HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1990-11-06,.
•
r�
U
I I
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 6, 1990
FUD
TOWN OF
IF
u� ..
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday,
November 6, 1990, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at
7 :30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman Carolyn Grigorov, William Lesser, Robert Miller,
Eva Hoffmann, Robert Kenerson, James Baker, Stephen Smith,
George R. Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Daniel R. Walker
Engineer), John C. Barney, Esq. (Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Cathy Webb, Janet Schoele, Dick Perry, Carl Sgrecci,
Tom Niederkorn, Don McLaughlin, Rosalind Grippi, Peter
D. Novelli, John Wolf, Arthur Stiers, John Tilitz, Mary
and Robert Swansbrough.
(Town
Chairman Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:30 p.m. and
accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Postings and Publication of
the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October
29, 1990, and November 1, 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 both the Clerk
and the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins
County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Regional Manager of the Finger
Lakes State Parks Commission, upon the Clerk of the Town of Enfield, and
upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on October 31, 1990.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.35+ ACRES FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
NO. 6- 34 -1 -4, LOCATED AT 231 ENFIELD FALLS ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30.
ESTATE OF RUTH S. ROYCE, OWNER, GEORGE R. PFANN, ESQ.,
AGENT.
Chairman Grigorov declared the Public hearing in the above -noted matter
duly opened at 7:34 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as noted above.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz noted that one of the details raised at
the October 16, 1990 meeting was that the survey submitted then did not have
some of the information needed, the most important of which was whether or
not there, was 150 feet of frontage at the setback, which it has. The
requirements of the Board have been met.
Chairman Grigorov inquired if anyone had come to speak about the
matter. No one spoke. At this point Chairman Grigorov declared there were
no speakers, closed the public hearing, and brought the discussion to the
Board.
Board
Member
Hoffmann
had
a
question on Part
II of the
Environmental
Assessment
Form as
to A and B
on
the
first page which
seemed
to contradict
4
Planning Board
• each other,
consensus of
"no"
•
•
0
and wondered if
the Board was that
2 November 6, 1990
by mistake "yes" was checked. The general
this was in error and should be marked
There appearing to be no further discussion on this matter, 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:
10 This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of approximately 1.35 acres from Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 6- 34 -1 -4, 59.7 acres total, located at 231 Enfield Falls
Road, Residence District R -30.
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental
review, and for which the Town Planning Department has recommended a
negative determination of environmental significance.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on November 6, 1990, has reviewed
the survey map entitled "Survey for the Estate of Ruth S. Royce," dated
8/17/90, revised 10/2/1990 and 10/17/1990, signed and sealed by George
C. Schlecht, P.E., L.S., and the Short Environmental Assessment Form
for this action.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency for environmental review
of this Unlisted action, 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, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further Board comments.
There being none, Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion with respect to approval of the proposed Royce Subdivision.
MOTION by Mr. Stephen Smith, seconded by Dr. William Lesser:
WHEREAS:
19 This action is the Consideration of Subdivision
proposed subdivision of approximately 1.35 acres from
Tax Parcel No. 6- 34 -1 -4, 59.7 acres total, located at
Road, Residence District R -30.
Approval for the
Town of Ithaca
231 Enfield Falls
9
Planning Board
K,
November 6, 1990
0 2a This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on November 6,
1990, made a negative determination of environmental significance.
•
•
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on November 6, 1990, has reviewed
the survey map entitled "Survey for the Estate of Ruth S. Royce," dated
8/17/90, revised 10/2/1990 and 10/17/1990, signed and sealed by George
C. Schlecht, P.E., L.S., and the Short Environmental Assessment Form
for this action.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
19 That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, having determined
that such waiver would not represent a deviation from the purpose of
subdivision control.
2. That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Subdivision
Approval to the subdivision as proposed, with the following condition:
That the area of the 1.35+ acre parcel may be included in the
calculation of the minimum 10 per cent recreational open space in any
potential future subdivision of the remaining lands of Tax Parcel No.
6- 34 -1 -4.
Chairman Grigorov asked for discussion of the Motion on the floor.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she assumed that all the things that
there were questions about last time had been resolved. Mr. Frantz
confirmed that they had. The questions last time were in regard to the 60
foot set back and the lot width at that set back and they have 156 feet.
The Town Engineer and Town Planner looked into the question of the septic
system and that apparently is all right. Mr. Frantz stated that he did
speak to Mr. Walker about it today and he is satisfied with it.
Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further discussion and, there
being none, called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Grigorov declared the
matter
of the consideration
of
the
proposed subdivision for the Estate of
Ruth S.
Royce duly closed at 7:46
p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL 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 N0, 6 -62 -2 -1.13, SUCH EXPANSION CONSISTING
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
Planning Board
0
November 6, 1990
ENTRY DRIVES TO THE SITE. ROBERT W. ANDREE, APPLICANT. (ADJOURNED FROM
SEPTEMBER 4, 1990, AND OCTOBER 2, 1990).
Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter
duly opened at 7:47 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above.
Mr. Andree reviewed the current
map with
the Planning
Board and the
other attendees of the meeting. Mr. Andree
stated
that, in
speaking with
the people at Cornell when they did their
master plan, as well
as the person
who drew this plan, they all felt that 60
feet was
as small as
this entry
should be which would allow them to still
get the
truck out of
here after it
was done unloading without climbing up on
a curb or
take a big
circle around
the parking lot.
Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone present wished to speak to this
matter. No one spoke. Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and
brought the matter before the Board for discussion.
Board Member Hoffmann made comment on the Traffic Study, noting that
the word that is used throughout the report is "vehicles ", and stating that
she assumed that "vehicles" means automobiles, buses and other four wheel
vehicles. Ms. Hoffmann did not see how one can call that a traffic study;
that would be called an automobile study. Traffic includes other things
like pedestrians, bicycles, horses. Ms. Hoffmann had a problem with this
being called a traffic study. Mr. Frantz clarified that this is a traffic
• study in the long -held traditional sense of a traffic study. By vehicles
this includes automobiles, trucks, buses, motorized types of vehicles. Ms.
Hoffmann noted that the traffic study that is referred to on the bottom of
the first page, current 1990 traffic on Judd Falls Road intersection,and
asked how was that done; was it done by just counting cars that drive over
the cable on the road? Mr. Frantz stated those figures were taken from the
current McDonald's study which was done by Champagne Associates. Ms.
Hoffmann reiterated that she did not think this was a traffic study when it
only counts automobiles. George Frantz was asked his opinion of these trip
generators that many of these studies utilize, but the numbers they come up
with seem really a lot smaller than a peak traffic hour. Mr. Frantz
responded that, based on his experience, the numbers seemed reasonable
compared to the Trip Generation Handbook which is comprised of data based on
empirical information.
