HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1990-11-20•
•
•
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
November 20, 1990
FUM
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date ?):1&� 0 -2
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, November 20, 1990, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York at 7 :30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Stephen Smith, Robert Miller,
Robert Kenerson, James Baker, Eva Hoffmann, Daniel R. Walker
(Town Engineer), George Frantz (Acting Town PLanner), John
C. Barney (Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Sylvia G. Wahl, S. Hecht, Harrison Geiselmann, Jaime
Hecht, W. T. Johnson, Candace Cornell, David Collum,
Genevieve & Donald Henry, Vivian King DeSanto, Robert
Dyer, Kristin Suacca, Sally Ezra, Karen Karplus, Sarah
How, Kim Conner, B. Afton, Allen Lambert, Steve
Lucente, John Whitcomb, William Phelan, Joan Reuning,
Sanford Reuning, Linda Loomis, Laura Marks, Richard H.
Mandl, Robert Mitchell, Dr. Frank Flacco.
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 November 13, 1990, and November 15, 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, upon the Clerk and Building Commissioner
of the City of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning, and upon the applicants and /or Agents, as appropriate, on
November 13, 19900
Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 095+ ACRES FROM TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6- 29 -6 -321 LOCATED AT 141 WEST HAVEN ROAD,
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15. ESTATE OF MARY A. AXTELL, OWNER; GENEVIEVE
W. HENRY, AGENT,
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 7:31 p.m.
Genevieve W. Henry addressed the Board stating that there is a
buyer for the Mary Axtell house and the property that the house sits
on, but the buyer does not want the other lot or the upkeep of it.
Ms. Henry stated that they themselves would like to eventually build
there. Ms. Henry stated that there is a drainage area that comes
down through the other part of the lot, but it is to one side of the
lot, and the other side of the lot is very buildable.
Ll
Planning Board
N
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a
asked if anyone present wished to speak.
November 20, 1990
public hearing and
Vivian K. DeSanto, local real estate broker, addressed the Board
as agent for Dr. Frederick Mitchell who is out of town at this time
and read the following statement.
"Dr. Mitchell owns the lot at 151 West Haven Road, and he is
concerned about the decline of property values in this neighborhood,
if this subdivision is approved. Most of the properties to the North
of Dr. Mitchell's property have a 200 foot frontage, or better, and
all of those properties to the East, are at 200 feet, or more. He
feels that if the property in question is subdivided, the value of
his property would be greatly diminished.
From Route
79,
the frontages
on the East side
of
the street are
as follows:
187,
125,
several at 217.5,
243, 309, 200,
200, and then
down to 140.5,
140.5
and on to 100
foot frontages.
The
houses at the
Southern end
of
the
street give a feeling
of being
packed
together,
while the
homes
at the Northern
end have a feeling
of
spaciousness
about them.
This
is
readily apparent
if you just casually
drive down
this street.
Also,
the frontages
on the West side
of
the street are
much larger
for
the
Northern part of
the street that
we
are concerned
about.
We feel that creating two 100 -foot lots will be setting a
precedent of 100 -foot lots for that area, especially since there is
much open land in the area that will probably be developed one day.
Also, a problem could be created by a house being built on the
proposed northermost lot, since there is a pipe directly underneath
the area where a house would probably be built, which diverts water
from the hill above it, thru the land and on down the hill. It could
also be an expense to the Town to divert that culvert.
Dr. Mitchell currently has had plans drawn to construct a home on
his property at 151 W. Haven Road. If the subdivision is approved,
it means that his property will be adjacent to a much smaller home,
which will decrease the value of his proposed home and those around
it. We request that this subdivision be rejected, in order to
preserve the property values of the immediate neighbors and to
forestall any problems and expense to the Town."
Mr. Donald Henry, 140 West Haven Road, addressed the Board and
stated that he has lived across from the property since 1947, adding
that he has 160 feet of frontage and about 400 feet of depth. Mr.
Henry has worked that area considerably and mentioned the drain that
runs under the road. Mr. Henry said it is not going to be a problem
for someone to build there, adding that since he built his home it
has drained sufficiently during the time that he has lived there. He
noted that lots were purchased in the area before water, gas and
• sewer service were available.
1
Planning Board 3 November 20, 1990
• Mr. Robert Mitchell, of.153 W. Haven Road addressed the Board and
stated that he owns property adjacent to and also behind Dr.
Mitchell's home. Mr. Mitchell mentioned the drainage in the area.
Mr. Mitchell also mentioned the right -of -way that the property in
question currently uses as a driveway. Because the property is small
it does not have its own driveway and, currently, access is via Mr.
Mitchell's driveway. Mr. Mitchell agreed with Ms. DeSanto that a
small lot like that sets a precedent, adding that there was a
subdivision, Rose Hill, that was turned down for the same area
because the lots were too small. Chairperson Grigorov clarified that
that subdivision was not turned down, it was actually abandoned. Mr.
Mitchell also owns the house two lots down from subject lot which is
considerably larger than any house that could be put on the property
which he felt would detract from the value of that house.
Dr. Frank Flacco, owner of 8 -1/2 acres across the road with
frontage of 450 feet, addressed the Board and stated that he has
invested a lot of money into his property and does not want something
built on a half acre of land that is going to devalue his property.
Mrs. Genevieve Henry, in response to Dr. Flacco, stated that the
house plan the Henrys have picked out is a lovely cedar -sided
contemporary house plan that is about 1,700 square feet, adding that
she felt that that part of the presentation should be negated.
Chairperson Grigorov stated that these are legal 100 -foot lots,
•, so it is not a question of the average size of the lots in that
neighborhood; the zoning of that area permits 100 -foot lots. In
response to Board Member Robert Miller's question of where the
drainage actually flows, Chairperson Grigorov asked Mr. Frantz if he
had knowledge of this situation. In response, Mr. Frantz said that
the stream did not seem to be a problem because it was to one side
leaving enough room to build a house on that lot. Mr. Henry stated
that the drain, 50 feet from the end of the lot,- facing East,
crosses the lot of the lady that is buying 141 and the lot under
discussion. Mr. Henry said the stream has been a natural flow off
from the area since he has lived there.
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.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann noted that if one looks South all of
the houses are quite close together and the proposed subdivision
would not appear to be inconsistent with the other homes on that end
of the street. Chairperson Grigorov inquired if the building permit
process would take care of the placement of the house as far as
drainage. Attorney John C. Barney answered that it is whatever the
building code requires.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any further Board
• comments. There being none, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone
were prepared to offer a motion with respect to SEQR.
e
Planning Board 4 November 20, 1990
MOTION by Mr. Robert Kenerson, seconded by Mr. Robert Miller:
•
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of approximately 0.5 acres from Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 29 -6 -32, located at 141 West Haven Road,
Residence District R -15.
