturbed by construction must be landscaped within thirty days after a home is substantially completed; provided, however, If i f completion occurs during the winter,montitia, the landscaping sr such house shall commence no later than the following July g No trailers, mobile homes or tents will be permanently located on any lot, and no trailer, tent, shack., barn or other outbuilding erected on any lot at any time will be used as a residence temporarily or permanently, nor shall any structure of a temporary character be used as a residence; provided, however, that the owner shall be permitted to maintain field offices, model homes and other structures necessary to the development of the subdivision. There shall not be permitted on n any lot any above ground swimming pools, free standing Tdis ham radio or aerial towers, or televis ion. satellite iles of wooden There shall also not be permitted any stacks or p • with plastic or tarpaulin or any other non permanent covering. There shall be no noxious or offensive activity carried on upon any lot nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood and no animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot, except that dogs, cats or other. household pets may be kept, provided they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose. 80 No improvement upon any lot within the subdivision shall be equipped with exterior lighting which causes direct or indirect glare beyond their property lines, theaei restrictions r indirect glare is defined for the pure illumination beyond the property lines from direct or reflected rays from any form of lighting or reflected surface in excess of three - tenths (,3) foot candles at ground level. All lots shall receive a single post mounted yard by the property owner. This light shall be operated, 100 watt fixture mounted five (5) f ground, ten (10) feet from the front property 1 ten (10) feet of the driveway. This light shall approved by the committee, lig a eet ine be ht supplied photo cell above the and within of a style 71 The operation of all licensed vehicles will be restricted to dedicated and /or private subdivision roads designed for vehicular traffic. Snowmobiles, motorcycles, motor scooters or any other motor operated vehicles will not be permitted to operate on any open lot or land area, pedestrian path or walkway except special trails, if any, specifically designated for such purpose. All snowmobiles, unlicensed UMBIT 10 LACHMAN & GORTON P'05 r LIM 33 Fjtt 653 0 -4- automobiles, motorcycles or other machinery or equipment will be parked inside the structures on each lot. Any vehicle with signage, more than two axles, or with more mi than four (4) tires shall not be parked in public view on the p re than two hours in a 24 -hour period. B. No sign or advertising device of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot except one professional sign, not more than six square feet, advertising the property for sale or rent; provided, however, there shall be no restriction upon signs placed by the owner herein for the development of this subdivision herein or for any future subdivision of any area of land contiguous to the border of the subdivision herein. 98 At no time will the grade of any lot be raised above or below the grade approved by the committee. Every effort.will be made to preserve the integrity of the area with regard to plants, trees and other vegetation. No trees will be • unnecessarily removed. All trees to be removed above a five (5) inch caliper shall be approved by the committee. 10. A 30, deep buffer zone shall apply around the entire perimeter of the subdivision except for frontage on King Road East, No trees of 5" diameter or more may be cut or removed from this zone. No buildings, including any accessory buildings, are permitted within any portion of the buffer zone. The committee cannot change any of the conditions set forth above without the approval of the `town of Ithaca Planning Board. 11. Garbage and rubbish shall be kept indoors or in the - garage, except when placed outside shortly before removal in accordance with the regulations of the collecting agencies and receptacles promptly taken inside following collection. No lot shall be used or maintained as, a dumping ground for rubbish. Trash, garbage or other waste shall not be kept except in sanitary containers and stored as herein provided. 12. Easements for the installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are reserved as shown on the recorded map and additional easements may be granted where necessary prior to the passage of title to said lots. Where possible, utilities shall be confined to a ten foot perimeter around each lot. No structures, excepting temporary out • buildings (tool sheds) are permitted in said areas. The committee may approve variations of the above reservations. EXHIBIT 10 1 • :7 33 nti 654 LACHMAN & GORTON .5- 134 No lot shown on said map shall be subdivided into smaller lots or parcels and no lot shall be subdivided unless divided between and added to adjoining lots except that the owner reserves the right to change, modify, and /or lay out a new or discontinue any street, avenue, way, or lot or, any portion thereof, shown on said subdivision map. 14. The Chase Farm Architectural and Site Review committee will be composed of three (3) persons to be appointed by the owner herein. All members of the committee shall act at the pleasure of the owner and the owner may replace any or all members of the committee at will; provided however that after the sale of twenty (20) lots one of the three members of the committee shall be a person elected by a majority vote of the owners of individual lots excluding the developer. After the sale of forty (40) lots a second member of the committee shall be elected by a majority vote of the aforesaid individual lot owners. The individual lot owners shall select the third member of the committee upon the earlier of the following events: a. All the lots in all phases of the subdivision are sold by owner b. The owner voluntarily relinquishes its rights to select such member c. The owner discontinues development of the subdivision, such discontinuance to be presumed if no lots are sold for a period of 24 months d. January 1, 1999 With respect to the members of the committee elected by the lot owners, they shall act at the pleasure of the aforesaid lot owners and may be replaced only by a majority vote of the lot owners. In determining the vote of the lot owners each individual lot shall have one vote, The committee shall maintain in its files a written record of any action taken, together with a copy of the plans and specifications so acted upon, such plans and specifications to be furnished at the sole cost of the lot owner. The