Board Member William Lesser stated that the matter that is most
important here is that of using the entry of the gas station as an entry to
the Plaza. Mr. Lesser questioned if the connecting entry of 60 feet will
help or hinder matters. Town Engineer Walker and Assistant Town Planner
Frantz indicated that the people will try to enter the Plaza and find
themselves in a very uncomfortable spot because they will have to turn twice
and go out through a narrow road. They thought that this will have a
beneficial effect because it will make it less attractive for people to cut
through. Mr. Lesser asked what portion of traffic uses that entrance versus
the other entrance. Mr. Frantz stated that there was a study done by
• Stewart Knowlton back in October 1984 when two people stood at the entrances
and counted 150 actually using the gas station and about 350 were cutting
through to the Plaza. At the other entrance, 250 going to the Plaza and 150
Planning Board 5 November 6, 1990
• to the gas station. Mr. Lesser asked if the area would allow more traffic
through. Mr. Andree replied that, with the new structures there would be
less area for traffic to cut through, adding that they will not be able to
go either the left or the right of the kiosk because it will not be there
any more. Chairman Grigorov asked if McDonald's builds over on the other
side if that was not supposed to be one of their entrances. Mr. Frantz
responded that, with respect to McDonald's entrance to the Plaza, staff told
them very early on that having an entrance there would be a problem and they
changed it in the design. It would be much easier, coming down Pine Tree
Road, to turn right and enter at the main entrance of McDonald's rather than
trying to navigate through the gas station. Mr. Lesser asked Mr. Frantz
what he thought the width of that is going to do with using the Judd Falls
entry and access to the Plaza. Mr. Frantz felt that by narrowing it down it
will visually reduce the attractiveness because it will give a feeling of
congestion. A problem with narrowing it more is that it will make it a very
hard, sharp turn. Chairman Grigorov asked if there will be enough room for
two cars to pass at the new canopy and the tanks. Mr. Frantz confirmed that
there was plenty of room for two cars to pass.
Mr. Lesser asked if a speed bump had
been
considered
for that entry.
Considerable discussion regarding the.necessity of
a speed
bump at this
entrance followed, including consideration
that
perhaps a
sign stating no
through traffic might be a good idea.
The
Board Members continued
discussion of entrances and site changes
with
respect
to the proposed
expansion of East Hill Gulf Station.
• Board Member Hoffmann asked if the situation had been resolved
regarding the tankers filling and being on Cornell's property. Mr. Andree
clarified that Cornell does not have a problem with his tank truck sitting
there to unload. They do not approve of his tank truck making a complete
circle around their parking lot to arrive or leave the location. Chairman
Grigorov asked Mr. Andree if there were going to be discussion tonight on
the redesign of Pine Tree road. Mr. Andree stated that there were not any
definite details on that yet. A redesign of the intersection is in the
works within the next year according to County Engineeering but it still has
to go to their Public Works Committee. Mr. Frantz said it would have a
beneficial effect on this intersection if they shift Pine Tree Road over
opposite Judd Falls Road, it would eliminate a number of problems in the
area. Chairman Grigorov asked if the sign matter had been resolved. Mr.
Frantz said that would fall under the Sign Law and was an entirely different
matter. Chairman Grigorov, referring to the September 4, 1990 resolution of
the Planning Board, (attached hereto as Exhibit #1), confirmed that item #3,
information from the Zoning Enforcement Officer, will come up at the next
Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Frantz stated that each member of the
Zoning Board of Appeals is coming up with a list of items that they feel a
modern gas station sells. The most important thing that they agree upon, as
far as this project is concerned at this point, is that anything that is
sold for direct consumption would be appropriate including oil, antifreeze,
windshield wash and also coffee, soda, candy. They are defining what is a
retail gas operation today and will apply that definition to what Mr. Andree
is proposing to sell. Chairman Grigorov asked how that relates to the
• Planning Board's possible approval of this matter? Mr. Frantz reiterated
what he said at the first public hearing in that he believed this is a site
plan approval of a proposed structure and accompanying improvements. Ms.
Planning Board 6 November 6, 1990
Hoffmann felt that the physical layout has some relationship to that because
the cashier's booth is made larger in order for him to sell these additional
things, adding that it is not just adding a bathroom or things like that
which are obviously important.
Mr. Andree stated that if for some reason he decided not to sell these
additional items he would come back for a modification of the approval to,
reduce the size of the building.
Ms. Hoffmann noticed that the bathroom that is being added is just for
private use; there will be no public bathroom. Mr. Andree confirmed that at
this point it is private; they do not want to have public facilities. Mr.
Lesser asked if regulations would affect that if you are going to sell
certain things. Mr. Andree responded not that he was aware of. Mr. Andree
responded yes to Chairman Grigorov's question as to whether it would be
mostly local traffic.
Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further questions or
discussion on #4 of the September 4, 1990 resolution, "additional
information or clarification be provided on tank replacement or construction
plan ". Ms. Hoffmann noted that last time Mr. Andree said the tanks would be
replaced if he could get the money to do it, otherwise he would refurbish
them to bring the tanks up to Code, and asked if that was still planned.
Mr. Andree confirmed that was still the plan and the pipeline will be
replaced no matter what.
• Chairman Grigorov asked if there was any further discussion regarding
the provision of additional information or clarification on drainage plans
and drainage impact. Mr. Andree stated that trench drains are on the plan.
The County Highway will improve drainage when they reconstruct the highway
which will not change the direction of flow but will improve the drainage in
that area.
Chairman Grigorov asked if there was further discussion or questions
regarding solid waste generation and disposal. Mr. Frantz recalled that
there was a question on the 8/9/90 environmental assessment form as far as
how much solid waste was generated where approximately 400 pounds a month
was marked.
Board Member Lesser stated that he was still concerned that this gas
station would still be heavily used by the public for entrance to the
Plaza. Mr. Lesser asked Attorney Barney if it were possible to give a
conditional approval and then review the situation after a period of a year
or two to determine whether or not this is still an issue and at that time
specify additional steps that may need to be taken. Attorney Barney felt an
approval could be conditioned on certain steps, if they were identified now,
that could be taken up at a later time if circumstances prevail. It could
not be left up in the air and simply say the approval is granted today, but
will be reviewed in two years and at that point the approval would be
withdrawn or altered. Board members and Mr. Andree continued discussion of
approval at this time, conditions that would be required, and the period of
• time before review of this situation would occur.
0
•
•
Planning Board
7
There appearing to be no further discussion,
anyone were prepared to offer a motion with respect
November 6, 1990
Chairman Grigorov asked if
to SEQR.
MOTION by Mr. Stephen Smith, seconded by Mr. Robert Kenerson:
WHEREAS.
10 This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval 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, such expansion
consisting of replacement of the existing canopy, pumps, and cashier's
booth, demolition of an existing film /photo developing kiosk on the
site, and modification of the entry drives to the site. The number of
gasoline service pumps is proposed to increase from eight pumps to nine
pumps.
29 This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review. The Tompkins County Planning Department is an involved agency
in coordinated review.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on November 6, 1990, has reviewed
the site plan entitled "SP - Judd Falls Rd., & Ellis Hollow Rd.,
Ithaca, N.Y. ", dated 5/8/90, revised 5/22/90, 6/19/90, and 7/13/90,
prepared by Morris I. Cleverley Engineering, P.C., as amended to show a
60- foot -wide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza, and
other application materials for this submission.
49 The Town of Ithaca Planning Department has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency for environmental review
in coordinated review of the proposed action, 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, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unaninously.
Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion with
respect to preliminary site plan approval.