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on November 20, 1990, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form, a plat entitled
"Survey Map of 141 West Haven Road - Lot 64 - Town of Ithaca -
Tompkins County - New York ", prepared by Kenneth A. Baker, L.S.
and dated June 28, 1989, and other application materials.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action as
proposed.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
• Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion with respect to approval.
MOTION by Mr. Stephen Smith, seconded by Mr. Robert Miller:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of approximately 0.5 acres from Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 29 -6 -32, located at 141 West Haven Road,
Residence District R -15,
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
November 20, 1990, made a negative determination of environmental
significance.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on November 20, 1990, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form, a plat entitled
• "Survey Map of 141 West Haven Road - Lot 64 - Town of Ithaca -
Tompkins County - New York ", prepared by Kenneth A. Baker, L.S.
and dated June 28, 1989, and other application materials.
Planning Board
5
November 20, 1990
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board.
2. That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as shown on a plat
entitled "
Ithaca -
Baker, L.S
that the
the issuan
northerly
Survey Map of 141 West Haven
Tompkins County - New Y
. and dated June 28, 1989,
Town Engineer approve the
ce of any building permit
lot.
Road - Lot 64 - Town of
ork ", prepared by Kenneth A.
subject to the condition
plans for drainage prior to
for construction on the
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Mary A. Axtell
Estate Two -Lot Subdivision duly closed at 7 :50 p.m.
STAFF REPORT IN RE BRIARWOOD SUBDIVISION WETLAND MATTER,
Chairperson
Grigorov called upon
Mr.
Frantz and Attorney Barney
to report on the
above -noted matter
at 7:51
p.m.
Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board was to consider
whether they could revoke the Briarwood Subdivision Approval that was
given several years ago, upon the grounds, among others, that there
may have been misinformation in the SEQR application forms. Attorney
Barney stated that they met with Ms. Candace Cornell and Mr. Hecht,
talked to Ms. Susan Beeners who was the Town Planner at the time,
and spent time reviewing the law pertaining to circumstances under
which a Planning Board may revoke its approvals previously given.
Attorney Barney stated that the review did not find any Appellate
Court decision that unequivocally came down one way or the other even
though there were several lower court decisions which interpreted
Section 267 of the Town Law and other legislative acts in two
different ways. First, the majority of the decisions said that once
the Planning Board had made its decision, its jurisdiction to review
the matter terminated, and, based on that, Attorney Barney said the
Planning Board would not be in a position to review, at this date,
the Lucente matter. Second, in extreme situations in a couple of
other cases where the courts took a different position, they said, in
• effect, that the Planning Board could review an approval. Attorney
Barney said that, unfortunately, the conflict on these two points of
view has not been resolved in any definitive way by an Appellate
Planning Board 6 November 20, 1990
• Division or Court of Appeals decision. Attorney Barney reviewed the
SEQR application as it was presented by Mr. Lucente in 1986 or 1987
and reviewed the concerns that Ms. Cornell and Mr. Hecht had, and, in
Attorney Barney's opinion, if the Planning Board considered revoking
the approval it should make a strong finding that there was something
not quite akin to fraud but quite a deviation from what was
understood in the filling out of the SEQR form, more than just an
ordinary mistake because of the time that has gone by, adding that it
would be different if we were reviewing this immediately after the
granting of a subdivision approval or in the process of granting
subdivision approval. Attorney Barney stated that, technically, the
statute of limitations to challenge the action of the Planning Board
by anybody has long since expired and it would take more than a
simple mistake for the Board to review it. Attorney Barney in
general found that the level of mistake, if there was a mistake made,
is not such that would warrant this Board to take the extreme action
of revoking a previously granted approval. Attorney Barney noted
that the question of whether there was a wetland there or not, was
interpreted by Ms. Beeners, Mr. Lucente, and a number of other
subdivision applicants. Attorney Barney said that at the time these
forms were filled out the question was directed to DEC regulated
wetlands which were 12.4 acres in size or otherwise unique or special
in some fashion. Ms. Cornell did not feel that the questions
relating to types of soils were answered correctly and Attorney
Barney said there may be some basis that this is true, but not such
that it warrants review of the subdivision three or four years after
• the initial approval. If the Board chose to revoke their approval
and the matter was litigated, Attorney Barney stated that the Board
would probably end up not being able to sustain that position, and,
based on that, Attorney Barney recommended at this time it would not
be appropriate for this Board to revoke. Attorney Barney cited a
couple of cases where a developer won such proceedings. Acting Town
Planner George Frantz felt that we should not second guess Ms.
Beeners' approval and that the Board should accept that approval as
such, adding that the law has changed since 1989. Mr. Frantz had
discussed this issue with Mr. Conan of the Corps of Engineers and, as
of today, there is no official determination as to the status of the
wetland and, unofficially, it appeared not to be a significant
wetland requiring a permit, but may fall under what is called the
Nationwide Permit which would allow the property owner to fill up to
one acre of wetland.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if any members of the staff or members
of the public wished to speak about the matter.
Mr. Allen Lambert, of 313 East Falls Road, addressed the Board
and stated that he attended the last meeting and had the opportunity
to talk with the Lucentes and learn more detail, from their
perspective, and felt that a primary objective to emphasize was to
process the taking of a more active role in Town planning to guide us
into a new future. Mr. Lambert stated that he was not an attorney,
• but he would address the issues presented by Attorney Barney. Mr.
Lambert said that he had been involved in legal actions against
public agencies, and felt that some of the advice Attorney Barney
Planning Board 7 November 20, 1990
• gave to the Board comes out very pessimistic, adding that one of the
things we know about lawyers is that they all disagree, and very
creative lawyers are the ones that win cases and set precedence, and
are those that go out and look for ways to solve the problem in favor
of the client's view. There is a mish -mash of law and no settled
opinion in many cases and that is why a creative lawyer finds a way
to solve the problem for the client's interest. Mr. Lambert said
that, in this case the clients are the Planning Board and the Town,
adding that he felt there are ways to do it. Mr. Lambert disagreed
strongly with the notion that a minor mistake is not something you
can take issue with, if that were the case we all would have been
dead long ago. For example, if a bank makes a mistake, even if it is
a typo which is a minor mistake, the bank can come back and claim
money back from you because you do not have the right to hold money
because of a typo. Mr. Lambert brought to the Board's attention a
number of ways to look at minor mistakes noting that it is not the
motive behind the mistake that makes a major difference here; it is
whether the mistake has significant consequences. Mr. Lambert
summarized that it is now time to recognize that there is going to be
a major miscontinuity between the future and the past and to take
into our hands and control, design a new way to live, to organize
land and a new way to organize our place on the land, and our
relationship to the land. Mr Lambert stated that we need to do that
starting with the Briarwood Subdivison wetland matter by taking an
encouraging role in our destiny and finding ways to do that legally.