decision of the committee shall be signed by a majority of the members. Until ten (10) lots are sold by owner, the committee shall have the authority to grant variations to the provisions of these restrictions either to.the owner herein or to any subsequent owner of any lots in the subdivision provided that such variation is approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as being a reasonable deviation from the requirements of these restrictions under the circumstances then pertaining to that particular lot. Until ten (l.o) lots are sold by owner, the committee reserves the right to modify and /or cancel any of the covenants, conditions, restrictions or EXHIBIT 10 Pa 06 1 Y' 0 f LACHMAN & GORTON -e, reservations if, in their judgment, the development or lack of development of the subdivision makes the course necessary or advisable but only after application to and approval by The Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 15. These covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations shall run with the land and shall be binding on all the parties, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, and all persons claiming thereunder, until January one, 2014, at which time said covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten years each unless by a vote of the majority of the owners of the lots of this subdivision, it is agreed to change the said covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations in whole or in part, 16. If any owner of lots in the subdivision shall •violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants, conditions, restrictions or reservations herein contained, it shall be lawful for any other person or persons - owning any other lots in said subdivision to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate any such covenant, condition, restriction or reservation and either to enjoin him or them from so doing and /or recover damages for such violations, 17. Invalidation of any one of these covenants, conditions, restrictions or reservations by judgment, court order or statutory provision shall in no way affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect, 18. No waiver or conditions, restrictions or be construed to be a waiver other covenants, conditions, shall failure to enforce any restrictions or reservations, be construed as a waiver restriction or reservation. a breach of any of the covenants, reservations herein contained shall or any other breach of the same, or restrictions or reservations; nor one of such covenants, conditions, either by forfeiture or otherwise, of any other covenant, condition, 19. After ten (10) or more restrictions may be amended, vari affirmative vote of three- quarters • with the owner having no more than variation or change shall not be the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. lots are sold by owner, these ed, or changed only upon the of the individual lot owners, one (1) vote. Any amendment, effective until approved by EXHIBIT 10 t_ fit P. ©7 1 LACHMAN & GORTON L � 01 fa -7- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, these covenants have been executed by the owner ...herein, on..-the day and year first above written. CHASE FARM ASSOCIATES By DAVID C. AUBLE, OEN'L PARTNER �TE OF NEW YORK as: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)� On this lam` day of _ before me personally came, to me known, who being by me duly he is a General Partner of a described in and who executed the of such Limited Partnership, executed the foregoing instrument Limited Partnership. r sworn, di d Limited foregoing and did depose and say that Partnership, who is Instrument on behalf acknowledge that he as the act and deed of said PETER A. GORTON Notary Public, State of New York No. 4623324 Residing In Tloge County My commlse;on explres Feb, 28, 19j "� • . EXHIBIT 10 Tompkins COU11ty, Ss: IV Recorded on the .. )....... Drny of ......... i..t7.fJ.. o'clock .P...M., in kik::rr ........ �s'`3,'. I of of page ......,�. .R �... and e;camirned. 5, 1 4 ease 1489 01� ....,....i 9.x.9.... ........1.$�.. ........ Clerk- AFFIDAVIT OFP BLICATION State of New York, Tompkins County, ss.: Gail Sullins being. 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 '+nd that the first publication of said notice was on the a Y) day of �� � �,� ,- 191 C Subscribed and sworn to before me, this oZ� day of 19 q 1 vvLa■ y 1 uwiL JEAN FORD Notar/ Public, State of New York' No. 4654410 Qualified in Tom !(ins C P ount, Commission expires May 3 :/ 1� 1 • / C::)�—? TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS'- j TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1990;- By direction of the Chairman of the Planning Board, NOTICE " IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public., HEARINGS WILL BE HELD.BY THE Planning Board` f the :; . . Town of Ithaca on Tuesdoy .•'; October 2, 1990, in Town Hall,.: 126 East Seneca Street, Ithacd, N.Y., at the following times" and on the following matters'; ;.a 7:30 P.M. Consideraton of Pre -, liminary Approval of modified ' site plan for the proposed ex- ponsion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station, located in a`. Business "D" District, ''at . the ;' corner of Ellis Hollow Road` and Judd Falls Road, Town of,_ Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -62 -2 1.13. Proposed modification is ` .I to consist of replacement of.-- the existing canopy, pumps,.. and cashier's booth with a -_ larger canopy, `new pumps,''`r-'? and larger cashier's. booth,', demolition of an existing: i film /photo developing kiosk.. on the site, and modification ; of the entry drives to the site. Robert W. Andree, Inc. Own_4 °. I er, Robert W. Aridree, Agent., `. I (Adjourned from September' 1 4, 1990) 8:00 P.M. consideration, of a 1 Report to the Zoning Board of- Appeals with respect to a re quest for Special Approval of the proposed Ithaca College Road Relocation project, .pro- posed to consist of relocation of the existing main Campus road and the construction of replacement parking. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -41 -1- . 30.2, Residence District R -15. Ithaca College, Owner; Trow- . bridge Associates; Agent. " 8:30 P.M. consideraton of a Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a re-` , Guest for Special Approval of the proposed Ithaca College.,. Road New Science . Facility, proposed to be located on the.. Ithaca College Campus ad'' - cent to Williams Hall and the Roy H. Park School of Commu- nications. Town of Ithaca Tax'..-; Parcel No. 6 -41 -1 -30.2, Resi- dence District R -15. Ithaca Col -' r lege, Owner; Trowbridge As -' Continues ", *:*continued*` sociates, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Jean H. Swartwood Town Clerk 273 -1721 September 27, 1990