MOTION by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. James Baker:
WHEREAS:
• 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for
the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline station, located
Planning Board
• in a Business
Falls Road,
consisting of
booth with
demolition of
modification
service pumps
•
•
101
November 6, 1990
"D" District, at the corner of Ellis Hollow Road and Judd
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -62 -2 -1.13, such expansion
replacement of the existing canopy, pumps, and cashier's
larger canopy, new pumps, and larger cashier's booth,
an existing film /photo developing kiosk on the site, and
of the entry drives to the site. The number of gasoline
is proposed to increase from eight pumps to nine pumps.
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
acting as Lead Agency for environmental review, has, on November 6,
1990, made a negative determination of environmental significance.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on November 6, 1990, has reviewed
the site plan entitled "SP - Judd Falls Rd. & Ellis Hollow Rd., Ithaca,
N.Y. ", dated 5/8/90, revised 5/22/90, 6/19/90, and 7/13/90, prepared by
Morris I. Cleverley Engineering P.C., as amended to show a
60- foot -wide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza, and
other application materials for this submission.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED.
That the planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Site
Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Gulf gasoline
station, as shown on the site plan entitled "SP - Judd Falls Rd. & Ellis
Hollow Rd., Ithaca, N.Y. ", dated 5/8/90, revised 5/22/90, 6/19/90, and
7/13/90, prepared by Morris I. Cleverley Engineering, P.C. as amended to
show a 60- foot -wide entry between the gas station and East Hill Plaza,
subject to the following conditions:
19 The installation of a speed deterrent bump between the gasoline station
and the parking lot at East Hill Plaza, with the design for and the
installation of such bump to be approved by the Town Engineer.
29 The approval of the construction plans for the facility by the Town
Engineer.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of preliminary site plan approval
of the East Hill Gulf station expansion duly closed at 8:55 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR PHASE I -A
OF THE PROPOSED "SHALEBROOK" SUBDIVISION, PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF 12 LOTS ON
14.25+ ACRES, LOCATED AT 1138 TRUMANSBURG ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
NO. 6 -27 -1 -11.2, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15. RICHARD AND JO PERRY,
OWNERS/APPLICANTS; THOMAS NIEDERKORN, AGENT.
Planning Board 9 November 6, 1990
• Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter
duly opened at 8:56 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above.
Thomas Niederkorn addressed the Board, reviewing the details of the
subdivision and presented for the Board's consideration Phase I -A of the
proposed Shalebrook subdivision. This phase involves construction of Perry
Lane and the creation of twelve lots in this R -15 zone. It is almost
entirely in the woods. The road will have concrete gutters with macadam
roads with the lawns coming down to the gutters. The top lot has been
conditioned by the Perrys over the last couple of years and it is ready to
be used as a passive recreation area and will be proposed as part of the
recreational requirements for this particular phase. It would be accessed
by a right of way that goes into it from the end of Joseph Place when it is
built. The easement the Board requested going down Riley drive extended
into the top lot so that the Town forces could maintain it, has been agreed
to by the Perrys. Discussions have also been held with Mr. Frantz over the
past couple of months as to whether the value of the land at the top and the
work that the Perrys have put into it would not be equivalent to what the
park requirement would be for the subdivision. Mr. Niederkorn stated that
he thought Mr. Frantz concluded that, indeed, the Perrys have put in more
time and money than would be required under normal conditions. In addition
to the Deed Restrictions, the Perrys have required that the siding of all of
the structures that will be built in this subdivision would have to be
reviewed by an architectural review committee of which they would be a
part. Mr. Niederkorn felt that the Perrys were making every effort to make
• this a quiet and exclusive neighborhood in the development.
Chairman Grigorov, noting that this was a Public Hearing, asked if
there were any questions or comments from the public. There appearing to be
none, Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter
back to the Board for discussion.
Referring to the proposed Deed Restrictions (attached hereto as Exhibit
#2), Attorney Barney suggested that the Architecture Review Committee review
Deed Restriction #16 with respect to a lot owner wishing to remove an
existing tree and satisfying to that Committee that such existing tree is
endangering health, safety or property. Attorney Barney also expressed
concern with the second to the last paragraph of the Deed Restriction "For
purposes of this Subdivision, any violation of these deed restrictions shall
be considered to be a violation of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of
Ithaca ", and suggested that it should be removed.
Board Members discussed at length the approval of this subdivision at
this point in time because the Town is not acquiring anything and the need
to address the issue that if this project goes no further, then a fee in
lieu of the land would be paid to the Town. Attorney Barney wondered if the
Board would want the liability for something that is really not fixed to
anything yet developed, adding that the Board may not want title to the top
lot for Town purposes until it is, in fact, used as a lot. Chairman
Grigorov summed up the consensus of the Board that this was not really the
• time to change the condition about the acre. Attorney Barney agreed and
stated that the application to change the acre condition should occur when
.
•
•
Planning Board 10 November 6, 1990
the top lot and all the other facilities are being made available, and then
the Planning Board can review the condition.
Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further Board comments.
There being none, Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion with respect to approval of Phase I -A.
MOTION by Mr. Robert Miller, seconded by Mr. Robert Kenerson:
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for
Phase I -A of the proposed "Shalebrook" subdivision, proposed to consist
of 12 lots on 14.25+ acres, located at 1138 Trumansburg Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -27 -1 -11.2, Residence District R -15."
2. This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on June 5, 1990,
made a negative determination of environmental significance for this
project, and granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval for said Phase
I -A, subject to certain conditions.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on November 6, 1990, has reviewed
the proposed final plat for said Phase I -A of the "Shalebrook"
subdivision, entitled " Final Plat Showing Shalebrook Subdivision ",
prepared by George C. Schlecht, P.E., L.S., dated October 1, 1990, and
other application materials.
THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED:
That
the Planning Board
grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision
Approval
for said Phase I -A
of the "Shalebrook" subdivision, as
shown on the
map entitled
" Final Plat
Showing Shalebrook Subdivision ",
prepared by
George C.
Schlecht, P.E.,
L.S., dated October 1, 1990, upon
the following
conditions:
a. Approval of final drainage designs and other construction
details by the Town Engineer.
b. Modification of the deed restrictions as requested by the
Town Attorney.
c. Conveyance of the strip of land between Lots 10 and 11 to
the Town of Ithaca in fee simple instead of in easement
form.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
e
I
Planning Board
Chairman Grigorov declared
approval Phase I -A of the
9:36 p.m.
11
November 6, 1990
the matter of the consideration of final
proposed Shalebrook subdivision duly closed at
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6 -23 -1 -29.1 and -29.2
(formerly Parcel No. 6- 23- 1 -29), APPROXIMATELY TEN ACRES TOTAL, LOCATED AT
1445 TRUMANSBURG ROAD, INTO TEN LOTS, ONE OF WHICH CONTAINS AN EXISTING
DWELLING. GUY L. BURRELL, BEATRICE B. BURRELL, AND JOHN TILITZ, OWNERS;
JOHN TILITZ, APPLICANT.
Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter
duly opened at 9:37 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above.
Mr. John Tilitz
approached the Board and reviewed the
location of the
proposed subdivision.
Mr. Tilitz stated that
preliminary
subdivision
approval was granted
February 1989 at which time
there were
questions about
sewer accessibility.