• Ms. Candace Cornell, of 1456 Hanshaw Road, addressed the Board
and thanked Attorney Barney for talking with her a few weeks ago.
Ms. Cornell stated that she would like to further review the cases he
presented and reiterated the fact that she felt the Town should
rescind the permit based on all the materials she had reviewed. Ms.
Cornell and David Collum offered a constructive resolution to the
matter of Mr. Lucente's not allowing the hydrological soil test to be
performed. They suggested that the Town Planning Board write a
letter to the Corps of Engineers stating that the issue is unresolved
and ask that the Corps of Engineers request an individual permit from
Mr. Lucente, Ms. Cornell stated that by requiring this individual
permit, the studies that are needed would be done, and then whatever
results that came out would be accepted in lieu of an environmental
impact statement that was never performed.
Mr. William Phelan, 209 South Geneva Street, spoke in support of
what Ms. Cornell and Mr. Collum suggested and felt that the Board has
a responsiblity to the community to balance both sides and make a
decision.
Mr. Jaime Hecht of 1446 Hanshaw Road addressed the Board and
spoke in support of Ms. Cornell's and Mr. Collum's suggestion and
felt that this matter should be acted upon and communicated to the
Army Corps of Engineers very quickly.
• Attorney Barney asked those present if they had seen the November
71 1990 letter from Mr. Rocco P. Lucente to Chairperson Grigorov
(attached hereto as Exhibit #1). Barbra Afton, 1436 Hanshaw Road,
Planning Board 8 November 20, 1990
• stated that she did not feel that, according to Mr. Lucente's
letter, he would have any objection at all to a trained scientist
coming in and taking a look because he seems to feel that it will
come out in his favor. Mr. Collum stated that he cannot believe that
a company that makes money from environmental impact statements for
contractors, which has got to be the primary source of income for
these companies, can possibly be an unbiased evaluator of the
environmental impact because of the conflict of interest.
Mr. Hecht felt that Mr. Lucente stated in his letter that he
would abide by the decision of the Army Corps of Engineers and that
focusing on the request of the Town Planning Board to have an
individual permit may tend to minimize the conflict. Attorney Barney
asked Mr. Hecht to define the significance of an individual permit.
Mr. Hecht said his understanding, in a nutshell, is that it opens up
the use of the land to hearings, and there would be more input as
opposed to generalized criteria. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Hecht
what the criteria are for determining whether a nationwide as opposed
to an individual permit should be issued. Mr. Hecht responded that
he did not know and thought that would be defined by the Army Corps
of Engineers. In response to Attorney Barney's question of what
triggers the Army Corps of Engineers into action, Ms. Cornell stated
local importance, special circumstances, and probably in this case,
the relationship to Sapsucker Woods would be the special circumstance
that should be explored and determination made whether there is a
hydrological link or not. Attorney Barney asked Ms. Cornell if, in
• having the Board write the letter that they are requesting, they are
implicitly having this Board state that this is of such ecological
significance that it deserves the hearing process that would flow
with an individual permit. Ms. Cornell said the Board could say the
community has the ecological concern. David Collum stated that the
Army Corps tendency is to go national because they do not have to do
anything, but if the local community said that they were interested
in this, then they can go for the individual permit which then allows
review. The Board does not have to take a position other than the
community is strongly interested. Ms. Cornell stated that initially
she read that the criteria needed was enough public sentiment, and
she collected the petitions to demonstrate public sentiment and sent
them to the Army Corps of Engineers. Ms. Cornell noted that William
J. Waltman, who is a hydrologist for Cornell, has looked at the site
and has stated that it is wet. Mr. Waltman has worked both sides of
the fence and he understands the importance of wetlands and has
stated that the Army Corps of Engineers should understand and
seriously study any project planned in a wetlands area, but they are
limited by a major workload and by budget limitations, adding that
the criteria they have used are the relative value of the wetland and
the relative size of the area being affected. Ms. Cornell stated
that the Corps is only looking at the area for subdivision and not
looking at the hydrological connection to Sapsucker Woods or the
property between Sapsucker Woods and the proposed subdivision.
• Sylvia Wahl, of 1426 Hanshaw Road, addressed the Board to express
her concern about the water table. Ms. Wahl stated that they have
lived there since 1957 and they have a dug well which has been in
Planning Board 9 November 20, 1990
existence for over 12
put in the water
believes that there
subdivision is appr
into consideration as
5 years, adding that when the sewer system was
level in their well dropped three feet and she
will be tragic results if the proposed
oved. She asked the Board to take this example
to what could happen in Sapsucker Woods.
Board Member
Eva Hoffmann felt that it would
be a good
idea for
the Planning Board
to write the letter to
the Corps of
Engineers
requesting them
to evaluate the situation so
that some
of these
questions could
be answered. Attorney Barney
felt that it
would be
appropriate
for
the
Planning
Board
to write such
a letter.
Steve Lucente, of 981 Taughannock Boulevard, addressed the Board
and offered to supply Army Corps materials to the Board so they could
study them and see how complicated and complex the rules are, which
would give the Town an idea of what they were getting into. Mr.
Lucente encouraged the Town to study these materials before they
decide if they really want to get involved in the complex issues of
wetlands regulation by approaching the Corps and asking them to issue
an individual permit to the project. In response to Attorney
Barney's question as to what harm there would be in making such a
request from the Army Corps of Engineers, Mr. Lucente stated that to
his knowledge there has never been an individual permit issued,
adding that there has been a review of Sapsucker Woods by the Corps
and they should be able to make a determination from that file.
• Chairperson Grigorov closed the public discussion and opened the
matter to Board members. Attorney Barney, Chairperson Grigorov, and
Messrs. Miller and Baker discussed whether the letter should be
written from the Town Board or the Planning Board and Attorney Barney
did not see anything terribly wrong with the Planning Board writing
the letter.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to make a
motion regarding writing a letter requesting consideration of an
Individual Permit for the Briarwood Subdivision to the Army Corps of
Engineers.
MOTION by Mr. James Baker, seconded by Mr. Robert Miller.