An easement has been obtained
since that
time and Town
Engineer Walker confirmed
that this issue has been
resolved.
An 8- foot -wide
trailway would be put
in when lots 2 and 3, which are
adjacent
to that area,
are developed. Mr.
Tilitz addressed the issue
of drainage
in that George
Schlecht, the Engineer
for this project, developed
a plan that
will maintain
the present grade and
water will naturally flow to
a mechanism where it will
be dispersed.
40 In response to Chairman Grigorov's query, Town Engineer Walker said
that the drainage was satisfactory and explained drainage and grading
details that would be under his final approval prior to issuance of any
building permits.
Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any persons from the public who
would like to speak.
Mr. John Wolf of 1431 Trumansburg Road addressed the Board and asked if
this area was zoned for this type of development. It was noted that it is
zoned for this type of development and is zoned R -30. Mr. Wolf also advised
the Board that there are deer on that property and they cross through to the
woods.
Regarding the trailway condition ( #3 in the proposed resolution), the
dedication of the right -away to the Town is proposed and the construction of
the trail. Mr. Frantz recalled that came out to be the equivalent of the
10% requirement. The trailway will be eight -foot wide, paved, and will be
appropriate for bicycles and walking. The question was raised if a 20 -foot
easement should be placed along the westerly line of lot #5 for sewer and
other utility or municipal purposes. Mr. Walker said that insofar as the
existing lots there probably would be no problem in getting an easement
through those back lots because those people would be served. One
consideration is that since there is no one living back there now, there are
• no complaints. Attorney Barney suggested that a condition be added that the
Town receive title of the land from the Poyer Subdivision for the placement
of sewer service prior to issuance of any building permits. Mr. Frantz
Planning Board 12 November 6, 1990
• discussed the changing of the proposed name to one which is distinct in
sound and spelling from any other street. Attorney Barney stated that the
Town should receive a new subdivision map with the new name stated. Mr.
Frantz also brought up the issue of the revision of the rear yard setback
line for Lot No. 1 to show a 50 -foot rear yard setback from the northern lot
line. Mr. Tilitz will be building these houses himself. Mr. Walker
addressed the water situation stating that the Town is aware of the
situation and this subdivision did have a preliminary problem that is being
corrected at this time.
Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further public or Board
comments. There being none, Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and
asked if anyone were perepared to offer a motion with respect to
consideration of final subdivision approval for the proposed subdivision.
MOTION by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. James Baker:
WHEREAS:
16 This action is the Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6 -23 -1 -29.1 and
-29.2 (formerly Parcel No. 6- 23- 1 -29), located at 1445 Trumansburg
Road, Residence District R -30, approximately ten acres total, into ten
lots, one of which contains an existing dwelling.
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board, on February 7,
40 1989, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and
granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval, subject to certain conditions.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on November 6, 1990, has reviewed
the proposed final plat for the proposed subdivision entitled
"Engineering Plan for Westfield Subdivision ", dated September 10, 1990,
prepared by George C. Schlecht, P.E., L.S.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED.
That the
Planning Board
grant and
hereby
does grant Final
Subdivision
Approval to the
subdivision as
proposed,
subject
to the following
conditions:
19 Submission of an agreement, for approval by the Town Board, with
respect to the development of off -site water and sewer systems, such
that the developer will participate in the cost of rehabilitation of
the sewer main below Tompkins Community Hospital in the amount of
$300.00 per dwelling unit, prior to issuance of any building permits.
2. Approval by the Town Attorney of any easements from adjoining lands
related to sewer extension, prior to issuance of any building permits.
39 Construction of an 8- foot -wide trailway to specifications approved by
the Town Engineer, prior to the issuance of any certificates of
compliance for dwellings on Lots No. 2 and 3, except as such condition
• may be modified by the Planning Board upon recommendation by the
Planning Department and the Park and Open Space Planner /Manager.
Planning Board
4. The gra
•
drainage
and the
issuance
13
November 6, 1990
nting of a drainage easement to the Town for maintenance of any
dispersal system, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney,
final approval of drainage plans by the Town Engineer, prior to
of any building permits.
5. Receipt by the Town of title to land from the Poyer Subdivision for the
location of the sewer service, prior to issuance of any building
permits.
6. Receipt by
the Town of
a 20- foot -wide
easement along
the westerly lin
of Lot No.
5 for sewer,
other utility,
or municipal
purposes.
7. The changing of the proposed name "Westfield Road" to one which is
distinct in sound and spelling from any other street within the Ithaca
Post Office service area, and, whatever the new name is, the Town must
be given a subdivision map with the new name.
8. Revision of the_ rear yard setback line for Lot No. 1 to show a 50 -foot
rear yard setback from the northern lot line of that lot.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith.
Abstain - Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
• The MOTION was declared to be carried.
Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of Final Subdivision Approval,
for the Tilitz subdivision duly closed at 10:20 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED
30 -FOOT BY 18 -FOOT "GAS CYLINDER STORAGE DOCK ", PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6- 64 -1 -2, EAST OF THE CORNELL ORCHARDS AREA
APPROXIMATELY 2,100 FEET SOUTH OF NYS ROUTE 366 AND 2,500 FEET WEST OF GAME
FARM ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; ARTHUR G.
STIERS, AGENT.
Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter
duly opened at 10 :21 p.m.
Arthur Stiers addressed the Board and stated that what Cornell is
seeking is a gas cylinder storage dock at the warehouse #2 complex in the
Orchards area. This location is an approved storage yard for University
materials and this function is an ancillary -type facility for the existing
warehouse. Mr. Stiers informed the Board that presently the warehouse
stores small amounts of compressed gasses in cylinder form and a vault -type
structure located at the Humphreys Service Building, which is a more
congested area and they are getting deliveries now via semis which puts a
semi into very restricted quarters and causes quite a bit of congestion. In
• order to get the cylinders to the warehouse, the current process requires
handling the cylinders twice. Chairman Grigorov asked Mr. Stiers if that
was hazardous. In response, Mr. Stiers explained that it is compressed
Planning Board 14 November 6, 1990
• gasses, such as oxygen, essentially welding gasses, (CO2, nitrogen,
oxygen, propane, acetylene). These are not hazardous. Cornell would like
to provide an elevated dock so they may be removed from the truck in an
easier fashion, and the proposed covered dock would keep snow, rain or ice
off the cylinders. It is essentially a roofed dock, the dock approximately
3 feet from ground level, and the roof about 14 1/2 feet from ground level.