WHEREAS, it has been brought to the attention of the Board that a
number of members of the community are concerned about the wetland
area within the bounds of the Briarwood Subdivision and believe that
it would be appropriate that an Individual Permit rather than a
Nationwide Permit be considered;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board request
and hereby does respectfully request that the Army Corps of Engineers
review that request and act on it.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any discussion from the
• Board Members with respect to the Motion. Mr. Kenerson stated that
the Board should be sure before the letter is sent that there is some
time and thought given to the implications and possibilities. It was
L`
Planning Board 10 November 20, 1990
decided that Attorney Barney, Chairperson Grigorov, Mr. Frantz, and
Ms. Hoffmann would get together and write the letter.
There being no further discussion the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Briarwood Wetland discussion
duly closed at 9:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
FOR FOUR ADDITIONAL LOTS ON LANDS OF THE INLET VALLEY LAND
COOPERATIVE, INC., LOCATED AT 167 CALKINS ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO. 6- 33- 1 -4.2, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30, AND FURTHER,
MODIFICATION OF THE LOT LINES AND DIMENSIONS OF LOTS NO. 1, 4, AND 8
WITHIN SAID INLET VALLEY LAND COOPERATIVE, SAID LOTS BEING TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6- 33- 1 -4.4, -4.7, AND -4.11. INLET VALLEY
LAND COOPERATIVE, INC., OWNER; H. ALAN WOOD, AGENT.
Chairperson
Grigorov declared
the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter
duly opened at
9:02
p.m.
Chairperson Grigorov read a letter dated November 19, 1990 from
Mr. Larry Phillips to Town Supervisor Shirley Raffensperger, as
follows:
"I am a member /stockholder of Inlet Valley Land Cooperative, Inc.
and am therefore a part owner of the land being considered for
subdivision.
I am opposed to further development and subdivision of this
property. it was originally sold on the basis of being a way to
prevent further development and maintain a neighborhood at a fixed
density. This was ensured to prospective buyers through a provision
in the by -laws of the corporation requiring unanimous approval for
further development.
I realize that the town does not wish to get involved with
internal matters of the corporation, but a lot of time and effort can
be wasted if the corporation does not yet have the authority to carry
through with this request, since it does not have unanimous approval.
This issue is further complicated by the fact that an offering
plan is still required. In a letter to the town board at the time of
the original subdivision approval, the town attorney stated that
approval be contingent upon all necessary state approvals being
obtained. They were, in fact, never obtained and as a result of
years of litigation and hardship followed which is not over yet.
• The town is now in the position of being asked to do the same
thing all over again.
Planning Board
11
November 20, 1990
• This is even further complicated by the fact that state approval
for the original subdivision is still a matter of controversy and is
being withheld by the NY State Attorney General.
With regard to modification of lot lines, my only request is that
I have an opportunity to see such proposed modification in advance of
a town board meeting in which some action will be taken.
A description of such changes
has
not been
circulated to the
members of the corporation but
probably
will be
in the near future.
If they are not to be acted upon
at this
meeting,
this will not be a
problem."
Chairperson Grigorov noted
that
this was
a public hearing and
asked if there were anyone from the public
who wished
to speak.
Mr. Jerry Weisburd, who lives at the Inlet Valley Coop and is a
member of the Cooperative, addressed the Board and stated that he had
not seen Mr. Phillips' letter, adding that Mr. Phillips has not lived
at the property for three years and it was their understanding that
Mr. Phillips will be selling his interest and therefore it is not
clear why Mr. Phillips is bringing this up. Mr. Weisburd stated that
Mr. Phillips has been notified of every meeting the Corporation has
held and has had the same opportunity to discuss and look at its
actions and has not taken that opportunity, adding that there is no
current litigation. Mr. Weisburd explained to the Board the status
• of the past litigation and reported that the last correspondence from
Mr. Mellman, fChief of the Real Estate Division of the New York State
Department of Law, recommended that the matter be settled among the
members and there was no requirement that they return to the Attorney
General, therefore, there is no outstanding business with the
Attorney General.
Ms. Linda Loomis, owner of Lot #8 on 167 Calkins Road, addressed
the Board stating that she did not feel that to date all the problems
were resolved and that some letters need to be written that agree
with the Attorney General's requirements.
Mr. Richard A. Mandl of Lot #4
Board and stated that the people
are working together to come to
problems. Regarding Mr. Phillips
unanimous requirement in the by -la
legal requirements.
on 167 Calkins Road, addressed the
of the Inlet Valley Land Cooperative
a viable conclusion of the past
' letter, Mr. Mandl said there is no
ws and they have followed all the
Mr. Weisburd stated that the last time the Cooperative met with
the Town the discussion was regarding whether the road was to become
a Town road and whether or not to keep it as a private road. The
Cooperative still wishes to keep the road private but to change the
format from a Cooperative to a Homeowners' Association, the
difference there being that instead of each of them having a
• leasehold and proprietory lease to use that leasehold, they would own
their own lots in fee simple, and the remaining area would be held by
a Residents' Association, Mr. Weisburd explained that there is a
Planning Board
12
November 20, 1990
• technical difference making financing easier, adding that the road
would stay exactly the same but with improvements, still retaining
the density of eight acres per lot. Mr. Weisburd reviewed the lot
changes indicated on the Final Subdivision Plat dated August 16,
1990. Mr. Weisburd, in response to Attorney Barney, stated that
there is already an easement in place to assure lot owners to the
West of Mr. Phillips access to their properties.
Mr. Sanford Reuning, owner of Lot #3 on 167 Calkins Road and
Secretary of the Inlet Valley Land Cooperative, addressed the Board.
Mr. Reuning is responsible for notifying all members of the
Cooperative of meetings and issue minutes of the meetings to the
members, which includes Mr. Phillips, who has not responded within
the last year by attending any of the Cooperative's meetings. Mr.