Mr. Stiers stated that it would be in an approved storage yard of the
complex and will provide greater supervision of the dock and better
accessibility for the delivery and return of cylinders. Board Member
William Lesser inquired if there was any filling of tanks on the property or
do all the tanks come in fully loaded. In response, Mr. Stiers replied, no,
because there is a contract with Elmira Gas. Mr. Stiers stated that the
proposed site is currently a storage yard and that expansion of the approved
area will be necessary. The area is already set up for easy access by
semis. Chairman Grigorov reported that upon visiting the site it is a
stoney flat area with hills around that would block visibility. Board
Member Hoffmann expressed her concern that it is not safe because there are
no walls, leaving it easily accessible to anyone. Mr. Stiers stated that
Life Safety has a 24 -hour facility out there and that this is a standard
means of storage for gas cylinders. If it were to be enclosed in any way
you get into very heavy construction such as reinforced concrete. Vandalism
with a sledgehammer would have to be used to do any real damage to the
cylinders. The cylinders are very heavy and it would take quite a strong
person to throw them around. The cylinders are chained in place and there
are requirements of the National Fire Prevention Codes that have to be met
as far as securing gas cylinders. The Fire Deparment prefers this type of
. situation because of the ease in taking care of any problem that might
occur. Ms. Hoffmann expressed her concern that with a large volume of tanks
there may be a great explosion. Mr. Stiers explained that there is a
greater risk of fire and /or explosion if the tanks were stored within a
building. Chairman Grigorov said that another question from the
Environmental Review Committee was if this project was urgent and is the
present storage system a dangerous situation. (The comments of the ERC,
which the Board members had before them, are attached hereto as Exhibit
#3.) Mr. Stiers stated that the present storage is in a confined vault
area, on -site, and there is a confined vault area on another site. The
biggest problem would be the hazard of semis trying to access this very
congested area. Cornell is trying to alleviate that situation by
I
mplementing the proposed gas cylinder storage dock.
Board Member James Baker asked what the projected life use of this area
is, to which Mr. Stiers responded that, at the present time, it is used as
an approved storage yard and it has capacity to hold an entire truckload and
that the new structure will hold more than what we would need at this time.
Chairman Grigorov stated that the G /EIS is progressing and asked Town
Engineer Walker to review that so the Planning Board would be aware of the
current status. Mr. Walker stated that Facilities Engineering and
Facilities Planning at Cornell are in the process of developing plans for
the Orchards area. They have retained design consultants, civil engineering
consultants and environmental consultants. Town Supervisor Raffensperger,
Attorney Barney and Mr. Walker met with the consultants and staff from
Cornell who are in the process of preparing of draft scope for Cornell's
generic environmental impact statement perhaps within the next couple of
.
Planning Board
15 November 6, 1990
• weeks. Cornell will then give Town staff copies to review and then bring
that proposal before the Planning Board hopefully the first or second
meeting of December. Cornell is committed to doing a comprehensive plan and
will go into great detail on the Orchards area and will be including the
area between Route 366, Pine Tree Road, and Snyder Hill Road as the general
geographic study area which should answer many of the questions over the
past few months about what the plans are and how the accumulated impacts can
be addressed.
In response to a question on the estimated construction cost of the gas
cylinder dock facility, Mr. Stiers stated it would be between $20,000 and
$25,000. Mr. Frantz expressed the concern of the Environmental Review
Committee that some environmental assessment questions were answered
incorrectly. Ms. Hoffmann said that this continues to be a problem and that
perhaps the area should be rezoned. Even though this is an R -30 zone,
schools are included by special approval. Mr. Frantz said it is not a
question at this time as to whether or not it is a compatible use in the
R -30 zone, however, as a support use for the educational institution it does
comply with existing zoning. Mr. Frantz recalled that the warehouse may or
may not have received special approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals since
it was before that Board reviewed such matters, but there was a building
permit issued for this complex at some time in the past and that is the
current valid permit or approval.
Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any public comments. There being
none, Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and asked for any further
• Board comments. There being none, Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone were
prepared to offer a motion with respect to this matter.
MOTION by Mr. Robert Kenerson, seconded by Dr. William Lesser:
WHEREAS:
16 This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval for a
proposed 30 -foot by 18 -foot "Gas Cylinder Storage Dock ", proposed to be
located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 64 -1 -2.
2. The proposed project is located within the existing Cornell University
General Stores warehouse storage yard, east of the Cornell Orchards
area approximately 2,100 feet south of NYS Route 366 and 2,500 feet
west of Game Farm Road, in a Residence District R -30 zone.
3. 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.
4. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on November 6, 1990, has reviewed
the proposed site plan, environmental assessment form and review, and
other submissions related to this propossal.
• 50 The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for this action.
.
de
Planning Board 16 November 6, 1990
• 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.
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.
3. That the Planning Board report and hereby
Board of Appeals its recommendation that
University for Special Approval for a propos
Cylinder Storage Dock ", proposed to be located
of the existing General Stores warehouse on
No. 6- 64 -1 -2, be approved,
does report to the Zoning
the request of Cornell
ed 30 -foot by 18 -foot "Gas
in the storage yard area
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
There appearing to be no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
• Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the Cornell gas cylinder storage
dock duly closed at 10:45 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman Grigorov stated that she would like to have a nominating
committee for next year's officers and asked William Lesser to chair the
committee and Eva Hoffmann and Stephen Smith to be members of the
committee. The committee would present nominations for chairman,
vice - chairman and whether or not the committee would recommend Carolyn
Grigorov and Bob Kenerson for another term because their terms expire at the
end of this year. The nomination for chairman would come back to the
Planning Board for recommendation to the Town Board. The nomination for
vice - chairman is actually elected by the Planning Board itself.
Chairman Grigorov asked for a volunteer to represent the Town Planning
Board on the County Planning Board and will approach Virgina Langhans to
continue as the Town's representative.
•
.
O
Planning Board 17 November 6, 1990
AGENDA ITEM. REPORT ON THE PROPOSED NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
40 TRANSPORTATION ROUTE 13 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT.
Chairman Grigorov opened the discussion on the above -noted matter at
10:51 p.m. and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above.
Mary and Robert Swansbrough, of 605 Elmira Road, approached the Board
and stated that they were concerned about what was going to happen with
their property. Board Member Robert Kenerson asked Mr. and Mrs. Swansbrough
if they had heard any explanation from anyone. Mrs. Swansborough responded
that they have not heard anything, in fact they have not even been kept
informed about meetings. Mrs. Swansbrough stated that she works in a
restaurant and heard that 3 -4 years ago this project was being planned.
Chairman Grigorov remarked that the NYSDOT was in charge of the project
and they are getting comments from the Town and City. Mrs. Swansbrough said
that no matter how the project proceeds their house will be wiped out.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz indicated on the appended map where the
Swansbrough home is located. Mr. Frantz noted that the home is located on
the southeast side of Route 13.
Mr. Frantz, again pointing to the map, stated that "this" is Bell's
Convenience; "this" is Route 13A (Five Mile Drive); "this" is Sandbank Road;
"this" is Buttermilk Falls Road; "this" is the old railroad embankment.
Continuing, Mr. Frantz pointed out the bridge over Buttermilk Creek that is
• to be replaced; "this" is the bridge over the railroad and the Cayuga Inlet
to be replaced. Pointing to the map, Mr. Frantz said that "this" version is
the four -lane; the proposal is to begin just south of Bell's with two lanes,
widen it, redo the intersection at 13A. Mr. Frantz said that the centerline
would shift 24 feet from the existing centerline to the southeast, and this
would be four lanes all the way into the City. Mr. Kenerson wondered if the
old abuttments would be taken out, with Mr. Frantz replying that it looks
like they are going to build the easternmost two lanes of the road first
while probably keeping the old bridge open, then the old bridge comes down
so they can start over again. Mr. Frantz stated that two of the four lanes
are going to be built over the site of the existing bridge. Board Member
Smith wondered if a lot of traffic was anticipated on Route 13A. Mr. Smith
commented that he thought that was the only reason the DOT would construct
four lanes. Board Member Miller offered that he had attended a meeting
where it was stated the bridges are in need of replacement. Mr. Miller said
that the DOT also stated that it was cheaper to build four -lane bridges
rather than two -lane because with four lanes a temporary bridge does not
have to be constructed; they build two lanes at a time. Mr. Miller said
that two choices were offered as to whether one wanted two lanes between the
bridges or four lanes. Mr. Miller, directing his comment to Mr. Frantz,
stated that the DOT has four lanes locked in all the way through. Mr.
Frantz agreed with Mr. Miller.
Mr.
Frantz,
pointing to the
map,
said
that "this"
is
the
two -lane
proposal
which,
essentially,
widens
out
to three
lanes
to
provide a
• left -hand turn lane onto Route 13A, then it narrows back down to two lanes
as it crosses the new railroad bridge, then it widens out to four lanes
between Sandbank Road and the Buttermilk Falls entrance, then it is four
Planning Board 18 November 6, 1990
• lanes all the way into the City. Mr. Frantz stated that he had viewed the
cross - section and the difference between four lanes and two lanes is that
the four -lane version is about 22 more feet of width in the area being
impacted by the project. Mr. Miller offered that it was 2 million dollars
more to build the four -lane. Mr. Kenerson noted that sewer and water would
be extended in that areas it is Industrial Zoned, Business Zoned, and ten
years after the DOT gets through the four lanes are needed. Mr. Miller
wondered what happened to the original plan where the plan came down
Newfield Hill and went down way around behind Turback's. Mr. Kenerson
commented that they are still talking about it. Mr. Miller stated that he
felt the DOT was mainly concerned about the new bridges,
Mr. Frantz commented that he did not know if anyone has ever been under
the bridge over the railroad track. Mr. Kenerson responded that it is in
terrible shape. Mr. Frantz stated that he went under it once and, yes, it
is in bad shape. Mr. Kenerson stated that construction would start in 1993
and take two years to complete. Mr. Smith wondered if the DOT was going to
improve the vertical curve. Mr. Kenerson said that it looks like the same
grades and visibility lines. Mr. Smith said that it sort of looks like they
collapse all the lanes right at the worst part as far as the vertical curve
goes. They all start to converge back to two lanes. Mr. Frantz, indicating
on the map, stated that the sight distance is really bad right "here ",
adding, it is not so bad "here ". Chairman Grigorov stated that whichever
the DOT does, they would be taking out the Swansbrough house. Mr. Frantz
agreed with Chairman Grigorov, adding that he highlighted the Swansbrough
home on the map, along with highlighting the proposed right of way. Mr.
• Frantz noted that "this" line is the toe of the proposed embankment of the
road. Mr. Frantz said that in both cases it appears the Swansbrough house
has to be removed. Mr. Lesser wondered what would happen if it remained two
lanes, with Mr. Frantz responding that it is really the same thing. They
are still moving the road "this" way, toward the Swansbrough home. Mr.
Frantz stated that he thought the major problem was that the DOT has to keep
"this" bridge open until they get at least two lanes of the new one built.
Mr. Frantz stated that there is no feasible detour route for traffic. Mr.
Frantz offered that farther down in the Town of Newfield on Routes 34/96 the
DOT is replacing the overpass over the railroad grade, and at that point
they had room to build a detour, several thousand feet in fact, but that
does not have near the level of traffic. Mr. Miller stated that he felt
that if they were going to put four lanes in they should go all the way out
to the Routes 34/13 intersection, because in his opinion they are not
gaining anything by putting four lanes in "here ". Town Engineer Dan Walker
stated that there was a technical review session with the DOT, and the Town
staff, City staff, and County staff were in attendance. Mr. Walker said
that, primarily, with the budgetary situation within the State right now
they do not have money to build highway improvements for traffic, they have
funds available for bridges only, especially dangerous bridges. Mr. Walker
stated that he thought the engineers at the State recognize the fact that
four lanes are needed, for the amount of traffic that is there right now,
and the situation where it comes right down to the City line, is very
dangerous because of the downgrade and everything. Mr. Walker commented
that he thought what they were trying to do by having the two bridges in the
• project and putting the four lanes in between was to do some traffic lane
improvements under the auspices of a bridge replacement. Mr. Walker
remarked that the principal reason for that alignment is so that they can
Planning Board 19 November 6, 1990
• utilize that bridge for traffic. Mr. Walker thought that regarding traffic
control, volume -wise it is the least expensive way for the State to
construct the improvements since the bridge is there, and there is a large
amount of traffic. Mr. Kenerson wondered if there would be a center
divider, with Mr. Walker resonding, no, it would be the same basic
configuration as down in the City.
Chairman Grigorov wondered if a bikeway has been considered. Mr.
Frantz answered, no. Mr. Miller offered that a bikeway was mentioned at the
meeting he attended, because the State Park and the City have already bought
some rights on the old railroad track across the abuttment, commenting that
there was discussion on constructing a bridge across there. Mr. Frantz
stated that the State Parks has purchased the railroad right of way, and
their plan was at one time to, yes, bridge the gap, use it for Cayuga Inlet
Bicycle Pedestrian Trail which would connect Cass Park, and Robert Treman
State Park, with Buttermilk Falls State Park. Mr. Frantz- stated that, as
proposed, the abuttments would be taken out and the embankment graded back.
Mr. Frantz stated that he had talked with Jesse Miller, State Park Engineer,
about the possibility of constructing a bridge, and Mr. Miller stated that
it would essentially double the length of the bridge they would need to do
that. . Mr. Frantz noted that one proposal is the possibility of raising and
lengthening the bridge over Buttermilk Creek and putting a
bikeway /pedestrianway underneath it to connect the Park that way. Mr.
Lesser stated that that sounds expensive. Mr. Frantz stated that he has not
had a chance to study whether or not a bicycle lane the length of Route 13
is somethina that would be feasible or annronriate. Chairman Crianrnv Raid
• that she thought the Transportation Subcommittee of the Comprehensive
Planning Committee would probably want bike lanes along all the roads. Mr.
Frantz commented that, if the Town were to decide through the Comprehensive
Plan that the Inlet Valley were to be developed for residential, then an
area would be created that would generate bicycle commuter traffic between
this area and the City, and he would recommend something along there. Mr.
Walker said that the Route 13 alignment itself may not be the most
attractive place for that because of the grades, etc. Mr. Walker stated
that he thought there were some lower areas down along the Flood Plain area
that could probably be developed for the recreationway. Mr. Frantz said
that the Cayuga Inlet Trail Project is actually several phases. Mr. Frantz
pointed out Phase I, and noted that Phase II would connect Buttermilk Falls
State Park via a trail through the wetland area to the east with Robert
Treman State Park. Mr. Frantz said that that would provide a much nicer
alternative. Mr. Kenerson remarked that the Planning Board has no veto
power, and wondered if there would be another meeting held. Mr. Miller
responded that the State did not have all the details about the road, but
they are going to have another meeting and they are listening.