Reuning has records of all the votes which are unanimous, with the
exception of Mr. Phillips, for their attempts to resolve this matter
as it is being presented. Attorney Barney stated that he assumed
that every owner of a lot will be a mandatory member of the
Homeowners' Association and subject to assessment for expenses of the
common areas which would require that an offering plan be submitted
to the Attorney General, Mr. Weisburd responded that the Attorney
General would be asked for a "no- action" letter which is ususally
granted if the offering is less than ten lots. If the offering is
public it would require the Association to ask the Attorney General
for a "no- action" letter. Attorney Barney inquired about a
modification of any prior offering plan and Mr. Weisburd responded
• that the Attorney General's authority only goes to the offering,
adding that as far as the Attorney General is concerned, whatever
happened previously happened without the plan being filed but the
offering was completed and everybody bought their lots, and further
adding that they do not follow cooperatives or homeowners'
associations once the offering is complete. Mr. Weisburd stated that
the Attorney General is the only one who has authority. Attorney
Barney stated that there never was an effective offering plan
submitted to the Town, adding that the Town was concerned about not
receiving that effective plan and now being told that the three new
lots do not require Attorney General approval. Attorney Barney
offered that prospective purchasers could buy illegally if there is
not approval from the Attorney General's ofice in place, either an
effective offering plan or a no action letter, and the Town should
get one of the two. Mr. Weisburd stated that they would get the
approval but essentially once the Planning Board was satisfied it
would be automatic and they would not have to come before the Board
again. Attorney Barney stated that if the Board chose to grant the
subdivision it would be a condition of that subdivision approval that
approval of the By -laws, receipt of a no- action letter, and several
other items would have to be in place before building permits were
issued. In response to Attorney Barney's question, Mr. Weisburd
responded that the three new lots would belong to the Cooperative and
would be transferable to the Homeowners' Association, adding that the
money received would be used to maintain the private road. Mr.
• Frantz recommended that the matter be adjourned until the Board
receives a consistent application as to the number of lots actually
Planning Board
13
November 20, 1990
• being requested. Lengthy discussion followed with respect to each of
the several aspects of the proposal.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Mr. Robert Kenerson, seconded by Mr. Stephen Smith.
RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, that the Public
Hearing in the matter of consideration of preliminary subdivision
approval for four additional lots on lands of the Inlet Valley Land
Cooperative, Inc., located at 167 Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6- 33- 1 -4.2, Residence District R -30, and further,
modification of the lot lines and dimensions of Lots No. 1, 4, and 8
within said Inlet Valley Land Cooperative, said lots being Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6- 33- 1 -4.4, -4.7, and -4.11, be and hereby is
adjourned until December 18, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in order that the
applicant may have time to submit the following information to Acting
Town Planner George Frantz, and to allow time for the Environmental
Review Committee of the Conservation Advisory Council to review same.
1. Corrected Short Environmental Assessment Form, to be submitted by
November 27, 19900
2. Revised plat eliminating Lot #11,showing the road easement on the
common land, showing the road easement across the Phillips'
• property, and differentiating between the improved common road
and individual driveways, to be submitted by November 27, 19900
3. Homeowners' Association By -Laws.
4. Homeowner's Association Certificate of Incorporation.
5. Declaration of Restrictive Covenants governing all of the lots
and common areas.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of preliminary
subdivision approval and modification of lot lines for the Inlet
Valley Land Cooperative duly adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM.
REPORT OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL IN RE SIX MILE CREEK.
• Laura Marks, Chair of the Parks, Natural Areas, and Stream
Corridors Committee of the Conservation Advisory Council, presented
the Six Mile Creek Report to the Planning Board. Ms. Marks stated
c
Planning Board 14 November 20, 1990
. that not only was the Six Mile Creek valley important and reasons to
protect the area an important issue, it also has come about that they
have worked hard to improve City /Town interrelationships and
understanding of the Six Mile Creek corridor. Ms. Marks stressed
that this is a Town proposal and is better than what the City asked
for and that the time should be taken to read the proposal so at the
December 4, 1990 Planning Board meeting there can be an informative
discussion with questions and answers. Ms. Marks stated that on the
Town survey 86% of the respondents thought that the Six Mile Creek
area ought to be protected. (See Exhibit #2 attached -- "Executive
Summary ".)
Chairperson Grigorov thanked Ms. Marks for her presentation.
CONSIDERATION OF FINAL 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
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,
APPLICANT.
Chairperson Grigorov opened discussion on the above -noted matter
at 10:00 p.m.
• Mr. Frantz stated that the reason he has asked the Board to
consider this is that the only substantial condition of preliminary
approval was the inclusion of a speed bump. The second condition was
approval by the Town Engineer of the final construction details of
the project. Mr. Frantz noted that this project has been under
review by staff since May and since the September 4, 1990 Planning
Board meeting has had three public hearings, adding that if the Board
wished, they could grant final approval at tonight's meeting. Mr.
Frantz reviewed the modification of the entry drive to the site.
Ms. Hoffmann wondered about the truck that would be filling the
tanks. In response to Ms. Hoffmann, Mr. Andree pointed out the
directions the tanker would enter and exit the property. Mr. Andree
talked about the height of the new canopy which houses the fire
suppression equipment and discussed the lighting arrangement. Ms.
Hoffmann was concerned about the length of the canopy and wondered if
it was necessary to have such a high clearance height, in that she
thought it would be such an imposing structure. Mr. Kenerson said
that the canopy would be 121 feet in length, and the height has to be
such so that a recreational vehicle could fit under it. Ms. Hoffmann
wondered about the height of the fascia board on the canopy. Mr.
Andree answered that it was about two to three feet. Ms. Hoffmann
was very concerned that the gas station would be like a station that
one sees along a freeway - a really huge facility rather than
• something that is suitable for a neighborhood corner.
Planning Board
15
November 20, 1990
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion.
MOTION by Mr. Robert Kenerson, seconded by Mr. James Baker.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the Consideration of Final 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 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. The number of gasdoline service pumps
is proposed to increase from eight pumps to nine pumps.
2. The Planning Board, at Public Hearings on September 4, 1990,
October 2, 1990, and November 6, 1990, has reviewed the proposed
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, the Long Environmental Assessment Form, the
staff environmental assessment and recommendations, and other
• application materials and information related to the proposed
project.
39 This is a 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.
4. The Planning Board, on November 20, 1990, has reviewed the site
plan as further amended to show a speed deterrent bump between
the proposed gasoline station and the parking lot of East Hill
Plaza.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board grant and here
Plan Approval for the proposed expans
gasoline station, as proposed, subject to
that the site construction plans for
approved by the Town Engineer prior to the
permit,
by does grant Final Site
ion of the East Hill Gulf
the following condition.
the proposed facility be
issuance of any building
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann.
• Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Planning Board 16 November 20, 1990
• Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Robert W. Andree
East Hill Gulf Station Expansion Final Site Plan Approval duly closed.
AGENDA ITEM: REPORT OF TOWN ENGINEER IN RE CODDINGTON ROAD SEWER
EXTENSION.
Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that a petition was submitted to
the Town on March 16, 1990 requesting an extension of water and sewer
service on Coddington Road.
At this point,
Resolution
November 8,
No. 202 from
1990.
Chairperson
Grigorov
read
into
the record
the
Town of
Ithaca
UNIVERSITY PESTICIDE
Town
Board
meeting of
"RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca that the
Engineer's preliminary feasibilty study on the extension of public
water and sewer service on Coddington Road be passed on to the Town
of Ithaca Planning Board and to the Conservation Advisory Council for
their comment and recommendations back to the Town Board."
Town Engineer Dan Walker presented and spoke at length about his
Preliminary Engineering Report on the Coddington Road Sewer and Water
Extension (Report attached hereto as Exhibit #3). Lengthy
discussion followed.
Chairperson Grigorov stated that her comment would be that
intensive land use often follows municipal extensions. Mr. Kenerson
said that if the watershed is to be protected one can do it through
municipal systems. Stephen Smith wondered how one can comment on
this without commenting on Six Mile Creek. Mr. Walker commented that
he did not think one could; one has to look at both. Acting Town
Planner George Frantz stated that there is really no expectation for
the Board to comment on the sewer issue tonight. Mr. Walker stated
that he would like to hear, from an engineering standpoint, the
comments of the Board after they have had a chance to consider the
Report and some other things that are going on, adding that he would
suggest everyone have an opportunity to thoroughly look over the
Report in light of the comments that he made tonight. Mr. Walker
stated that the Report is a very preliminary engineering evaluation
with ballpark cost figures, and looked forward to the opinions of the
Planning Board, Conservation Advisory Council, Comprehensive Planning
Committee, and the public. Mr. Walker said that there will be a
public hearing on the issue if it is decided to go that far, and the
actual final design will be to determine how best to serve the people
that need to be served.
AGENDA ITEM.
REPORT
ON
STATUS
OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY
G /EIS.
REPORT
ON
CORNELL
UNIVERSITY PESTICIDE
STORAGE PROJECT.
• Mr. Walker reported that the GEIS is progressing, and the Town is
expecting a preliminary scope to-come in from Cornell, adding that as
soon as it does the Planning Board will get copies of it. Mr.
Ll
Planning Board
• Walker, reporting on
State Construction
pesticide program
facilities, adding
now because of some
being stored.
n
U
•
ADJOURNMENT
17
November 20, 1990
the pesticide storage project, stated that the
Fund is the Lead Agency. Mr. Walker said that the
involves a number of prefabricated storage
that there is a real fire hazard and danger right
of the conditions under which pesticides are
Upon
Motion,
Chairperson
Grigorov
declared
the
November 20, 1990
meeting of
the Town
of Ithaca
Planning
Board duly
adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary S. Bryant, Recording Secretary,
Teresa A. Manheim, Temporary Secretary,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
C:
•
•
Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov,
Town of Ithaca Planning
Town of Ithaca
126 E. Seneca St.
Ithaca, New York 14850
November 7,1990
Chairperson
Board
Re:Briarwood
Wetlands
Subdivision
Determination
Dear Mrs. Grigorov.
I am writing to respectfully decline John G Whitcomb's
and Dr. William Waltman's offer to offer their scientific
opinion on the referenced matter. The matter being studied
is whether the Briarwood Subdivision contains federally
regulated wetlands and if so what portion of those wetlands
must be permanently protected and what portion may be
developed under Federal Permit. To expand the study to newly
contrived assertions that the subdivision in some way is
hydrologically connected to Sapsucker Woods or invaluable
to its habitat would only serve to further confuse the issue.
I have been proceeding in a cooperative manner with the
Town of Ithaca to answer the national wetlands question. As
mentioned in Mr. Whitcomb's letter, I chose TES as my consultant
after receiving a list from the Corps of Engineers with their
name listed as a qualified consultant. Mr. Vincent Lucid,
the principal in charge, has over ten years of experience
in wetlands delineation including extensive experience in
New Jersey coastal investigations. I was very impressed by
his knowledge of the National Wetlands legislation and how
it pertains to the matter at hand. He came highly recommended
and has recently been involved in all wetlands delineation
studies for Wilcox Press and Tompkins County, Mr. Don Wilson
of the Corps of Engineers has been involved in the Regulatory
work regarding wetlands for almost five years.
As has been explained to Mr. Whitcomb, although the standard
procedure might have been an office review of my consultant's
report and delineation, because of the great public outcry,
the Corps of Engineers chose to independently delineate the
wetland within the Briarwood Subdivision to be able to directly
review my consultant's report and application. In addition,
I am informed that because of public concern, Mr. Ed Franz
of Cortland DEC has visited the site to verify that the State_
has no jurisdiction in the Briarwood Subdivision matter.
Beyond this scrutiny by objective public officials
charged with the public trust, a little logic could go far
to dispell many of the fears unjustly raised by the public
with respect to Sapsucker Woods. Whatever scientific observations
Dr. Waltman might have made, nothing is more conclusive beyond
a simple reading of the Tompkins County Soil Survey than the
fact that in excavating the road bed and sewer twenty feet
down to rock in 1989 not a gallon of water was pumped out
of the sewer trench. Since this trench extended the full length
of the project it is conclusive that no underlying water table
connects in a positive way to Sapsucker Woods. Even if it
did the Town of Ithaca should have considered same when they
EXHIBIT 1
A
•
• extended water and sewer from Salem Drive across to Sapsucker
Woods Road some 500 feet north of the Birchwood Subdivision.
Anyone who walked the land would see that the drainageway
that has caused the wetlands of interest begins in my subdivision
In the Town of Dryden and stays wholly on my lands once backlot
of Sapsucker Woods Road. I attempted to show thise-to Mr. Whitcomb
in the field when the matter first exploded in July but perhaps
the public contentions have obscured the plain and observable
facts.
Prior to the campaign to preserve my land by those who
have enjoyed its openness for the over twenty years I have
owned it, I was engaged in serious negotiations with Sapsucker
Woods to add a portion of my lands directly south of Sapsucker
Woods to the land the Sanctuary owned and controlled. This
public campaign to further limit the legal use of my land
has caused me to suspend these negotiations to keep all options.
What is more pertinent to the case at hand is that at a point
in those discussions, I offered all my land north of the
Briarwood Subdivision as part of the deal. Cornell
representatives reponded that the only interest and need from
the Sanctuary's viewpoint was the land generally north of
the aforementioned water and sewer lines. So it seems the
people who manage the Sanctuary and should know best had a
contrary view to the assertions currently being made only
nine months ago.