Mr. Frantz stated that in his mind the two primary concerns are the
impact on the wetland. Mr. Frantz remarked that it does not appear that the
State is actually infringing on the physical wetland itself, but he felt
that there could be some negative impacts, drainage - wise. Mr. Frantz said
that another question the State has to investigate is whether or not there
are any archeological resources in this area "here". Mr. Kenerson mentioned
• the old schoolhouse (presently the Waldorf School) where there used to be an
old Indian Village. Mr. Frantz responded that it was quite large for an
Indian community and has been identified, but he has no knowledge of what
F,
Planning Board 20 November 6, 1990
• the extent of it was. Mr. Frantz stated that he was sure the State would be
doing archeological studies. Mr. Lesser wondered if there were any plans,
as part of the project, to realign the connection of Route 13 to Route 13A.
Mr. Frantz responded, yes. Mr. Frantz, pointing to the map, stated that it
is going to come around like "this ". Mr. Lesser asked if that was enough to
accomplish anything. Mr. Miller commented that there is already a left turn
there. Town Engineer Dan Walker commented that that is going to be a bad
intersection no matter what they do. Mr. Miller said that the State is
going to try to build the railroad overpass to get a better line of sight.
Mr. Walker noted that right now the State feels that the level of service on
Route 13A would decrease, with Mr. Walker commenting that the City, Town,
and County staff members present at the meeting held about a month ago did
not feel that was acceptable because with the improvement of Route 13
traffic will be travelling faster through there. Mr. Walker stated that the
State responded that the consultants really have not looked at that, but
they would do so. Mr. Walker said that the alignment considerations and the
land takings are a major issue that was brought up at the meeting. Mrs.
Swansborough, of 605 Elmira Road, said that she did not think speeding was a
problem on Route 13 as the traffic is too heavy.
Mr. Kenerson, directing
other houses would be lost. Mr.
the only one that appears
Lillian Teeter home in that the
his comment to Mr. Frantz, wondered if any
Frantz replied that the Swansbrough home is
to be lost. Mr. Frantz mentioned the Leo and
road itself appears to not be moving closer
to it. Mr. Miller
Mr. Walker said that
asked about the width of the current road right
he thought it was wider than 60 feet because
of way.
of the
• slopes. Mr. Frantz pointed out the existing right of way line on the map,
and noted that it appears the State would be taking about 10 feet of the
Teeter property.
Mr. and Mrs. Swansbrough are very concerned about the loss of their
home. Attorney Barney responded that the State has to compensate the
Swansbroughs.
At this point, Mr. Frantz informed the Swansbroughs that the Town has
provided the State with the names and addresses of all adjacent property
owners. Mr. Frantz said that the State has the ability to notify the
owners. Mr. Frantz stated that if the Town receives any notices from the
State he would notify the Swansbroughs.
Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any other comments. There being
none, Chairman Grigorov declared the Report on the proposed New York State
Department of Transportation Route 13 bridge replacement and road
A
mprovement project duly closed at 11:20 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairman Grigorov declared the November 6, 1990 meeting of
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
• Respectfully submitted,
Teresa Manheim, Temporary Secretary,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
• East Hill Gulf Station
Ellis Hollow and Judd Falls Road
Robert W. Andree, Inc., owner
Planning Board, September 4, 1990
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Stephen Smith:
RESOLVED,
by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, that
the
Public
Hearing in the
matter of Consideration of Preliminary Approval
of
of
Modified Site
Plan for the proposed expansion of the East
Hill
Gulf
gasoline station
be and hereby is adjourned until October
2,
1990 at
7:30 p.m., to
allow time for the applicant to provide the
following
information.
10 Completion
and clarification
of
the Environmental'
Assessment
Form,
Part
I
and
Part
II.
2. Additional information as to the dimensions, illumination,
height, and lettering of the proposed sign.
3. Information from the Zoning Enforcement Officer as to any
interpretations by the Zoning Board of Appeals of use of
a building for about 200 sq. ft. of commercial space in
a Business "D" District.
• 4. Additional information or clarification be provided on tank
replacement or construction plans.
s. Additional information or clarification be provided on
drainage plans and drainage impacts.
69 Impact on traffic - More information on the Tompkins County
plan for relocation of Pine Tree Road,
76 Information concerning the salt - intolerance of the proposed
Yews on the landscape plans.
8. Additional information or clarification be provided on
solid waste generation and disposal.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann, Lesser.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
mb/9/6/90
a
c
•
•
SHALEBROOR
Deed Restrictions
1. The land shall be used for residential purposes only and may
be improved with one single family dwelling per lot. There
may be one subordinate apartment unit per dwelling which may
not exceed the lesser of one -third of the total square
footage of the structure, or 650 square feet. Each dwelling
is required to have a garage capable of housing at least two
,automobiles. Such garages and other structures incident to
private dwellings, including no more than one single level
storage shed not exceeding 250 square feet, shall be
compatible with the e terior design of the residence. No
carports are permitted. Garage doors are to be kept closed
when not in use":y
2. The living spaced area of any dwelling, exclusive of open
porches, bay windows, basements and garages, will not be less
than 1500 square feet. The ground floor area of any completed
dwelling and related non - permeable surfaces, such as porches,
patios, driveways and sidewalks, shall not exceed 15% of the
total lot size.
3. All passenger vehicles of any kind belonging to permanent
residents of the dwellings and subordinate apartments must be
parked on the lots, off of the adjacent streets. Occupants of
each subordinate apartment are limited to two vehicles.
4. The premises shall not be used for storage of any kind or
nature except during' the course of construction of any
improvement to the land and normal storage incidental to
residential use.
5. No fence or walls other than the wall of a building shall
exceed six (6) feet in height above.the natural ground.
6. The lots are not to be subdivided into smaller'lots.
7. The premises shall not be used for commercial purposes except
for an accessory office or home occupation, as described in
the Town Zoning Ordinance,
8. Hunting and trapping shall not be.allowed on any lot.
9. No open uncontained or unattended fires will be allowed on
any lot,
10. No poultry, cattle, sheep, horses, pigs, goats, pigeons or
other animals, except domestic pets, will be kept on any lot.
No kennels, birds or insects used for commercial purposes are
permitted. Domestic pets must be restrained on leashes
whenever they are off the owner's premises.
•
+ L
11. The exterior of any structure and finished grading and
seeding must be completed within one year from the start of
construction. All driveways shall be completed with an
asphalt surface within two years from the start of
construction. The date of issuance of the building permit
shall be deemed to be the start of construction,
12. No above - ground swimming pools, or freestanding and visible
TV, FM, ham radio or' aerial towers or television satellite
dishes will be permitted on any lot.
13, No trailers, mobile homes or tents can be permanently located
on any lots,
14. Mailboxes, newspaper receptacles and related posts will be
specified by the developer and shall be maintained by the
owner in a neat and orderly fashion.
15. All snowmobiles, boats, unlicensed automobiles, motorcycles
or other machinery or equipment will be parked inside the
structures on each lot. Recreational vehicles belonging to
lot owners or visiting family or friends may be parked on the
lot for no more than two weeks per year.
16. Every effort will be made to preserve the integrity of the
area with regard to plants, trees and other vegetation,
Pesticides, herbicides or toxic substances are to be used.in
a responsible manner. No.tree in excess of eight (8) inches
in diameter at a level of four (4) feet above the ground will {
• be unnecessarily removed. The only exception to these
clearing restrictions may be made when a lot owner can �
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the onin En or ce -men ��.