• I am still intent on cooperating with the Town within
legal reason. I am acting on the presumption that I have a
Final Subdivision Approval of the Town of Ithaca. I have
cooperatively ceased all construction on my subdivision, with
the exception of the construction of my own home in an area
not in dispute, since July 16,1990. I intend to abide by the
ruling of the Army Corp of Engineers to the extent my land
rights are not taken.
With the renewed assertion that the State Wetlands are
not at issue in this matter, I must renew my opinion that
the Town should leave the resolution to the designated
enforcement agency, The Corps of Engineers. Any action by
the Town compromising my approval under Town laws can only
complicate the matter and bring the issue of unfair taking
out when we have colectively avoided that potential confrontation
to date.
The TES field delineation is completed. The independent
Corp delineation in the field is completed. My consultant
is currently preparing the report and final map for submission
to the Corps of Engineer's for review. We are proceeding
toward the responsible solution that was outlined in my earlier
letter and I look for the Town to focus on the issue at hand.
Sincerely,
Rocco P. Lucente
506 Warren Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
EXHIBIT 1
n
U
0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The fact that Six -Mile Creek Valley is a valuable natural resource
to the public is indisputable. There are, however, choices to be
made about protecting private property for the public good. This
report, Six -Mile Creek Valley: A Heritage to Preserve, prepared by the
Parks, Natural Areas, and Stream Corridors Committee of the Town of
Ithaca's Conservation Advisory Council, discusses the reasons to
protect the area and the critical issues to be addressed as well as
recommending ways in which to achieve protection of the resource.
The report was generated in response to the Valley's ecological
importance, increasing development pressure in the area, and the
City of Ithaca's concern with regard to protecting its water supply
on Six -Mile Creek, In May of 1989 the Town and City of Ithaca
began discussions that focused on protective measures that the Town
could adopt to complement the City of Ithaca's landholdings in the
Six -Mile Creek Watershed, This dialogue between the Town and City
of Ithaca is the first of a series that will involve the other
municipalities with jurisdiction in the watershed, namely Tompkins
County and the Towns of Dryden and Caroline.
There are many reasons to protect the Six -Mile Creek Valley. For
example, it is blessed with many natural attractions. It is the source
of clean water for the City of Ithaca and parts of the Town of Ithaca
The Creek, its Gorge, and the resident flora and fauna are, important
resources in learning about and understanding our natural
environment. The beauty of the area is all the more remarkable and
fragile when one considers that urban development is but a short
distance away. The Valley also has historical significance to Ithaca
and has been a place of recreation for its citizens for decades. The
recommendations of this report attempt to balance the private
landholder's rights with the public need for a sustainable natural
balance in the Valley, a clean water supply, and continued access to
the area for low- impact recreational activities.
Working Draft -1-
EXHIBIT 2
11/15/90
The Conservation Advisory Council recommends that the Town of
Ithaca:
• - Establish a permanent liaison between the Town and the City
of Ithaca and/or other communities on matters concerning
Six -Mile Creek and its watershed, including City land
purchases.
- Develop a mechanism through which the Town may accept
conservation easements from landholders in the Six -Mile
Creek Malley.
- Encourage the use of sustainable agriculture methods and
regulate feedlots, barnyards, and chemically maintained
orchards and vineyards in the Malley.
- Investigate alternatives to the existing septic systems and /or
sewer line extensions for residences along Coddington Road.
- Staff and boards be aware of, and respond to, adverse
environmental affects of any land use planning or capital
projects decisions in the area of Six -Mile Creek Valley.
• - Monitor, in cooperation with the City of Ithaca, public access to
the area for adverse effects to the Valley and take
appropriate action when necessary.
0
- Establish a "Conservation District in the Town of Ithaca's
Zoning Ordinance and rezone a portion of the Valley. This
new zoning district would protect the rural character of the
area, its natural resources, and the City's water supply
through reduced residential densities and limits on land uses.
- Designate a buffer zone with severe limitations on
development within the environmentally sensitive core of the
Valley, and along certain tributaries of Six -Mile Creek. This
buffer zone would also be designated a Critical Environmental
Area,
Working Draft
EXHIBIT 2
-2-
11/15/90
TOWN OF ITHACA
• ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM
T0: Shirley Raffensperger and Town Bo
FROM: Dan Walker, Town Engineer
SUBJECT: Coddington Road Sewer & Water x . reliminary Eng. Report
DATE: November 8, 1990
INTRODUCTION
A petition for an extension of water and sewer services for properties
along Coddington Road was presented to the Town Board on March 3.6,
1990. The Tompkins County Health Department endorsed the requested
sewer extension in a May 16, 1990 letter citing the age of existing on.
site disposal systems which increases the potential of a failure, and
the importance of protecting the Six Mile Creek Watershed. At the
direction of the Town Board, the Engineering Department has evaluated
the proposed sewer and water system extensions and prepared this
Preliminary Engineering Report,
SERVICE AREA
The potential service area is shown on the attached plan and includes
the properties along Coddington Road from the end of the existing sewer
at Parcel 49 -1 -9.2 (636 Coddington Rd.), south to the Town Line. The
potential service area also includes the portion of Burns Road from
Coddington Road to the Railroad ROW, East King Road from Coddington
• Road to Troy Road and Updike Road from Coddington Road to the Town
line. The current zoning in the proposed service area is primarily R30
with one small MR (Multiple Residence) zone.
The potential service area includes the Southwoods Subdivision (Tax
Parcel 46 -1 -15.2) which was approved as a 43 lot residential project
with a sanitary sewer system that required two duplex lift stations and
a force main discharging to the existing Troy Road sanitary sewer.
With the installation of the proposed Coddington Road sewer extension,
this area could be totally served by gravity sewers eliminating the
need for the pump stations.
The Coddington Road Community Center is also within the potential
service area.
NEEDS EVALUATION
The current zoning in the project area is R30 and the existing
development is primarily single family residential located as frontage
lots along Coddington Road, Approximately 49 residences are currently
occupied in the area. The residences north of Burns Road are currently
served with public water, and all of the residences are served by on-
site sewage disposal systems.
The soils in the area are predominantly Silt loams and Silty clay loams
• with slow permeability and moderate to severe limitations for on site
sewage disposal systems. The potential for failure of a number of the
CODDSEWI /ENGMEMO
EXHIBIT 3
fk
It
L
C7
•
Coddington Road Sewer & Water Ext. Preliminary Eng. Report
November 8, 1990
Page 2
existing septic systems is high based on the age of the existing
systems, and is a concern of the County Health Department based on the
May 16, 1990 letter from the department.