Officer for the Town of Ithaca that afl `existing ree is
endangering health, safety or property,
17. No improvement upon any lot within the Subdivision will be
equipped with exterior lighting causing direct or indirect
glare, Direct or indirect glare is defined for the purpose of
these restrictions as illumination beyond property lines
caused by direct or reflected rays from any form of lighting.
This provision does not apply to the lamp posts required in-
item 21:, which are intended to provide street illumination.
18. 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 motor operated vehicle, bicycle, and the like, 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.
19. Subject to other provisions of the covenants, owners of
vacant lots are responsible for clearing the lots of
underbrush and debris and keeping them mowed on a regular
basis,
•
• � J
20. Garbage containers are to be stored inside the structures on
each lot except for the day each week when garbage pick -up is
scheduled.
• 21. Each lot owner will be responsible for installing,
electrifying and maintaining one lamp post the style of which
will be specified by the developer. Such lamp post will be
controlled by an electric eye and placed in a location
identified by the developer near the street.
•
is
22. All plans for location, architectural style and exterior
building materials of the initial homes on each lot,
subsequent additions and modifications, and storage
structures must be approved by an Architectural Review Board
before construction may begin. Excessive excavation and fill
should be avoided and the natural slope of the land
incorporated in the site plans. On lots 6, 7, 18 and 19 rear
yard setbacks shall be at least 80 feet from the center line
of Williams Brook and no construction shall occur within such
setback area or extend beyond the edge of the gorge.
23. For purposes of initial construction on each lot, the
Architectural Review Board shall consist of Richard A.-Perry,
Mary Louise Perry and Thomas Neiderkorn. For purposes of
subsequent additions, modifications and storage structures,
the Architectural Review Board shall consist of three lot
owners to be elected by a majority of lot owners. Such Board
members shall serve three -year terms 1, with the exception of
the initial terms of two members which shall be for one and
two years.respectively so that in subsequent years one term
will be expiring each year. Such Architectural Review Board
may become part of a homeowners' association should the
residents of Shalebrook choose to form one.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, any zoning regulation more
restrictive, with respect to matters set forth above, shall
govern. Conversely, any' of the aforementioned covenants more
restrictive than any applicable zoning regulation, shall govern.
The Town of Ithaca may, but is not obliged to enforce these deed
restrictions or purposes of this Subdivision, any violation o
these deed re's`trictions shall be considered to be a violation of
the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca r
Amendments or modifications to these restrictive covenants may be
made by the vote of at least 75 percent of the owners of lots in
the subdivision, upon Town Board approval.
06/14/90
•
Kra 9c"
• 10/30/90 ER Comm.'s comments on CU's gas sylinder storage shed
We note that some EAF Qs were ans'd. incorrectly:
#8
yes
should
be no
#11
yes
should
be no
We note that we were not supplied with topographic information, so
that we could not properly analyze.impacts.
We note that the additional information that would have been provided
by the new EAFs was not supplied
We note that this project is an additional incremental industrial
use in an R -30 zone
Our recommendation:
Is there some urgency for this project? I.e., Is the present
storage system for these gas sylinders a dangerous situation.)
If yeses -- then applicant must come back with a statement of how
this project will address that danger.
Project review could then move ahead, but not until after
applicant provides a security design (so that, e.g., the
open shed will not be accesible to vandals) --
• and provides analysis of any potential impacts on (1)
Cascadilla creek and (2) BTI experiments.
If no -- then do not act on this project at all until CU has
supplied a DEIS on its entire plans for this part of town,
to include among other things details on where all of the
University's industrial- type--support facilities are to be
located. And for this particular project, in proximity to Casca-
dilla, we assume the EIS will address general protection for that
stream and gorge.
•
•
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
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
d
•nd that the first publication of said notice was on the 1
day of 'S \1 � , e r 19
Subscribed and sworn to before me, thiiss� C day
•
/?LI
Notary Public,
JEAN FORD
Notary public, State of New York'
No. 4654410
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission expires May 31, 19tq/ J
TOWN OF,._ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
'NOTICE OF PUBLICmHEARING
TUESDAY; NOVEMBER 6, 199
By: direction of the:,Chairma
of the Planningg Board, NOTIC
IS HEREBY,GIVEN,sthot Publi
Hearings 'will; be• held by th
Planning Board of the Town o
Ithaca on Tuesday; Novembe
6, 1990, in Town Hall, •126 Eas
Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., a
the following times and on th
following matters:
7:30 P.M. Consideration of-
Subdivision Approval for the
Proposed subdivision of op.. I
proximately 1,35 plus /minus.;
acres from Town of Ithaca Tax °
Parcel No. 6- 34 -1 -4, located at
231 Enfield. Falls Road, Resi- ,
Bence District R -30. Estate of
Ruth S. Royce, Owner; George a
i R. Pfann, Esq.; Agent:'
S 1 7:45 P.M. .Consideration of
01 Preliminary. Site Plan Approval.
n ; for the proposed expansion of
E the East Hill Gulf gasoline,sta
c tion, located in a Business "D ".
e District, at the corner of Ellis
f I Hollow Road and Judd Falls 1i
r I Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Par -'
t' cel No. 6 -62 -2 -1.13, such ex-'l
t pan, sian consisting of replace:"
e ment of 'the existing. canopy,:.
Pumps, , and .cashier s booth I
with a larger canopy, , new
Pumps, and larger cashier's
booth, demolition of an exist -•
ing film /photo "`de'veloping
kiosk on the site, and modifi -'
cation of the entry drives to I
the site. Robert W. Andree,
Applicant. (Adjourned from
September 4, 1990 and Octo-
ber 2, 1990.)
8:15 P.M. Consideration of Fi -'
nol Subdivision Approval for
Phase I -A of the proposed
"Shalebrook" subdivision,
proposed to consist of 12 lots
on 14.25 plus /minus acres, lo- '
cated at 1138 Trumansburg
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- I
cel No. 6-27 -1 =11.2, Residence 1
District R -15. Richard and Jo I
Perry, Owners /Applicants;
Thomas Niederkorn, Agent. .
8:45 P.M. Consid'eroiion of Fi-
nal Subdivision Approval' for
the proposed subdivision .of
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No.
6 -23 -1 -29.1 and -29.2 (for-
merly Parcel No. 6- 23- 1 -29),
approximately ten acres total, I
located at 1445 Trumansburg J
Rood, into ten lots, one of j
which contains• an, existing
dwelling. Guy L. Burrell, Be- i
atrice B. Burrell, and John Ti -'
litz, Owners; John 'Tllitz, Ap-
plicant.
9:15 P.M. Consideration 'of a
Recommendation to the Zon-
ing Board of Appeals with re-
spect to a request for Special '
Approval for a proposed 30-
foot by 18 -foot "Gas Cylinder '
Storage Dock", proposed to i
be located on Town of, Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 6- 64 -1 -2, east ,
of the Cornell Orchards area
approximately 2, 100 feet
south of NYS Route 366 and .
2,500 feet west of Game Farm
Rood, Residence District R -30.
Cornell University, Owner; Ar-
thur G. Stiers,'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 .
November 1, 1990