The area is within the Six Mile Creek Watershed, and is directly above
the City of Ithaca Water Supply reservoir system. Protection of the
City water supply system is of major importance. One of the best
management techniques for protection of a water supply from sanitary
sewage contamination is the installation of a sanitary sewag^
collection system around the periphery of the reservoir.
Based on these considerations the Town Engineer has identified a
moderate to high need for extension of the s�i.:iitary sewer system to
serve the Coddington Road Area.
ENGINEERING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Two existing Town of Ithaca sanitary sewers terminate on the northern
boundary of the potential service area.
The existing Coddington Road sewer ends at the north boundary of parcel
49 -1 -9.2 and serves that parcel. An extension of this sewer would be
limited to gravity sewer service to parcels on the West Side of
Coddington Road.
A second existing sewer is located on the abandoned railroad ROW, and
ends just south of the existing Northview Subdivision. The railroad
grade extends south to beyond the Town of Ithaca line and has a steady
1% grade. This location would allow gravity flow from all properties
along Coddington Road. This route is also desirable from a
construction standpoint as the existing grade crosses several major
streams with existing culverts, allowing construction across these
areas without disturbing the actual watercourses. The Town of Ithaca
is in the process of acquiring this ROW as a trail and general
municipal purposes.
The preliminary layout shows the main sewer along the Railroad ROW with
two branch mains to collection sewers. The first branch would run west
along an existing City of Ithaca ROW and would serve the portion of
Coddington Road north of East King Road. This branch would also
provide service for East King Road up to Troy Road, including the
Southwoods Subdivision. The branch would run along the west side of
Coddington Road to serve the properties on that side, and a backlot
collection sewer would serve the properties along the east side of the
road.
The second branch would run along Burns Road and along the East side
of Coddington Road to serve the area south of Burns Road. This main
would serve frontage lots on both sides of Coddington Road. A branch
of the collection sewer would also extend along Updike Road,
CODDSEWI /ENGMEMO
EXHIBIT 3
Coddington Road Sewer & Water Ext. Preliminary Eng. Report
w November 8, 1990
Page 3
•
A watermain extension is proposed to run along the West side of
Coddington Road from the existing main near Burns Road.
This preliminary layout appears to be the most effective engineering
solution for providing the Water and Sewer service requested by the
petition before the Town Board.
The total area served is approximately 470 acres in size. Based on the
existing area population, the present sewage flow rate is estimated at
15,750 gpd (gallons per day). Assuming the maximum potential
development allowed by R30 zoning, the future maximum flow is estimated
at 170,560 gpd. The Town of Ithaca currently owns sufficient capacity
in the IAWWTP to accept the estimated initial flows, and there is
sufficient planned future capacity to handle the maximum potential
flow. This area was included as part cf the planned service area
during the .anning and design of the joint treatment fari7ity.
Based on the maximum potential design flow, an 8" minimum sewermain at
?'% grade will have sufficient capacity for all sewage flows within the
Town of Ithaca.
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
Based on the estimated 21,000 lineal feet of gravity sanitary sewer
shown on the proposed plan, the preliminary cost estimate for
the sewer extension is $840,0000
The estimated cost of the proposed 3,000 lineal feet of watermain
extension is $120,000.
This would result in an estimated total project construction cost of
$960,000. Using a factor of 25% for Engineering, Legal and
Administrative cost, the total project cost is estimated at $1,200,000.
Depending on the various land use considerations being evaluated
during the Comprehensive Planning Process for the Town of Ithaca, the
project could be broken into several distinct phases with relative
effects to the overall project cost.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
There are various planning and environmental considerations regarding
this potential extension of water and sewer service. A major concern
in the area is the possible Environmental Impact on the Six Mile Creek
Watershed. Based on these considerations, the Town Engineer recommends
that the proposed Utility Extension be referred to the Town Planning
Board, the Comprehensive Plan Committee, and the Conservation Advisory
Council, for review and comments prior to a Town Board decision
• regarding the current petition.
CODDSEWI /ENGMEMO
EXHIBIT
�b
•
I
u
•
Coddington
November 8,
Page 4
Road Sewer & Water Ext. Preliminary Eng. Report
1990
The implementation of a water and sewer extension project requires a
Town Board approval and funding which requires a SEQR review. The Town
Engineer recommends to the Board, t;iat should the project be
authorized, the Town Board accept responsibility as Lead Agency for
SEQR, and that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement would
probably be recommended for the Project.
CODDSEWl /ENGMEMO EXHIBIT 3
•
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICA TION
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
A
0
•Id that the first publication of said notice was on the S
day of \;e 1r..�hc �— 19 °I
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this Z(/ day
ot�UL 19 (�
Notary Public,
JEAN FORD
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 4654 tl 10
Qualified in Tomp ins Countty/�
Commission expires May 31Z ]a/
1P
TOWN OF ITHACA '3
PLANNING. BOARD'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING`A_j
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1990
By direction of the.Choirmon;A
of the Planning Board; NOTICE:'
IS HEREBY GIVEN, that .Public
Hearings will be held by.the;
Planning Board of the Town-of"
Ithaca on,.Tuesdoy,.Novembe'r';:
20, 1990, in Town Hall, • 126e'
East-. Seneca Street;. Ithaca;::;
New 'York; at the following-;;
times. and on'- the - •following']
matters:
7:30 P.M. :Consideration of
Subdivision ApproJol for, the;.:
proposed subdivision of ap;
proximately 0.5 plus /minus
acres from Town of Ithaca Tax`•'.
Parcel No. 6- 29 -6 -32, located''
at 141 West Haven Road, Resi-
dente District R -15. Estate-of;:,
Mary A. Axtell, Owner; Gene-'.-:
vieve W. Henry, Agent. "• '
8:30 P.M. Consideration of:'
Preliminary Subdivision Ap
proval for four additional lots.,
on lands of the Inlet Volley : -*
Land Cooperative, Inc., 16
toted at 167 Calkins Road, ;
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No."'
6- 33- 1 -4.2, Residence District'
R -30, and further, .modifico
lion of the lot lines and di
mensions'of lots No. 1, 4, and
8 within said Inlet Volley Land
Cooperative, said lots being
Town-of Ithaca Tax Parcels No.
6- 33- 1 -4:4, -4.7, and - 4.11.'In=
let Valley Land cooperative,
Inc.; Owner; H. Alan Wood,
Agent.
Said Planning 'Board will at'
said times and said place hear
oll persons in support of such
matters or objections thereto.,:
Person may appear by agent'
or in person. =
Jean H.' Swartwood
Town' Clerk.
273 -1721
November 15, 1990 J